![Three Questions ,[object Object], What can we measure about advocacy? How can we measure it?]()
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Arizona advocacy
Similar to Arizona advocacy (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Arizona advocacy
- 1. Evaluating Advocacy: Dilemmas, Tactics, and Methods Julia Coffman Center for Evaluation Innovation jcoffman@evaluationinnovation.org October 7, 2011
- 3. How is evaluating advocacy different?
- 4. Challenge: The policy environment is complex, and that makes attribution hard.
- 5. Solution: If accountability is the purpose, demonstration of contribution is expected, not attribution. What is my unique contribution?
- 6. Challenge: Advocacy strategies shift in response to the environment. Shifting Politics Shifting Economics New Partners
- 7. Solution: Advocacy is a good opportunity to integrate or embed evaluation for learning (not just accountability). ADVOCACY EVALUATION
- 8. Challenge: Timeframes can be unpredictable. 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year Advocacy Timeframe Goal Reporting Timeframe
- 9. Solution: Assess progress, not just the end result. Goal …progress…
- 10. What can we measure about influencing?
- 11. Measure meaningful things. Don’t just count what is easy to quantify.
- 12. Have realistic expectations. What are other influencers doing? Where is your issue in the policy process? What’s the political context? What’s the opposition doing? What are you doing and who are you targeting?
- 13. Measure the changes made along the way, not just the end result. Policy Influence …progress… INTERIM OUTCOMES
- 14. Interim outcomes are the changes you expect as you work toward your goal. Think about the changes you will see in your audiences.
- 15. Use the framework to think about interim outcomes. ACTION HOW will they change as a result of your work? WILL OUTCOMES AWARENESS WHO will change as a result of your work? DECISION MAKERS INFLUENCERS PUBLIC AUDIENCES
- 16. Where are your audiences? How far do you need to move them? ACTION Increase quality of child care WILL Child care providers INTERIM OUTCOMES AWARENESS Parents of young children DECISION MAKERS INFLUENCERS PUBLIC Legislators AUDIENCES
- 17. Interim Outcomes Awareness Action Increased knowledge Increased collaboration among advocates Increased issue visibility or recognition Increased media coverage Activities and Outputs Policy Goals Will Reframing of the issue Changed attitudes or beliefs New and active advocates Increased salience New and active high-profile champions Increased personal or collective efficacy New donors Increased willingness to act Increased or diversified funding Increased capacity to act
- 18. How can we measure it?
- 19. Traditional Evaluation Methods Interviews Surveys Focus Groups Polling
- 20. Non-Traditional Methods Charting and Mapping Survey and Interview Debriefing and Rating Media/Messaging Tracking System Mapping Intense Period Debriefs Research Panels Media Tracking Media Scorecards Network Mapping Crowdsourcing 360-Degree Critical Incident Debriefs Advocacy Capacity Assessment Snapshot Surveys Policy Maker Ratings ECCO Analysis Critical Incident Timelines Intercept Interviews Policy Tracking Champion Tracking Bellwether Methodology
- 22. Administrators
- 23. Media
- 24. Other Advocates
- 25. Funders
- 26. BusinessDeveloped by Harvard Family Research Project
- 28. Bellwether Methodology Can preschool help address the achievement gap? How would you address the achievement gap?
- 29. Bellwether Methodology What is the likelihood that California will increase preschool investments in the next 3 years?
- 30. Policymaker Ratings Ratings are completed for a whole governing body or defined group of policymakers Developed by Harvard Family Research Project
- 31. Policymaker Ratings Developed by Harvard Family Research Project
- 32. Policymaker Ratings Del Norte * Hypothetical Data Siskiyou Modoc Trinity Shasta Lassen Humboldt Tehama Plumas Mendocino Butte Glenn Sierra = Increase in Support Nevada Yuba Colusa Placer Lake Sutter El Dorado Yolo Sonoma Napa Alpine Sacramento Amador Solano Calaveras San Marin Mono Costa Tuolumne Joaquin Contra San Francisco Alameda Stanislaus San Mariposa Mateo Santa Clara Merced Santa Madera Cruz Fresno Inyo San Benito Low Support Tulare Monterey Kings San Medium Support Luis Obispo Kern San Bernardino High Support Santa Barbara Ventura Los Angeles Orange Riverside Imperial San Diego Developed by Harvard Family Research Project
- 33. Policymaker Ratings Developed by Harvard Family Research Project
- 35. It’s okay to prioritize and focus on what is most important to assess.
Editor's Notes
- With a real-time approach evaluators are embedded and emphasize a collaborative and participatory evaluation process. This approach is different from traditional evaluation in which the evaluator remains completely separate from the program or strategy. “Evaluators become part of a team whose members collaborate to conceptualize, design and test new approaches in a long-term, ongoing process of continuous improvement, adaptation, and intentional change. The evaluator’s primary function in the team is to elucidate team discussions with evaluative questions, data and logic, and to facilitate data-based assessments and decision-making in the unfolding and developmental processes of innovation.” Patton, M. Q. (2006).Evaluation for the way we work. The Nonprofit Quarterly.
- The framework contains specific types of strategies and activities, organized according to where they fall on two strategic dimensions—the audience targeted (x-axis) and the outcomes desired (y-axis). Audiences are the groups that policy strategies target and attempt to influence or persuade. They represent the main actors in the policy process and include the public (or specific segments of it), policy influencers (e.g., media, community leaders, the business community, thought leaders, political advisors, etc.), and decision makers (e.g., elected officials, administrators, judges, etc.). These audiences are arrayed along a continuum according to their proximity to actual policy decisions; the farther out they are on the continuum, the closer they are to such decisions. Naturally, decision makers are the closest to such decisions, and therefore are on the continuum’s far end. Grantmaking may focus on just one audience or target more than one simultaneously. Outcomesare the results an advocacy or policy change effort aims for with an audience in order to progress toward a policy goal. The three points on this continuum differ in terms of how far an audience is expected to engage on a policy issue. The continuum starts with basic awareness or knowledge. Here the goal is to make the audience aware that a problem of potential policy solution exists. The next point is will. The goal here is to raise an audience’s willingness to take action on an issue. It goes beyond awareness and tries to convince the audience that the issue is important enough to warrant action, and that any actions taken will in fact make a difference. The third point is action. Here, policy efforts actually support or facilitate audience action on an issue. Again, grantmaking may pursue one outcome or more than one simultaneously. Foundations can use the framework to examine how to position their public policy strategies along these two dimensions. Rather than jumping straight to decisions about which activities to fund (e.g., public awareness campaigns, polling, etc.), the framework encourages foundations to think first about which audiences they need to engage and how hard they need to “push” those audiences toward action.HYPOTHETICAL: The shading in the figure at right illustrates how this might work. The hypothetical policy goal in this example calls for an action-oriented strategy focused primarily at the public or community level. The strategy supports activities that include organizing, coalition building, and mobilization activities to generate the action needed to move the policy issue forward.RISK: It’s also important to note that foundations perceive different parts of this framework as riskier than others.