######  DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

###### 

###### 

###### 

###### Supporting Civic Advocacy: 

###### Strategic approaches for donor-supported civic advocacy programs 

###### 

###### 

###### 

###### 

###### Draft version: December 2001

**Technical Publication Series**

**Office of Democracy and Governance**

**Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance**

**US Agency for International Development**

######  

###### TABLE OF CONTENTS

###### 

###### I. INTRODUCTION

###### 

###### II. UNDERSTANDING EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY

###### 

######  A. Strategy Planning

######  B. Utilizing the Media

######  C. Building Coalitions

D. Using Information

E. Analyzing Budgets

F. Lobbying Decision Makers

G. Organizing and Mobilizing the Grassroots

H. Utilizing the Legal System

III\. WHEN SHOULD ADVOCACY BE INCLUDED IN A DG STRATEGY?

IV\. DESIGNING AN ADVOCACY PROGRAM

A. Type of Advocacy

B. Advocacy Objectives

C.  Advocacy Actors

D.  Advocacy Activities

E. Advocacy Arenas and Mechanisms

F. DG Advocacy Program Assistance

V. PROGRAMMING ISSUES

A. Design Considerations

B. Donor Recommendations

VI\. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK \[ or Performance Information or Monitoring
and Evaluation\]

A. Advocacy Performance Monitoring

######  B. Performance Indicators 

APPENDIX A: Performance Measurement

> Table 1 -- Sample Indicators
>
> Table 2 -- Sample CSO Advocacy Index
>
> Table 3 -- Measuring the Progress of CSO Implementation of Advocacy
> Tools

###### APPENDIX B: Examples of Advocacy Activities

###### APPENDIX C: Sources, Types, and Methods of Gathering Information

###### APPENDIX D. Lobbying Tips

###### APPENDIX E. References

###### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

###### 

Advocacy, at its core, is an action-oriented process. It plays an
important role in determining social justice, political and civil
liberties, and in giving voice to citizens and historically marginalized
groups. At its best, advocacy expresses the power of an individual,
constituency, or organization to shape public agendas and change public
policies. In a broader civil society strategy, advocacy-oriented action
goes beyond specific objectives (e.g., raising the minimum wage) to
providing the means to mobilize society, ideas, and resources in an
effort to bring about democratic change and/or its consolidation.

Since the early 1990s, USAID has supported civil society organizations
(CSOs) engaged in advocacy as part of its portfolio of democracy and
governance assistance. Such an instrumentalist approach to civil society
development attempts to build centrist coalitions by engaging and
strengthening those organizations with a political reform agenda.

###### When USAID first started supporting CSOs' advocacy efforts, there was little systematic information available about the field of advocacy or how to achieve desired results. Now, experience has helped to define this emerging area of DG activity. This handbook is a reflection of USAID's experience in advocacy. Compiled in consultation with the top advocacy trainers, it distills the best practices and lessons learned in advocacy programming. 

Advocacy actions involve either or both of two things:

-   Working on a specific issue aimed at solving an explicit problem
    (e.g., housing rights for urban poor people or improving tax
    collection practices)

-   Working to transform and/or strengthen democratic institutions more
    generally (e.g., pressing for constitutional reforms or protection
    of human rights)

Thus, there are two dimensions to advocacy. One focuses on a specific
issue, and another focuses on broader agendas. Both kinds of advocacy
fit into a strategy to create and/or strengthen a pluralistic democratic
environment.

The arenas and audiences for advocacy are many. They are local,
national, and international. Regardless of the arena or audience, the
main objective of an advocacy strategy is to affect decisions and
decision-makers. In order to influence, advocacy typically needs to
include a broad range of activities including utilizing the media,
building coalitions, using information, analyzing budgets, organizing
the grassroots, lobbying decision-makers, and utilizing the legal
system. These types of advocacy actions can contribute to creating a
public space, penetrating elitist power structures, and deepening the
capacity of civil society.

Effective advocacy involves, first and foremost, a process of strategy
planning. From a strategic assessment that advocacy is an appropriate
tool to use in assisting democratic development, a process of strategic
planning must be initiated. Through that process it will be determined
if and how to use media, coalitions, information, budgets, lobbying, and
grassroots groups in meeting the advocacy goals.

In this handbook, we look closely at how USAID DG officers can
incorporate advocacy into DG programming. Advocacy should be considered
from the beginning of any USAID civil society strategy. Since there are
so many different types of advocacy and a broad range of resources
available to advocacy-oriented action, it can be adapted to a broader
strategic framework.

The level of political freedom, economic development, and other factors
in a country will obviously determine the kinds of organizations, and
the issues they advocate, to be included in program design. In countries
with weak civil societies and/or governments that are unreceptive to
non-governmental influence, advocacy programs may seem less appropriate
than, say, a civil society program that focuses on support to service
delivery CSOs. But supporting indigenous advocacy efforts in challenging
environments may still be appropriate, even if the anticipated results
are nominal, because even small victories can be very influential in
building public confidence and encouraging citizen participation.
Furthermore, advocacy efforts sometimes help prevent a situation from
deteriorating by, for example, raising awareness in the West of human
rights abuses.

After deciding that an advocacy strategy is appropriate for the DG
problem at hand, a DG officer will want to consider many factors when
planning or drafting a program description for an advocacy program:

-   The type of the advocacy (single-issue or writ large) to be
    addressed

-   The objectives of the advocacy

-   The actors, (i.e., the advocates, as well as their constituencies,
    beneficiaries, proponents and opponents)

-   The advocacy activities to be supported

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The arenas/mechanisms in which advocacy activities will take place

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The type of assistance to be provided under a DG program

We recognize that this handbook marks only a beginning to the Agency's
work with advocacy programming. Over time, we anticipate refining the
guidance contained within in order to build on our experience in this
area. The Center for Democracy and Governance welcomes any feedback from
those who use the handbook.

###### 

**I.** **INTRODUCTION**

This handbook aims to assist USAID Missions and their partners in
understanding advocacy strategies and programming. It draws on a growing
literature[^1] and broad range of practical experiences in the field to
provide guidance in assessing advocacy strategies and their relationship
to a larger civil society strategy. When and how advocacy fits into a
civil society strategy often remain unclear, but we hope, with this
handbook, to clarify the relationship between advocacy and civil
society.

Advocacy, at its core, is an action-oriented process. It plays an
important role in determining social justice, political, and civil
liberties, and in giving voice to citizens and historically marginalized
groups. At its best, advocacy expresses the power of an individual,
constituency, or organization to shape public agendas and change public
policies. In a broader civil society strategy, advocacy-oriented action
goes beyond specific objectives (e.g., raising the minimum wage) to
providing the means to mobilize society, ideas, and resources in an
effort to bring about democratic change and/or its consolidation.

Since the early 1990s, USAID has supported civil society organizations
(CSOs) engaged in advocacy as part of its portfolio of democracy and
governance assistance. Such an instrumentalist approach to civil society
development attempts to build centrist coalitions by engaging and
strengthening those organizations with a political reform agenda.

When USAID first started supporting CSOs' advocacy efforts, there was
little systematic information available about the field of advocacy or
how to achieve desired results. Now, experience has helped to define
this emerging area of DG activity.

In some countries, advocacy is still a foreign concept and there aren\'t
even words in the language to express the types of activities
encompassed under this heading. For some cultures, the idea of
challenging government or questioning the status quo is not only
unimaginable, but represents a frightening and dangerous prospect.
Elsewhere, potential advocates are inactive because they interpret
engaging a corrupt system through advocacy as submission or an act that
serves to help legitimize that system.

Nevertheless, there are now thousands of CSOs engaged in advocacy, many
of which do so under considerable duress and constraints. For example,
in Kenya a cross-section of civil society groups from professional
associations, human rights groups, and activist organizations within the
Protestant and Catholic churches has coalesced around a major
constitutional reform effort, and in the Philippines coconut farmers,
small scale fishermen, and other traditionally marginalized populations
have formed national coalitions to advocate their representation in
policy and legislative reforms.

