Art, not a science: How legal impact organizations identify community need

• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Author: David Trowbridge
• Date: 01 April 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12185

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Art, not a science: How legal impact organizations

identify community need

David Trowbridge

Political Science and International Relations,

Middle Tennessee State University,

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA

Correspondence

David Trowbridge, Political Science and

International Relations, Middle Tennessee

State University, 1301 East Main Street Peck

Hall, MTSU Box 29 Murfreesboro, TN

37132-0002, USA.

Email: david.trowbridge@mtsu.edu

Funding information

University at Albany Dean’s Dissertation

Research Fellowship Award; Benevolent

Association Award, Grant/Award Number:

15X190-02

Abstract

The cause lawyering and social movement organization

literature explains that movement groups may not pri-

oritize needs that are important to marginalized sub-

groups within their constituencies. This echoes

common and salient critiques within the LGBTQ legal

industry. Using a case study of legal organizations

within the LGBTQ movement, this article attempts to

identify the mechanisms used to determine community

need. Contrary to expectations, legal organizations

take deliberate and often systematic steps to under-

stand community need and recognize it as central to

priority setting. Information flow about needs between

large impact groups and smaller state/local groups

moves in both directions. However, there are features

of these mechanisms that may explain the perceived

gap between organizational agendas and community

need. The identification of sites and tools for determin-

ing need found in this project might provide organiza-

tions with guideposts to help them improve practices

and close that gap. Finally, the findings here add to

our understanding of how lawyers seek to promote

organizational accountability.

1|INTRODUCTION

Scholars have demonstrated that lawyers seek to organize their priorities according to the needs

and demands of clients (Heinz et al., 2005; Heinz & Laumann, 1982). But what happens in

cause lawyering organizations, or more specifically in legal impact groups (hereafter legal orga-

nizations), where agendas may “transcend client service”(Scheingold & Sarat, 2004, p. 3) and

where scholars find “tension between service to particular individuals and efforts to achieve

structural change”(Menkel-Meadow, 1998, p. 32)? How are the needs of groups associated with

a cause, including advantaged and disadvantaged subgroups, determined (Strolovitch, 2007)?

DOI: 10.1111/lapo.12185

©2022 University of Denver and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

144 Law & Policy. 2022;44:144–161.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/lapo

Stressing the significance of this question, many have observed cause lawyering agendas that

are not always in sync with community needs and demands (Bell Jr., 1976; Cummings &

Eagly, 2001; Leachman, 2014). Sometimes the very act of lawyering and litigation can “hijack”

a movement’s priorities (Levitsky, 2006). Scholars of social movement organizations have also

demonstrated that some organizations unintentionally set agendas that favor advantaged over

disadvantaged subgroups (Strolovitch, 2007). In particular, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgen-

der, and queer (LGBTQ) movement has long struggled with the issues of movement co-option

and agenda setting, especially around lawyering (Carpenter, 2014; Leachman, 2014;

Levitsky, 2006; NeJaime, 2003; Rubenstein, 1997). For example, marriage equality is often per-

ceived as an issue that was prioritized over needs thought to have greater benefit for marginal-

ized subgroups, like housing and healthcare (Acey et al., 2006; Ettelbrick, 1999; Polikoff, 1993;

Vaid, 1995).

Some legal scholars have suggested prescriptions to solve the perceived gap between

need and agendas. These include changes to how class action suits are determined

(Rubenstein, 1997), creating pluralistic models of decision-making among groups

(NeJaime, 2003), and sharing call center data (Carpenter, 2014). However, even with these pre-

scriptions and the collective literature on the agenda/need disconnect, there is still a gap in our

understanding of the tangible spaces and mechanisms that lawyers use to actually determine

what the needs are in their target community.

The aim of this project is start bridging that gap by answering the following questions: How

do legal organizations identify community need? Can we locate specific procedures and sites

where recognition takes place? Can we also determine how that information is interpreted and

turned into action? As a case study, I focus on legal organizations in the LGBTQ movement

where the critique of a disconnect between agendas and need has been visible and salient. For

data, I rely on dozens of interviews with staff at three legal organizations as well as analysis of

annual reviews and newsletters.

The findings show that legal organizations take deliberate and often systematic steps to

understand community need, which they recognize as a vital part of their priority-setting pro-

cesses. There are three primary sites or processes through which community need is identified:

call centers, surveys, and outreach/collaborative work. The findings also show that, altruistic

goals aside, communicating need to donors, media, and legislators also incentivizes finding

ways to measure need. Of those, the clearest connection is between measuring need and generat-

ing resources, an important goal for any social movement organization. Additionally, while the

perception of a unidirectional flow of information may still exist between legal organizations

and their smaller grassroots collaborators (Levitsky, 2006), this study’s findings suggest that

information can flow both ways. Surveys and call center data are tools not only for identifying

need but also for educating, informing, and perhaps even expanding the scope of conflict. In a

manner reminiscent of the practices recommended by scholars (Levitsky, 2006; NeJaime, 2003),

organizations are collaborating and working with state/local communities with the intention of

learning about their priorities and their perceptions of need.

However, this article does not address how well organizations are adhering to community

need, and thus does not reject the longstanding perceived disconnect between agendas and need

(Carpenter, 2014; Leachman, 2014; Levitsky, 2006). Instead, the findings here do contribute to

the literature by demonstrating how organizations interpret need, and how they structure com-

munity engagement. This adds nuance to how we look at cause lawyering, accountability, and

the co-option of movement agendas. This article’s findings also present an opportunity to

address the ideological struggle within movements and offers potential targets for reform.

After situating the project in the literature and explaining its methods, this article is broken

down into two sections of analysis. The first section of analysis is the major focus of the article.

It covers the three primary sites or tools that are used to assess community need: call centers,

outreach work, and surveys. The second section discusses how those measures from different

TROWBRIDGE 145