Underrepresented Groups

Stakeholder Advocacy Groups Analysis

Stakeholder advocacy groups represent the interests of specific communities and causes and work to influence decisions that affect their members and constituencies. These groups champion policies and projects that align with their causes and may also provide services and/or resources.

The presence or absence of these groups may show how well certain communities are represented within the city. Communities or causes that are not represented by an advocacy group may have less ability to make their voices heard by decision-makers.

This analysis identifies nonprofit advocacy groups in the city and examines which communities or causes have advocacy representation. It highlights potential gaps in representation. By understanding the advocacy landscape, the City of San Diego can improve outreach and engagement to support the inclusion of underrepresented voices in decision-making.

Methodology

The City conducted a frequency analysis using stakeholder information from readily accessible data sources. These sources include existing stakeholder lists provided by several City departments and public documentation of stakeholders who had participated in past City projects. Another source used was the San Diego Union-Tribune’s online nonprofit database of all registered 501(c)(3) nonprofits within San Diego derived from IRS data. Staff also researched each community or cause (represented by keywords below) to capture any additional organizations representing those causes that may exist within the city of San Diego. The analysis treated all organizations equally without considering their staff capacity, funding or influence. Some organizations may have abundant staff and resources to manage several advocacy initiatives, while others may be smaller or have a narrow focus. The analysis focused on the number of advocacy groups addressing different keywords rather than comparing the impact of advocacy groups.

City staff analyzed nonprofit advocacy groups to assess their representation across categories and keywords. The creation of 18 distinct categories and 133 keywords was informed by national expert sources such as the U.S. Census and research institutes, as well as input from City subject matter experts. City staff determined that these categories and keywords best reflect advocacy areas relevant to the City’s policy work. Where possible, reputable sources were used to develop standardized definitions. A full list of categories and keywords is provided in Table 2 below.

A total of 1,625 organizations were assessed, and 683 advocacy-related groups (tagged “P” indicating advocacy or “PS” indicating both advocacy and providing services) were identified for further analysis. Each organization was categorized based on its publicly available online presence to determine if it was involved in advocacy. Advocacy groups were identified based on published advocacy work, demonstrated support for specific populations and public education shared about advocacy topics. If an organization’s advocacy efforts were unclear based on publicly available information, it may have been placed in the Service or Other categories. Table 1 below shows the distribution of organizations by classification: Policy, Policy/Service, Service and Other.

** These income ranges are based on Mean Household Income of Quintiles collected by the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates for 2022. Household income levels are divided into five sections, with the lowest earning fifth of the population falling in the “Lowest Quintile,” and the highest earning fifth of the population falling in the “Highest Quintile” with the populations in between divided among the “Second, Third and Fourth Quintiles.” The net worth ranges were collected from Table 1, “Median Value of Assets for Households, by Type of Asset Owned and Selected Characteristics” of the 2022 Wealth Table by the Census. The net worths used are the “Net worth (Excluding Equity in Own Home)” which were organized by the income quintiles.

The analyzed advocacy groups were assigned to at least one and up to four categories and up to five keywords per category. Many groups were found to be associated with multiple categories and keywords, as they represent multiple interests and keywords.

Organizations with incomplete information, those found to be permanently closed or those belonging to the “Not Included” categories listed below were excluded from the assessment. These categories were excluded so that the list of advocacy groups would be unaffiliated with the City of San Diego organization and focus on the tangible communities or causes of San Diego as they relate to City decision-making.

Not Included:  

• Private or for-profit organizations, such as corporations and businesses
• Organizations whose operations and interests lie outside the city's boundaries
• Political parties
• Groups affiliated with or recognized by the City of San Diego, including:
  • Boards and commissions
  • Working groups
  • Community planning and recreation groups
  • Business improvement districts, maintenance assessment districts, and community parking districts
• Organizations focused on issues that are typically outside the purview of City of San Diego policy, such as:
  • Animal rescue and animal biology
  • Space exploration, education, or observation
  • Homeowners associations (HOAs)
  • Parent-teacher associations and organizations
• Organizations with a core mission unrelated to advocacy, including:
  • Primarily research-focused organizations
  • Foundations or committees whose sole purpose is organizing events
  • Foundations or committees whose sole purpose is related to grants, fellowships and scholarships
  • Theme Parks/Entertainment Venues/Theaters/Museums
  • Churches, Synagogues and Religious Centers
  • Government Entity/Agencies (Local, Regional, State, Federal)
  • Hospitals and Clinics
  • Universities, Schools, School Districts or Colleges
  • Vocational/Trade Schools
• Organizations with unconfirmed operational status
  • Library clubs
  • Student or alumni-run organizations and clubs

Results

Table 3 shows the frequency with which each keyword was found to have an advocacy group.

City staff defined “low advocacy” as keywords associated with three or fewer advocacy groups. This threshold was chosen based on the distribution of keyword frequencies and selecting the lowest twenty percent, which were calculated to be those with no more than three advocacy groups represented. In addition, advocacy often relies on collaboration. While a single group operates in isolation and two or three may form a small alliance, four or more groups may start to create a network. Thus, four or more groups may suggest a stronger, more organized movement, whereas three or fewer may indicate limited advocacy.

This analysis focuses only on the frequency with which keywords are associated with advocacy groups. It is important to note that the number of advocacy groups focusing on a particular keyword may not necessarily correlate with the level of representation for that community or cause. For example, staff found only one advocacy group for “White/Caucasian” individuals within the city. However, this group makes up 50.4% of the city’s population and has historically been well-represented within the City’s committees, planning groups and decision-making.

Similarly, a high frequency of advocacy groups for a given community or cause (represented by a keyword) does not necessarily mean those groups are being adequately engaged; rather, it may indicate that they have organized to amplify their voices due to a lack of power in traditional decision-making processes.

Keywords can also be intersectional, as San Diego community members may be represented by multiple categories. For example, while the keywords “Single,” “Male” and “High Capital” were each addressed three or fewer times in this analysis, individuals in those categories are likely captured under other keywords. For instance, a “Single” person may identify as “Female,” which has 27 advocacy groups, or a “Male” may be “Black or African American,” which has 31 advocacy groups within the city.

Keywords with fewer advocacy counts in this analysis may be better represented by “Service” or “Other” organizations. Staff found 29 “Service” or “Other” organizations, compared to 12 “Policy” or “Policy/Service” organizations that serve the nearly 73,000 veterans living within the city of San Diego.

This analysis only addresses local advocacy groups. The absence or a minimal number of local advocacy organizations for a keyword does not necessarily indicate a lack of power to influence decisions. Some keywords with limited local advocacy representation may have greater presence at the state or federal levels, eliminating the need for a local group with the same function. For example, the “Fossil Fuel” industry is only represented once in this local analysis but is known to consistently advocate through state and national organizations like the American Petroleum Institute, as well as by private industry. Similarly, the California-based organization Rideshare Drivers United advocates for “Rideshare” drivers as does the national organization Rideshare Advocate Group, potentially filling the gap in local representation for “Rideshare” advocacy.

While these caveats may suggest that some local advocacy groups are adequately represented through other means, other keywords appearing infrequently may be experiencing gaps in representation. For example, while the city of San Diego has over 20 “Trade Schools”, these institutions and their communities are represented by only two advocacy groups. Similarly, there were approximately 4,872 “Mobile Homes” identified within the city of San Diego in 2023. Yet, this analysis identified only two local advocacy groups championing the production and residents of “Mobile Homes.” Furthermore, several other keywords, including (but not limited to) “Accessible Design,” “Childcare” and “Recycling and Composting,” may indicate a gap in representation in local decision-making.