######## Purpose of the Handbook

This handbook is a reflection of USAID's experience in advocacy.
Compiled in consultation with the top advocacy trainers, it distills the
best practices and lessons learned in advocacy programming.[^2] As this
handbook will illustrate, an effective advocacy program is one that can
help establish advocacy networks. Advocacy networks are groups of
organizations and individuals working together to achieve changes in
policy law or programs for a particular issue.[^3]

This handbook on advocacy meets two distinct, but complementary sets of
needs from its audience. It provides an overview of advocacy and its
components, as well as an explanation of how to strategically
incorporate advocacy into a USAID Mission's strategy and implement its
subsequent programs. It contains the following sections:

-   An introduction to advocacy, including an description of advocacy,
    an explanation of the importance of strategic planning in advocacy
    campaigns, and an overview of the forms and tools of advocacy.
    Although this information is more directly relevant to advocates and
    advocacy CSOs than to DG officers, it is important for the latter to
    understand the fundamental elements of advocacy and be acquainted
    with the various tools used by advocacy CSOs. (Section II)

-   An explanation of how advocacy fits into an overall DG strategy.
    This and subsequent sections are designed specifically to address
    the needs of DG officers in the planning, design, and management of
    an advocacy program. (Section III)

-   An overview of how to design an advocacy program from the
    perspective of a DG officer, including specific programming ideas.
    (Section IV)

-   Additional programming issues and recommendations to consider in the
    design and management of advocacy programs. (Section V)

-   Performance information and analytical tools to help monitor and
    evaluate USAID advocacy programs. (Section VI)

-   Performance measurement tools, references and additional information
    regarding advocacy. (Appendices)

As this handbook was not designed to produce the final word on advocacy
programming at USAID, this section serves as a launching point for
further investigation in the field. We hope that it serves that purpose
and stimulates debate. The Center for Democracy and Governance welcomes
any feedback from those who use the handbook.

###### II. UNDERSTANDING EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY

###### What is Advocacy 

**Advocacy is the process by which individuals and organizations attempt
to influence public policy decisions.** Advocacy is directed at those
officials in the legislative, judicial and executive branches of
government who have the ability to influence or make public policy
decisions.

There is no universal template to advocacy, and advocacy strategies are
driven by the particular context in which the advocate works. Effective
advocacy requires framing the essential issues, clearly defining goals
and obtainable objectives, identifying potential supporters and
opponents, conducting policy analysis, developing persuasive messages,
and mobilizing people and resources.

The arenas and audiences for advocacy are many. They are local,
national, and international. The advocacy process may be carried out
through a broad range of activities including, for example, building
coalitions, lobbying legislatures or administrative agencies, organizing
the grassroots, litigation, marshalling information and utilizing the
media. These types of advocacy actions can contribute to creating a
public space, penetrating elitist power structures, and deepening the
capacity of civil society.

Advocacy may be adversarial or negotiated. **Adversarial advocacy** uses
actions that express opposition, protest and dissent. **Negotiated
advocacy** engages stakeholders with decision-makers, and emphasizes
consensus-building, negotiation and conflict management. Advocacy
campaigns may simultaneously employ elements of both adversarial and
negotiated advocacy, or may use the approaches sequentially. Adversarial
advocacy often serves as prelude to negotiated advocacy as the campaign
gains momentum and shifts its focus from problems and causes to
solutions.

**The very act of citizens and organizations attempting to influence
governmental decisions is important to democratic development.** Citizen
involvement in public policy decision-making strengthens the bonds
between the governed and government, and often makes government more
sensitive to the needs of citizens and more accountable for its
decisions. Even regardless of the desired policy outcome, advocacy fits
into a strategy to create and/or strengthen a pluralistic democratic
environment.

**Planning and Implementing Advocacy**

This section will describe the process by which advocacy is planned and
implemented. Part A of this section describes strategy planning, a
process important for any size or shape of advocacy, from urging a local
government to improve waste treatment, to lobbying a national government
to enact constitutional reforms. Parts B through H describe advocacy
tools that can be used in a variety of advocacy campaigns directed at
various substantive issues and levels of government. These tools include
utilizing the media, building coalitions, using information, analyzing
budgets, lobbying decision-makers, organizing and mobilizing the
grassroots, and utilizing the legal system.

###### A. Strategy Planning

Advocacy is a process informed first by strategy planning. The strategy
planning process helps to determine whether and when advocacy is an
appropriate tool to use in assisting democratic development in a
particular country. It seeks to identify if and how to use the principle
components or tools of advocacy.

***Strategy Planning Definition***

Strategy planning is a disciplined effort to produce fundamental
decisions and design actions that shape and guide an advocacy effort.
Engaging in strategy planning allows CSOs to determine if the desired
public policy goals are reasonably obtainable, and which advocacy tools
should be used in an advocacy campaign. The extent to which CSOs use
strategy planning is an indication of the level of the group's
organizational development.

A strategy is an overall map that guides the use of specific actions or
tactics towards clearly defined and obtainable goals. Strategy planning
involves a hard-nosed assessment of where CSOs are, where they want to
go, and how to get there. Strategy planning is essential in order to
conduct evaluations. Without knowing where a CSO is to begin, it is
difficult to assess progress.

This section will describe strategy planning, discuss its importance,
introduce a strategic planning model, discuss the importance and the
effectiveness of using a combination of advocacy tools, and introduce a
model for measuring the progress of organizational development for
advocacy CSO.

***The Importance of Strategy Planning***

Strategy planning creates a set of concrete objectives, the
implementation plan for achieving those objectives, and a means to
assess progress toward those objectives during the course of an advocacy
campaign. Like travelers on a journey, careful strategy planning before
an advocacy campaign is launched will create a map that will guide the
advocate toward the ultimate destination. Encouraging CSO leaders to
consistently use strategy planning involves convincing these leaders of
the value of engaging in such a process and providing training or
materials to facilitate the process.

***A Strategy Planning Model***

There are many models that can be used for strategy planning. One such
model, developed from the experience of advocates and advocacy
organizations in designing and conducting training and workshops, is
presented below. Advocacy organizations should not be limited to this
model, as it represents only a fraction of the existing strategic
planning models.

[The 10-Question Strategy Planning Model]{.underline} [^4]

Questions #1-6 refer to the external environment

1.  *Political climate:* Is the political environment such that advocacy
    organization and/or the issue the organization seeks to address has
    a reasonable opportunity to succeed in the advocacy campaign?

2.  *Public policy objectives and goals:* What is the problem? What does
    the CSO want? What are the risks of an unfavorable outcome from the
    advocacy campaign?

3.  *Key players:* Who can make it happen? Who can prevent it from
    happening? Who within and outside government will support or oppose
    the CSO?

4.  *Message:* What do the key players need to hear? Are there different
    messages for different audiences?

5.  *Messenger:* Whom do the key players need to hear the message from?

6.  *Delivery*: How should the CSO deliver the message?

Questions #7-10 refer to the internal environment

7.  *Organizational resources:* What capacity does the CSO possess to
    carry out the various tasks in the campaign? What does the CSO have
    to build upon?

8.  *Gaps, challenges:* What does the CSO need to develop? Do the CSO's
    potential allies possess these capacities?

9.  *Sequence of steps:* How does the CSO begin? What is the proper
    sequence for launching the various components of the campaign?

10. *Evaluation:* How does the CSO know the campaign is working? How
    does the CSO make adjustments?

[Using the model as a guide to strategy planning:]{.underline}

1.  *Political climate:* Is the political environment such that advocacy
    organization and/or the issue the CSO seeks to address has a
    reasonable opportunity to succeed in the advocacy campaign?

Any effective advocacy campaign must first assess whether or not the
political environment in which it will be conducted is reasonably
receptive to both the advocacy organization and the issue. A campaign
for constitutional reforms may not be viable in a particular political
environment, whereas a campaign to protect environmentally sensitive
regions may be. The political assessment will also guide the decisions
made throughout the strategic plan. Decisions about how issues are
framed, the institutions and decision makers to be targeted, the message
and messengers to be used, and the coalition to be assembled are all
informed by the assessment of the political environment.

2.  *Public policy objectives and goals:* What is the problem? What
    solution does the CSO seek? What are the risks of an unfavorable
    outcome from the advocacy campaign?

In every advocacy campaign it is necessary to clearly define the problem
and the desired policy objective. Is the local water supply unhealthy
and the local community wants access to safe drinking water? Is the
central government suppressing the free exchange of ideas and
non-government groups want to publish free of censorship?

Once the problem and the possible solution(s) have been clearly
identified, consideration must be given to the potential risks of the
advocacy campaign. By raising an issue and advocating for a public
policy solution, the issue is in play and there is always a risk that
the resolution is not the one sought. For instance, by asking that a
sensitive environmental preserve be expanded in size, there is a risk
that those who seek to economically exploit its resources will exploit
this debate to argue that the preserve is already too large and should
be reduced.

Advocates cannot always control the course of the debate, so the risk of
a bad outcome may outweigh the likelihood of the resolution being
sought. This risk must be honestly and carefully weighed before
launching the campaign.

3.  *Key players:* Who in government can make it happen? Who in
    government can prevent it from happening? Who outside government
    will support you or oppose you?

It is essential to identify those institutions of government and/or
those individuals in government who are in a position to enact or block
the desired policy outcome. The solution may lie with an administrative
body who enacts regulations or enforces standards, with the courts to
force the executive branch to act according to law, or with the passage
of a statute. It is often necessary or advisable to pursue policy
solutions in more than one forum. But in every case one must clearly
examine any and all possible forums available to enact or block the
public policy position you seek to effect.

Once the appropriate public policy institutions are identified one must
then identify the key personnel in each institution who can influence
the outcome. It may be a key legislator, minister, bureaucrat, or
elected official. The challenge is to identify the key personnel in the
decision making process, both those who will support and those who will
oppose the position. Similarly, identifying those interests and
organizations outside government that may be allies and those that are
likely to oppose the advocacy effort is essential in the strategic
planning. Mapping support and opposition, both inside and outside
government, will allow the advocacy campaign to rally support and blunt
opposition.

4.  *Message:* What do the key players need to hear? Are there different
    messages for different audiences?

Once the issue has been developed, the desired outcome determined, and
the institutions and players capable of providing the desired outcome
identified, the messages needed to persuade the relevant actors must be
developed. The message may be different for different institutions or
individuals. For instance, if the advocacy campaign includes both
litigation and administrative advocacy, the messages directed to the
courts and the appropriate executive branch agency may be much
different, in the first instance focused on a strictly legal argument,
in the latter on urging the advocacy organization's policy choices over
other permissible choices. As will be discussed in more detail in a
later section, different, or differently packaged messages, may be used
to influence public opinion.

5.  *Messenger:* Whom do the key players need to hear the message from?

The most effective messenger for each audience must be carefully chosen.
A skilled lawyer for litigation may not be the most effective
spokesperson before a legislative committee considering the issue.
Choice of the messenger can be as critical as the content of the message
itself.

6\. *Delivery*: How should the CSO deliver the message?

The medium through which the message is delivered will vary depending on
the issue and the message. Often, the advocacy campaign will include the
use of multiple media to ensure that the messages are effectively and
widely disseminated to the target audiences.

7.  *Organizational resources:* What capacity does the CSO possess to
    carry out the various tasks in the campaign? What does the CSO have
    to build upon?

An inventory of institutional capacity to carry out the tasks outlined
above will help the organization determine what can be done with current
resources. The advocacy organization may have a very effective radio and
television communicator on staff who can organize and implement that
part of the campaign. Similarly, the organization may have internal
resources to conduct litigation, lobby the legislature, etc. An
inventory of resources will not only identify an organization\'s gifts
but also reveal any shortcomings, gaps or challenges.

8.  *Gaps, challenges:* What resources and skills does the CSO need to
    develop? Do the CSO's potential allies possess these capacities?

After identifying gifts and resources, the organization must frankly and
honestly assess any shortcomings that must be addressed and overcome.
For instance, the desired policy outcome and the forum in which it must
be achieved may require access to expertise that the organization does
not itself possess. Acquiring the expertise, by partnering with a
like-minded organization that possesses it or by hiring someone who has
it, is a necessary step in designing an advocacy campaign.

9.  *Sequence of steps:* How does the campaign begin? What is the proper
    sequence for launching the various components of the campaign?

The timing of a campaign and the sequence in which the various
components of a campaign are implemented can be decisive in achieving
the desired outcome. A carefully considered timeline is a necessary
component in any advocacy effort.

10. *Evaluation:* How does the CSO know the advocacy campaign is
    working? How does the CSO make adjustments during the course of the
    campaign?

Honest, periodic, self-assessment of an advocacy campaign will allow the
CSO to assess progress toward the ultimate goal. The evaluation should
review the effectiveness of each element in the plan and whether or not
adjustments are needed in the strategy. Constantly reexamining the
assumptions and the external factors that underlie and influence the
effectiveness of the plan, in addition to assessing implementation, are
essential steps in a successful campaign.

###### Advocacy Tools

Parts B through H below describe seven advocacy tools that can be used
in a variety of advocacy campaigns directed at various substantive
issues and levels of government. The illustration below demonstrates how
the decision to use these advocacy tools flows from the strategy
planning process.

![](media/image1.wmf)

There are many elements of and approaches to advocacy, and many ways to
characterize them. For the purpose of this handbook, we've chosen to the
word "tools" to describe the seven advocacy practices below. The list of
seven is not exhaustive, but is one way to describe some of the most
common approaches to advocacy.[^5] The order in which they are presented
here does not imply a rank or sequence.

***The Importance of Combining Advocacy Tools in an Advocacy Campaign***

No two advocacy campaigns are alike and each requires a careful planning
process to identify the most effective and necessary elements to reach
the desired objective. However, the most effective advocacy efforts are
those that are multi-faceted and combine multiple tools working together
toward the desired public policy outcome. Problems that are complex and
multi-dimensional can only be addressed by multi-faceted advocacy
campaigns.

Consider the problem of domestic violence. An advocacy campaign that
focuses primarily on lobbying and legal reform may not be successful in
addressing change if the law is not enforced and/or if women aren't
aware of their legal rights. A multi-faceted advocacy campaign would
involve lobbying and legal reform, political education for officials at
executing agencies (police officers, judges, lawyers), legal literacy,
consciousness raising, and support and service groups for women.

###### B. Utilizing the Media

Utilizing the media in an advocacy context refers to the strategic use
of media to advance a public policy initiative or otherwise bolster an
advocacy campaign. All advocacy CSOs, from the grassroots level to
high-profile national CSOs, can utilize the media. The media's ability
to set the public agenda, influence public debate, pressure policy
makers, and transmit values, renders the media an essential advocacy
tool.[^6]

Media refers to any medium that can be used to communicate a message,
whereas mass media refers specifically to media that reach mass
audiences, (e.g., television, newspapers, radio, and the Internet). Mass
media can be the most effective media in an advocacy effort, but other
media can also play an important role, especially in countries where the
mass media is highly controlled or influenced by the government.
Community theater, posters, puppet shows, songs, and community radio are
examples of media that are often utilized by advocacy groups, for
example by introducing universal human values and peace-building
measures in localities dominated by tribal, ethnic, or religious
conflict.

Utilizing the media involves increasing media coverage of the advocacy
issue, as well as attracting media coverage of advocacy CSO events and
activities. Effective use of mass media might include co-production of
talk shows, organizing events for press coverage, providing journalists
with facts and ideas to form the basis of investigative reports, and
building relationships with journalists and media outlets.

###### C. Building Coalitions

A coalition is made up of individuals or organizations who join forces
to pursue a common social change goal while maintaining their own
autonomy. Coalitions encompass a variety of institutional and decision
making structures. Coalitions can be formal or informal, permanent or
temporary, and independently or collectively funded and staffed.

Coalitions are important because they provide:

-   *Safety*. Safety refers to protection against harassment and
    repression. Coalitions provide safety because it is usually more
    difficult for opponents to target a broad coalition than individual
    organizations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Strength*. Strength refers to the aggregate sum of the individual
    strengths of coalition members. Coalitions provide strength because
    weaker organizations can benefit from stronger ones and all
    organizations can benefit from the individual strengthens of each.

-   *Legitimacy*. Legitimacy refers to the extent to which a coalition
    is accepted by decision makers as representing a constituency base.
    Coalitions provide legitimacy as they aggregate resources and
    include a wider constituency base. The extent of constituency
    support is important in demonstrating to decision makers the
    importance and/or urgency of a particular issue.

From a donor perspective, coalitions are important because they prevent
redundancy and duplication. In addition coalitions facilitate networking
and information sharing and function as "democracy schools."

**D. Using Information**

Broadly defined, information means facts and findings, ranging from
numbers to stories. Information is gathered from many sources through
experience, observation, interviews, and others forms of research. Once
gathered, information about an issue is analyzed to show relationships,
patterns, trends, and contradictions.[^7] This is how knowledge is
created.

Information can be used to

-   *Educate* citizens about a particular issue or problem.

-   *Empower* citizens to act in ways that promote citizen involvement
    in decision-making processes.

-   *Mobilize* citizens for protests, petitions, etc.

-   *Stimulate discussion* about a particular public policy initiative.

-   *Create responsibility* to hold decision-makers accountable for
    their actions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Present a case* to citizens and decision-makers alike about a
    particular issue or problem.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Influence* decision-makers to act in a particular way.

-   *Pressure* allies, moderates, and opponents to act in a particular
    way.

-   *Harness allies and engage opponents* so they can be involved in a
    particular advocacy effort.

Appendix C provides a useful table highlighting different sources and
types of information relevant to advocacy, and methods for gathering
such information.

**E. Analyzing Budgets**

Budget analysis is the process of analyzing government budgets and using
the information contained in the analysis to engage in public policy
advocacy. CSOs are increasingly realizing that engaging in budget
analysis will involve them directly in the governance arena and enable
them to advance their interests more effectively.

The budget is the most important economic policy instrument for
governments. The budget reflects a government's social and economic
policy priorities more than any other document; it translates policies,
political commitment, and priorities into decisions on where funds
should be spent and how these funds should be collected.

The lack of accessible, non-technical information on budget issues has
seriously hindered NGO efforts to participate in the debate on the
distribution of national resources. Strengthening budget analysis and
improving budget processes are therefore inevitable and integral parts
of enhancing the effectiveness of advocacy.

**F. Lobbying Decision Makers**[^8]

Lobbying decision makers refers to advocacy actions (lobbying, mass
mobilizations, citizen petitions, testimonies, conferences, etc.)
directed at policy makers for the purpose of communicating a message
about a policy or law.

In all countries, public policies play an important role in determining
social justice, political and civil liberties, and the long-term
interests of the environment and people at large. However, in many
countries, public policy is formulated by dominant and powerful societal
groups. Access to and persuasion of decision makers serve to penetrate
monopolistic policy making and broaden the scope to include citizen's
voices in decision-making processes that affect their lives.

Effective lobbying is achieved through the presentation of persuasive
arguments to the policy maker. This means the transfer of information
which is at once highly selective, condensed, and digestible. If a CSO
is to be persuasive, it must get to know the policy maker and the system
in which the policy maker operates. Regular review and monitoring
becomes critical to the selection of information and arguments to be
presented.

When starting out, a CSO's lobbying strategy may be only reactive, with
the group simply seeking to defeat what it views as adverse policy. With
time, however, these groups may learn to become more proactive and begin
to participate in shaping the policy environment in which they operate.

See Appendix D for more specific tips on how to lobby effectively.

G.  **Organizing and Mobilizing the Grassroots**

Grassroots organizing is moving people from spectators to active
participants by persuading them to turn opinions into action that can
influence outcomes. Grassroots leadership development is a critical
component of supporting grassroots organizing.

Grassroots organizing is important because it

-   *Bridges micro-level activism and macro-level policy initiatives.*
    Advocacy initiatives that are practiced only at the macro level run
    the risk that a set of urban elites, equipped with information and
    skills, will take over the voice of the marginalized.

-   *Lends credibility, legitimacy, and crucial bargaining power* to
    advocacy. For example, in India, grassroots support and constituency
    size are the most important factors that determine the credibility
    of the lobbyist, not his or her professional background or
    expertise.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Leads to tangible benefits in the lives of citizens.* These
    benefits include increased levels of self-esteem, confidence, and
    efficacy.

H.  **Utilizing the Legal System**

Utilizing the legal system is the act of engaging in legal proceedings,
such as law suits and injunctions. This advocacy is most effective, of
course, when applied in a fair and independent judicial system. But even
where there is weak rule of law, engaging the legal system can produce a
favorable outcome, especially when combined with other advocacy tools,
such as lobbying and using the media. For example, an unjust court
ruling could stir controversy or focus public attention and thus be the
impetus for legislative or executive action to produce the desired
outcome.

Advocacy organizations should carefully consider the ramifications of
engaging the legal system because an undesired outcome could be
extremely counterproductive by giving opponents a sound justification
for rebuking other advocacy efforts, such as lobbying. In many cases,
utilizing the legal system should occur late in a campaign or be a last
resort. But in other cases it may be appropriate to engage the legal
system from the start. Such a determination is made during the strategic
planning process that should precede any advocacy effort.

Litigation may be utilized for various means. For example, an advocacy
organization may utilize the legal system to demonstrate that a certain
government action or policy is unconstitutional, or to gain access to
public information it needs for its advocacy campaign. Or, through an
injunction, an advocacy organization seek to prevent a party from taking
a specific course of action, such as building a nuclear power plant, to
gain time to make more effective use of other advocacy tools, such as
gathering information or mobilizing the grassroots. In other words,
there are various reasons and means to utilize the legal system at
various times in an advocacy campaign.

**III. WHEN SHOULD ADVOCACY BE**

**INCLUDED IN A DG STRATEGY?**

In Section II of this handbook, we examined the components of advocacy
and how to recognize their effective uses. While DG officers will not be
directly implementing these activities, it is important that they have
an understanding of these components in order to recognize effective
advocacy and to evaluate it realistically. The background information in
Section II is provided as a context for advocacy programming, and the
remainder of the handbook will turn toward direct application. Here,
these sections will look at when a DG officer should recommend that
advocacy become part of a DG strategy and what form(s) that advocacy
programming should take.

*Why is Advocacy Important in Democracy and Governance?*

Advocacy, at its core, is an action-oriented process. It plays an
important role in determining social justice, political and civil
liberties, and in giving voice to citizens and historically marginalized
groups. At its best, advocacy expresses the power of an individual,
constituency, or organization to shape public agendas and change public
policies. In a broader civil society strategy, advocacy-oriented action
goes beyond specific objectives (e.g., raising the minimum wage) to
providing the means to mobilize society, ideas, and resources in an
effort to bring about democratic change and/or its consolidation.

Since the early 1990s, USAID has supported civil society organizations
(CSOs) engaged in advocacy as part of its portfolio of democracy and
governance assistance. Such an approach to civil society development
attempts to build centrist coalitions by engaging and strengthening
those organizations with a political reform agenda.

*When Should Advocacy be Included in a DG Strategy?*

Advocacy is at the core of USAID's civil society strategic approach and
should be considered from the beginning of any USAID civil society
strategy. The civil society strategy outlined in *Constituencies for
Reform* emphasizes the role of civic advocacy organizations in
establishing and advancing democratic reform (see box above). This
framework helps DG officers map out the issues, agendas, implementers,
activities, and arenas for an advocacy program within their civil
society strategies.

The scope of advocacy issues and the advocacy groups to be supported in
a DG strategy will depend on many factors, including the level of
political freedom, economic development, and maturity of CSOs in a
country. But advocacy is almost always an appropriate means for
advancing democratic and economic reform, and thus an appropriate
component of a DG strategy.

Even in countries with weak civil societies and/or governments that are
unreceptive to non-governmental influence, advocacy programs are likely
to be appropriate, even if the anticipated results are nominal. Small
victories can be very influential in building public confidence in
democratic processes and increasing civic participation and activism in
the early stages of a democratic transition. Furthermore, advocacy
programs in challenging environments may not immediately advance
democratic reform, but may nonetheless prevent backsliding by, for
example, raising awareness in the West of human rights abuses.

In countries with difficult political environments, the DG strategy
might focus on support for advocacy considered non-threatening to the
state, such as improving health care or addressing environmental
problems. Such a strategy could pay off when a democratic breakthrough
occurs by having strengthened CSO advocacy skills and having
demonstrated to citizens the value of CSO advocacy.

###### 

**\[Insert Chart B this page\]**

**IV. DESIGNING AN ADVOCACY PROGRAM**

With the previous sections, we explored the manifestations of
advocacy---its forms and tools--- and outlined the reasons why advocacy
is an important element of democratic development. With this section,
the handbook will turn to the specific needs of USAID DG officers by
providing a framework for thinking about how to design an advocacy
program.

When planning or drafting a program description for an advocacy program,
a DG officer will want to consider many factors:

-   The type of the advocacy (single-issue or writ large)

-   The objectives of the advocacy

-   The primary actors, (i.e., the advocates, as well as the
    constituencies, proponents, opponents, and beneficiaries of the
    advocacy)

-   The advocacy activities to be supported

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The arenas/mechanisms in which the advocacy activities will take
    place

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The type of assistance to be provided under a DG program

\\**A.**/ B. C. D. E. F.

  ----------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ -----------
  [Type of                Advocacy     Advocacy    Advocacy     Advocacy     DG Advocacy
  Advocacy]{.underline}   Objectives   Actors      Activities   Arenas/      Assist.
                                                                Mechanisms   

  ----------------------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ -----------

A. Determining the Type of Advocacy

Generally speaking, an advocacy assistance program can be designed to
support either of two types of advocacy: single issue or writ large.
**Single-issue advocacy** programs support advocacy campaigns that seek
to influence a specific issue and achieve a concrete, usually
short-term, result. **Advocacy writ large** programs support a broad
range of advocacy efforts for the purpose of longer-term democratic
reforms and civil society strengthening. This is an important
distinction to make at the onset, because the program design is likely
to differ significantly depending on the type of the advocacy to be
supported.

**Single-issue advocacy** programs may be particularly useful for
generating public support for particular reforms necessary for achieving
a USAID objective. Such programs tend to have a more clearly defined
time line with specific, easily measured results, such as adoption or
repeal of a particular law, inclusion or exclusion of specific
provisions in draft legislation, or a change in government policy.
Single-issue advocacy might also include efforts to change public
attitudes or behavior, such as reconciliation in a post-conflict
society.

**Advocacy writ large** may be appropriate in a DG strategy that seeks
to strengthen democratic institutions more generally by, for example,
increasing citizen empowerment and participation, or promoting greater
government transparency, responsiveness, and accountability.
Single-issue advocacy efforts could still be supported within such a
broader advocacy program, especially for issues that require
longer-term, systemic changes, such as corruption, domestic violence,
and human rights. A broader advocacy program provides ample opportunity
for cross sectoral collaboration that could leverage resources from
other USAID offices, such as health, business development, or
environment. A broader advocacy program might have less clearly defined
results or time lines than a single-issue advocacy program.

A. \\**B.**/ C. D. E. F.

  ----------- ------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ -----------
  Type of     [Advocacy                 Advocacy    Advocacy     Advocacy     DG Advocacy
  Advocacy    Objectives]{.underline}   Actors      Activities   Arenas/      Assist.
                                                                 Mechanisms   

  ----------- ------------------------- ----------- ------------ ------------ -----------

**B. Identifying the Objectives of the Advocacy**

In addition to determining the type of advocacy your program will
address, one of the first steps in program design should be identifying
the objectives of your advocacy program. The objectives may correspond
to specific "Strategic Objectives" (SOs) or "Intermediate Results" (IRs)
in a Mission Strategy or R4 Plan. For example, a Mission might have the
following IR under a Civil Society SO: "Adoption of new NGO law
improving the enabling environment for NGOs." In this case, a DG
strategy might decide to support a **single-issue advocacy effort** to
influence policy-makers to achieve the ***objective of adopting a new
NGO law***. This might be accomplished by supporting a coalition of NGOs
conducting an advocacy effort solely for the purpose of advocating for
the adoption of the NGO law.

Other IRs might beckon an **advocacy effort writ large**. For example,
another IR under the same Civil Society SO might be: "Increased citizen
involvement in policy-making decisions." In this case, a DG strategy
might include a broader advocacy program supporting a wide range of
actors undertaking various advocacy efforts as one way to help achieve
the ***objective of increased citizen involvement*** in policy-making.
Although it may be more difficult to attribute the results of this
approach to the achievement of the IR, this type of advocacy effort is
equally appropriate in a DG strategy.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Single-Issue Advocacy**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| **Examples of Objectives:**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Constitutional reform                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Adoption of new civil code                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Reduction of \# of licenses to operate a business                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Peaceful resolution of a conflict                                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   Legal rights for minorities                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Clean-up of a toxic waste site                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Better access to HIV/AIDS treatment                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Advocacy Writ Large**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| **Examples of Objectives:**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   CSOs effectively influence public policy                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Increased government accountability                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   Increased respect for human rights                                |
|                                                                       |
| -   More effective CSO advocacy                                       |
|                                                                       |
| -   Increased citizen participation in political decision- making     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Increased perception that citizens can influence government       |
|     policies                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

In some cases, advocacy itself may be the objective if the DG strategy
has identified increased advocacy as an intermediate result. An advocacy
writ large program would, of course, be appropriate in this case too.

In sum, when determining how an advocacy program fits into your DG
strategy, one question to ask is, "How might advocacy help achieve
certain IRs and/or DG objectives?"

A. B. **\\C.**/ D. E. F.

  ----------- ------------ --------------------- ------------ ------------ -----------
  Type of     Advocacy     [Advocacy             Advocacy     Advocacy     DG Advocacy
  Advocacy    Objectives   Actors]{.underline}   Activities   Arenas/      Assist.
                                                              Mechanisms   

  ----------- ------------ --------------------- ------------ ------------ -----------

C.  **Identifying the Actors: Advocates, Constituencies, Proponents,
    Opponents and Beneficiaries**

There are many actors to consider when designing an advocacy program,
all of whom may be targets of assistance, either directly or indirectly.
The most obvious actors are **advocates**, i.e., those who undertake an
advocacy effort, either on behalf of themselves or others. Advocates are
typically USAID's primary partners in an advocacy program, and they can
take many forms. The most common advocates in a USAID program are
**civil society organizations (CSOs)**, but other advocates that could
be included in a USAID program include **businesses, professional and
trade associations, and grass roots movements.** Furthermore, advocates
are only one set of actors involved in advocacy. Other important
advocacy actors that might be targets of assistance, direct or indirect,
include **journalists, media, lawyers, judges, government officials, and
local or national state bodies**. A brief description of how each of
these actors play important roles in advocacy is described below.

### *C. 1. Advocacy CSOs*

Advocacy CSOs are organizations that undertake organized public actions
to influence political decision makers to modify the legal/regulatory
environment, or implement new or existing laws and policies. Examples
include human rights groups such as Amnesty International, consumer
rights groups such as Common Cause, environmental groups such as
Greenpeace, or minority rights groups such as the NAACP. Advocacy CSOs
sometime build coalitions, often for a specific short-term cause, such
as the coalition Campaign Against the Nomination of Justice Bork to the
Supreme Court.

While pure **advocacy CSOs**, such as human rights groups, may be easy
to identify by their activities, many NGOs whose primary purpose is not
advocacy may in fact be extremely effective advocates. For example, a
**social service CSO** whose primary purpose is to provide shelter to
homeless children might also be an effective advocate of children's
rights through occasional or less visible secondary activities.

***C. 2. Professional Associations and Grassroots Movements***

The same is true for professional associations. For example, a farmers'
association formed to disseminate information on farming techniques
might also have a secondary purpose of advocating for farmers' rights.
Similarly, a lawyers association formed to provide legal education to
its members may also have a secondary purpose of advocating for judicial
reform. In sum, professional associations may be appropriate targets of
assistance in your advocacy program given their natural tendency to
advocate for the collective interests of their members.

Grassroots movements too can be extremely effective advocates. Though
donors may find them more difficult to target for assistance than
registered advocacy CSOs, depending on the issues, grassroots movements
may also factor prominently into an advocacy program.

### *C. 3. Businesses*

Businesses are non-government organizations (NGOs), and as such, should
not automatically be excluded from a DG strategy because of their
for-profit status. Businesses and business associations can be among the
most effective advocates for reform, and can establish precedents for
civil society organizations (CSOs) and private voluntary organizations
(PVOs) to follow. For example, business associations that advocate for
consistent application of the rule of law and decreased corruption can
contribute to the overall democratic reform agenda. Furthermore,
businesses often have more resources and connections than CSOs, and can
therefore be more effective in their efforts. For this reason, they can
be important allies for advocacy CSOs with similar agendas, such as
reducing official corruption.

### *C. 4. Media/Journalists*

As described in Section II, effective use of media is an important
advocacy tool. Helping CSOs learn how to use media more effectively is
often an important part of an advocacy program, but you may also want to
design a program that works directly with media. For example, small
grants could be awarded to media for the production of advocacy-related
programs or public service announcements (PSAs). In a single-issue
advocacy effort, USAID might support production of programs that explain
or promote the specific issue, whereas in a broader advocacy effort
USAID might support production of a series of informational programs
explaining citizens' legal rights or highlighting the benefits of
citizen advocacy in a democracy. See D.1. below for examples of
including media and journalists in program design.

### *C. 5. Legal Professionals*

An advocacy program should also consider the extent to which advocacy
efforts benefit from the support of legal professionals. Lawyers can
bring credibility and essential legal support to advocacy efforts by
using the legal system to demand due process and protect citizens and
CSOs when governments attempt to repress or subdue advocacy campaigns.

An advocacy program may benefit by including legal professionals in
training seminars and workshops, or by providing direct assistance to
legal professionals to assist with advocacy. For example, grants to bar
associations or law schools could provide assistance to advocacy efforts
in the form of legal consultations or *pro bono* legal services to
citizens and CSOs. See D.7. below for more ideas on including legal
professionals in an advocacy program.

C. 5. Government Institutions and Officials

As discussed in Section II, \[see p. 6\] advocacy can be adversarial or
negotiated. Although negotiated advocacy may not always be feasible, it
is often a more effective means of advocacy. Because negotiated advocacy
involves engagement between advocates and decision makers, **a
USAID-funded advocacy program should not rule out working with
government institutions and officials.**

An advocacy program might be designed to support workshops that bring
together citizens and CSOs with government officials to collaboratively
address issues. USAID's involvement as a facilitator may significantly
influence how a government reacts to an advocacy effort that it might
otherwise ignore or even suppress. See F.3 below for more on the
facilitation role in an advocacy program.

> *C.6. Constituencies, Proponents, Opponents, and Beneficiaries*

![](media/image1.wmf)In addition to the actors described above, one
should also consider the **constituencies** of any advocacy effort. As
described in Section II, advocacy efforts are more effective when they
mobilize and draw on support from their natural constituencies. Equally
as important is identifying the natural **proponents** and **opponents**
of an advocacy effort. These actors may or may not be direct recipients
of USAID assistance, but they are often a target of the assistance and
should always be factored into an advocacy strategy. Refer to the
section on Strategy Planning in Section II for a discussion of
incorporating all of these actors in an advocacy strategy.

Finally, it is important to recognize the distinction between the
**beneficiaries** of advocacy and the advocates themselves. The two are
not always the same. For example, homeless children may be the
beneficiaries of efforts by a human rights CSO that advocates for
increased government spending on shelters. It is important to make the
distinction between **advocates** and **beneficiaries** because, in an
advocacy assistance program, the latter are less likely to be the
*direct* recipients of USAID assistance.

**\[Box with examples of advocacy partners?\]**

**\[Box with Case Study showing use of various actors, e.g. OAC?\]**

A. B. C. \\**D.**/ E. F.

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------------------- ------------ -----------
  Type of     Advocacy     Advocacy    [Advocacy                 Advocacy     DG Advocacy
  Advocacy    Objectives   Actors      Activities]{.underline}   Arenas/      Assist.
                                                                 Mechanisms   

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------------------- ------------ -----------

**D. Advocacy Activities**

In the same way that there are many advocacy actors to consider, there
are many types of activities that can be supported by an advocacy
assistance program. Recall the principle tools of advocacy described in
Section II and summarized in the illustration below. Each of these tools
can be manifested in a wide array of activities.

A USAID-funded advocacy program may not necessarily include all of these
tools, but it is important to consider all of them in determining the
best assistance program design. This section briefly illustrates the
broad array of advocacy activities that can be implemented using the
principle advocacy tools described in Section II.

*D. 1. Utilizing the Media*

Because successful advocacy often relies on generating public support, a
good advocacy program will often generate news coverage, produce
informational programs, or otherwise utilize the media. Although
advocacy CSOs often undertake media activities on their own, it is
usually more appropriate for the USAID advocacy program to have a
separate media component providing direct support to media to produce
advocacy-related programs or public service announcements (PSAs).
Working directly with media, rather than through advocacy CSOs, can have
several advantages, including higher quality programs, more objective
content, and cost savings.

A media component might include direct grants, purchase orders, or
technical assistance to media companies for a variety of products, such
as public service announcements, informational programs, documentaries,
radio talk shows, and newspaper inserts. It is also possible to work
directly with the media without providing funding or paying for
production. For example, your advocacy program implementer could sponsor
competitions in which journalists (or newspapers, or radio stations,
etc.) win cash prizes for producing the best objective news story about
an ongoing advocacy campaign.

In addition to working directly with media, it may be necessary to
strengthen the capacity of CSOs to use the media. Communicating
effectively and using the media involves a specific set of skills, so
your advocacy program might include skills-based training and/or
workshops for CSO staff members whose skills in communicating and using
the media require further development.

To encourage collaboration between media and advocacy CSOs, your
advocacy program might offer grants to media entities that require them
to develop media products jointly with an advocacy CSO. Similarly, your
program could give grants to CSOs that require them to develop media
products jointly with a media entity. Because media are often eager for
funds to produce their own programs, your grant program could include
selection criteria that require the media entity to contribute
cost-sharing in the form of free use of a studio or free air time. This
is a great way to avoid having to pay media to broadcast or print a
product that they didn't produce. Another benefit of such collaboration
is the networking that will take place, with media possibly turning to
CSO leaders as experts on the news or talk shows, and for ideas on news
stories.

Another way to encourage media and CSO collaboration is to sponsor
workshops to facilitate dialog between journalists and advocacy CSOs,
improve understanding of each other's role in a democracy, build trust
and create networks that lead to better coverage of advocacy issues and
campaigns.

Of course, if USAID or other donors are funding separate media
assistance programs it would be beneficial to seek opportunities to take
advantage of such programs. For example, ongoing journalism training
might add advocacy reporting to the curriculum, and news programs being
produced might include stories on CSO advocacy.

### *D. 2. Building Coalitions*

Coalitions can greatly enhance the effectiveness of advocacy by
increasing legitimacy, strength, resources, and safety. Coalitions are
also attractive to donors that prefer to fund a coalition rather than
many individual CSOs. Supporting coalitions and coalition-building,
therefore, might be an important part of an advocacy assistance program.
Doing so, however, presents many potential risks for donors, such as:
creating animosity and competition among CSOs; raising expectations of
CSOs that anticipate, but do not receive, more funding as a result of
joining a coalition; or raising expectations of citizens who expect, but
do not see, significant change as a result of their civic participation
in a widely publicized donor-supported coalition.

When coalitions have a clear and common agenda with a transparent and
representative management structure, and meet the "Characteristics of
Effective Coalitions" listed in Section II of this handbook (see page
13), then you will probably want to consider supporting it.

One risk involved with coalition-building is that a coalition will form
only for the purpose of receiving donor funding. A good way to support
coalition-building without providing direct funding, therefore, is to
sponsor workshops that bring together CSOs, media, businesses and others
with a common advocacy agenda to provide a forum in which they
themselves can determine whether they can form an effective coalition on
their own. USAID's role, in this case, would simply be to encourage
participation, provide the forum for meeting, and perhaps provide
facilitators or speakers who could explain the potential advantages of
coalitions and how to build them.

Similarly, your advocacy program can encourage coalition building
through interventions that **facilitate networking and information
sharing, and provide training** for CSO staff in consensus building,
conflict management, network leadership, and similar skills.

### *D. 3. Using Information*

Information is an important advocacy tool because it can be used for
many purposes, including to educate and mobilize citizens; stimulate
public debate; present a case to citizens and decision-makers; influence
and pressure decision-makers; harness allies; and engage opponents.
Given the importance of having credible and relevant information, **a
USAID advocacy assistance program may likely include assistance in
gathering, analyzing and using information.**

Using information strategically requires familiarity with the entire
range of information available, the human and technological capacity to
use existing sources or generate new sources of information, and the
design and implementation of well-crafted dissemination plans. Any
information an organization collects or generates must be accurate and
well-supported, lest it undermine its credibility or that of the
advocacy effort. If it isn't, the credibility of the organization may be
damaged.

Funders can support advocacy CSOs in using information strategically by
providing support for capacity building and research-related training.

For example, your program may offer **grants to polling firms, think
tanks, universities, sociological centers, scientific research centers**
and other entities that gather and/or analyze information. Your program
may also provide **training** to these same entities, as well as to
advocacy CSOs, in the proper methods of information gathering and
analysis. And your program might **encourage collaboration** between
advocates (e.g., advocacy CSOs) and entities that gather and analyze
information, through grants, workshops, or joint projects. For example,
a polling firm, a sociological center, and an advocacy CSO might
collaborate by determining what kind of information they want to gather.
The polling firm would then collect the information through opinion
polls or focus groups, the sociological center would analyze and
cross-tabulate the data, and the CSO would use the information to more
effectively advocate its cause.

Support for investigative journalism and media outlets that provide
objective news coverage are two USAID initiatives that have proven
effective in promoting an "information culture" that is supportive of
pluralism, democracy, and civil society. See D.1 for more on how to
disseminate information.

### *D. 4. Analyzing Budgets*

Budget analysis is the process of analyzing government budgets and using
that information to engage in public policy advocacy. The budget is the
most important economic policy instrument for governments, yet the lack
of accessible, non-technical information on budget issues seriously
hinders CSO efforts to participate in debates on the distribution of
national resources. Before an advocacy CSO can engage in budget
analysis, it must be familiar with the budget process, have access to
government statistics, have the capacity to analyze the information it
obtains, and understand how to effectively utilize the information and
analyses.

Support for indigenous CSOs that disseminate information about
legislative and budget processes can help demystify the issue and
encourage CSOs to cross the threshold from "protest to politics".
Engaging in budget analysis allows CSOs to move from voicing dissenting
opinions to engaging in the process of proposing solutions.

A USAID advocacy program, therefore, might entail assisting advocates
and other entities with improving budget analysis skills. This may take
the form of **training**, either to advocacy CSOs, or to their partners
that regularly engage in budget analysis, such as think tanks,
universities and research centers.

Your program might also **encourage collaboration** between advocacy
CSOs and entities that analyze budgets, through **grants** that require
working jointly on a specific advocacy effort. The program may also
include **seminars or training** for journalists to help them understand
how to accurately and effectively report on budget issues. All of these
activities could complement or be integrated into USAID or other
donor-funded **local government or decentralization** activities, such
as promoting budget transparency, public hearings, and citizen
participation, your advocacy program may nicely complement these
activities by integrating them with activities for advocacy CSOs,
journalists and citizen groups.

### *D. 5. Lobbying*[^9]

Lobbying is sometimes equated with advocacy, but in fact is just one
advocacy tool, albeit an important one. While often seen negatively,
lobbying plays a vital role in the democratic process. Between
elections, interests in civil society have relatively few means to
influence policy outcomes. With pressure from interest groups, the
political system becomes more transparent, and officials become more
accountable.

The time frame for legislative advocacy varies from a few months to
years. Legislative advocacy involves building relationships and
developing skills, both of which take time. To be effective advocates,
CSOs need support not only to carry out lobbying, but also to develop
the capabilities to conduct essential lobbying skills.

An advocacy assistance program to support CSO lobbying would provide
funding and training for improving skills, such as capabilities to:

-   Identify priority themes and issues;

-   Fully comprehend the advocacy issues;

-   Understand how the policy decision-making process works;

-   Identify key decision-makers and actors;

-   Comprehend the political environment;

-   Understand its own strengths and limitations;

-   Identify and enlist actual and potential allies;

-   Effectively communicate its message.

###### *D. 6. Grassroots Organizing*

Grassroots organizing can be particularly effective in countries where
political will to initiate change is weak. Grassroots organizing, which
relies on the power of citizens and mass mobilizations, has tremendous
power in forcing decision-makers to take notice and make policy change.

Grassroots organizing can also be effective in countries characterized
by the absence of a democratic culture. In this context, grassroots
organizing serves to create, encourage, and/or strengthen a culture of
participation.

At its best, a grassroots organizing strategy has a focus and outcome at
three different levels: the individual leader, the organization, and the
community. Donor-funded advocacy programs tend to focus almost
exclusively on advocacy CSOs that don't necessarily have large
memberships, well-defined constituencies, or broad public appeal.
Grassroots advocacy is different in that it depends on involving
ordinary people at the local level rather than elites at the center of
political activity.

Advocacy assistance for grassroots organizing, then, should address the
needs of local leaders and support capacity-building of organizations
with grassroots backing, while keeping the overall vision of the
community in context. Training for grassroots leaders might address
skills such as communicating, visioning, organizing, and
coalition-building. Grants could support the activities of the
grassroots movements as well as help develop the overall capacity of
relevant CSOs.

> ***D. 7.** **Legal Support and Legal Defense***

Advocacy efforts in developing countries often languish due to weak rule
of law and insufficient legal support to take advantage of legal rights.
Even the best advocacy can easily be stymied when CSOs or individuals
are unable to take advantage of their legal rights because of lack of
legal knowledge, lack of competent counsel, or lack of public attention
to unjust treatment. Nonetheless, regardless of the level of rule of law
in a country, advocacy efforts can benefit tremendously by engaging the
legal system.

An advocacy program, then, might **include legal activities undertaken
by lawyers, *pro bono* legal clinics, or legislative drafting groups**
that help overcome legal obstacles to successful advocacy. Or, the
advocacy program might include **training for judges** about a specific
law or international conventions relevant to the advocacy cause.

A. B. C. D. **\\ E. /** F.

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------------------- -----------
  Type of     Advocacy     Advocacy    Advocacy     [Advocacy Arenas/         DG Advocacy
  Advocacy    Objectives   Actors      Activities   Mechanisms]{.underline}   Assist.

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------------------- -----------

E. Advocacy Arenas/Mechanisms

In the same way that it is useful to consider the wide range of advocacy
actors and activities before designing an advocacy program, one should
also consider the full array of possible arenas and mechanisms for
advocacy. The reason for doing so is to ensure that your program
description doesn't unnecessarily limit the context in which the
advocacy actors you support could be working. Furthermore, identifying
advocacy mechanisms and arenas will help clarify links with other DG
program areas and may help determine other DG priorities. For example,
other DG priorities that will help open up avenues for more effective
CSO engagement with the public and state.

If one carefully considers all possible advocacy actors and activities,
the arenas and mechanisms are rather intuitive, so this section will
only briefly list examples. The point is to think about the mechanisms
and arenas most relevant to the context in your country.

Institutional mechanisms are the means by which advocates can engage the
public and government on public issues. Examples include referenda,
petitions, public hearings, elections, and the right to recall.

Institutional arenas are those places where public dialog on reform
issues can be voiced. Examples include universities, legislatures, local
government, political parties, media, courts, and public-private
advisory boards. It is also beneficial to think about *international* as
well as national arenas, because the former often provide the additional
pressure necessary to help indigenous groups influence reforms through
advocacy.

A B C D E **\\ F /**

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ ----------------------
  Type of     Advocacy     Advocacy    Advocacy     Advocacy     [DG Advocacy
  Advocacy    Objectives   Actors      Activities   Arenas/      Assist.]{.underline}
                                                    Mechanisms   

  ----------- ------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ ----------------------

**F. DG Advocacy Program Assistance**

After considering all of the factors described in A-E above, one can
begin to plan the type of assistance to be provided under the
USAID-funded advocacy program. Of course, program design must take into
account many other factors, such as availability of resources,
activities of other donors, prospects for being able to manage for
results, and political constraints---internal or external---that could
affect planned results. But this section will focus on program design
based on the advocacy-specific factors discussed in A-E above.

To recap, one of the first steps in designing an advocacy program is to
determine the "**type**" of advocacy, i.e., whether it will focus on a
specific advocacy issue or generally promote increased advocacy.
Similarly, the specific objectives of the advocacy program, or the
"**why**," should be identified. A third factor to consider is the
"**who**", that is, the advocates as well as other relevant actors,
including constituents, proponents, opponents, and beneficiaries, whom
your advocacy program will select as partners and targets for
assistance. As discussed in section C, in most cases it makes sense to
target more than just advocacy CSOs. Other targets for assistance in an
advocacy program might include media, professional associations,
businesses, religious groups, schools, universities, government
entities, politicians, lawyers, judges, and a broad range of CSOs (e.g.,
health, labor, business, environment, etc.). The factors described in
sections D and E might be considered the "**what**" and "**where**" of
an advocacy program. That is, the advocacy activities that are likely to
be supported in a USAID advocacy program, and the arenas and mechanisms
where they take place.

Finally, this section will focus on the "**how**", or the way in which
the DG advocacy assistance program will be implemented. The "how" is
likely to include grants, technical assistance, training, facilitation
and sponsorship, and public education/information. This list is not
exhaustive, but is meant to provide a rough guide for thinking about
different approaches to supporting advocacy efforts.

### *F. 1. Grants*

A grants program could be used to support not only **advocacy CSOs**,
but also **media projects**, **public opinion polling**, or
**research**. Potential grant recipients include media companies,
polling firms, think tanks, and universities, as well as CSOs. Grants to
CSOs could be used for **general CSO strengthening**, such as building
capacity in the eight advocacy tools (lobbying, budget analysis,
utilizing media, etc.), or to fund **specific elements of advocacy
campaigns**.

F. 2. Technical Assistance and Training

Another obvious mechanism is technical assistance (TA) and training. As
with grants, you should consider all of the various actors in section D
above when planning TA and training. In addition to CSOs, other
recipients of TA and **training** in an advocacy assistance program
might include **journalists, media companies, judges, lawyers,
public-private initiatives** (e.g. citizen-government action
committees), **labor unions, research organizations, polling firms,
mediation groups, and CSO coalitions.**

Training seminars could be conducted for CSOs on the eight advocacy
tools, or to provide technical information related to a specific
advocacy effort.

In addition to training, assistance might include other forms of
technical assistance, such as **commodities, consultants, legal
assistance, and study tours**. Commodities might, for example, go to
CSOs or media that need equipment for media projects, or to advocacy
CSOs that need basic equipment. Advisors, either paid consultants or
expat volunteers[^10], might spend

### *F. 3. Facilitation and Sponsorship*

Sometimes USAID can play an extremely important role by simply providing
its "good offices" as a sponsor and facilitator. Donor involvement is
sometimes the only effective catalyst for bringing together groups and
individuals that are otherwise suspicious of each other or unwilling to
cooperate. An advocacy assistance program may sponsor workshops to
encourage cooperation, building coalitions, or facilitate dialog among
opposing groups.

For example, when CSOs are attempting to influence government officials
to include their input in draft legislation, USAID sponsorship of a
workshop to discuss the draft might be the only means for getting
government officials to listen to the CSOs. Furthermore, by having a
USAID grantee or contractor actually facilitate the workshop, USAID can
provide additional pressure on all sides to follow through on any
agreements reached.

In addition to workshops, USAID might sponsor working groups composed of
CSOs and relevant government officials (especially "champions" for the
advocacy cause) to craft policy guidance or make recommendations to
government. USAID could also sponsor the work of legislative drafting
working groups that include citizen advocates and parliamentarians.

###### *F. 4. Public Education/Information/ Awareness*

In order to be effective advocates, citizens must understand their
rights, be aware of issues affecting them, know whom to target in
decision-making positions, and be aware of constituencies and potential
proponents of their cause. An advocacy assistance program can support
these objectives through public education.

Public awareness may be particularly important in an advocacy writ large
program. A typical objective in such a program is increased advocacy by
citizens and CSOs, so awareness about legal rights and mechanisms for
participating in advocacy would likely support this objective.

**DG Advocacy Assistance**

+--------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| ***Type of   | ### *Examples*         | ***Possible Recipients***    |
| A            |                        |                              |
| ssistance*** |                        |                              |
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| Grants       | General support funds  | CSOs, coalitions,            |
|              |                        | public-private partnerships  |
|              | Grants for public      |                              |
|              | awareness, media       | CSOs, media production       |
|              | projects               | companies                    |
|              |                        |                              |
|              | Research grants,       | CSOs, think tanks, polling   |
|              | generating information | firms                        |
|              |                        |                              |
|              | Legal advocacy         | Advocacy CSOs, pro bono      |
|              |                        | clinics, law schools,        |
|              | Grants to support      | lawyers associations         |
|              | lobbying               |                              |
|              |                        | CSOs, professional           |
|              |                        | associations                 |
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| Training     | Advocacy skills        | CSOs, CSO coalitions,        |
|              | training               | pub-private                  |
|              |                        |                              |
|              | Training in media,     | CSOs, media production       |
|              | public outreach        | companies                    |
|              |                        |                              |
|              | Training in research,  | CSOs, think tanks, polling   |
|              | generating information | firms                        |
|              |                        |                              |
|              | Legal advocacy         | Advocacy CSOs, pro bono      |
|              | training               | clinics, law schools,        |
|              |                        | lawyers associations         |
|              | Lobbying skills        |                              |
|              | training               | CSOs, professional           |
|              |                        | associations, union          |
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| Technical    | Commodities            | CSOs                         |
| Assistance   |                        |                              |
|              | Study tours            | CSOs, public activists       |
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| F            | Workshops              | CSO coalitions,              |
| acilitation/ |                        | public-private initiatives   |
| Sponsorship  | Public hearings        |                              |
|              |                        | CSOs, media, parliament,     |
|              |                        | local government             |
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------------+
| Public       | Media campaigns        | CSO, CSO coalitions, media   |
| Education    |                        | production company,          |
|              | Brochures, pamphlets   | journalists                  |
|              |                        |                              |
|              |                        | CSOs, coalitions, publishing |
|              |                        | houses                       |
+--------------+------------------------+------------------------------+

**V. PROGRAMMING ISSUES**

Supporting civic advocacy under a DG strategy can raise difficult issues
for the DG officer and the mission. Unlike DG programs that support
government institutions, advocacy programs are sometimes considered more
risky because, by their very nature, they challenge the status quo and
ruffle feathers by demanding progress on the reform agenda. But, as
previous sections of this handbook have demonstrated, vibrant civic
advocacy is an important, if not essential, part of democratic
development. Although advocacy programs raise specific challenges, the
DG officer can almost always find the appropriate means for supporting
civic advocacy in a given country-specific context.

Part A of this section addresses in a Q &A format some of the design
considerations unique to advocacy programs. Part B, adapted from
*Constituencies for Reform: Strategic Approaches to Donor-supported
Civic Advocacy Programs*, offers some recommendations for donors
concerning support for civil society and civic advocacy programs.

**A. Design Considerations**

###### 

***How can CSOs and donors distinguish between "political" issues and
"partisan" issues?***

Because it engages policy-making systems, advocacy by its very nature is
political. Donors and CSOs should recognize this fact, in the same way
that virtually all democracy-building efforts are political in that they
seek to promote reform of the political system.[^11]

The more difficult distinction to make is between political and partisan
issues.[^12] The fact that advocacy may be political does not mean it is
always partisan. Furthermore, even when an advocacy campaign shares a
common or similar agenda with a partisan platform, it isn't necessarily
partisan. For example, an opposition party may advocate rooting out
government corruption, but it is possible for a donor-supported advocacy
CSO to advocate the same objective while remaining non-partisan.

Donors and CSOs do need to be careful of non-partisan agendas being
seized by partisan groups. For example, an opposition political party
may try to be affiliated with or take control of a CSO advocacy campaign
to reduce corruption that has gained public and donor support.
Sometimes, having an issue viewed as partisan can be advantageous to a
CSO if it helps them gain credibility and legitimacy by having their
issues adopted by a political party. On the other hand, CSOs promoting a
partisan agenda may lose public and donor support due to the loss of
autonomy, real or perceived, that results from association with
political parties. Even worse, a CSO could be exploited by a political
party that doesn't truly share the same agenda. Using the same example
of an anti-corruption advocacy campaign, an opposition party might
endorse or co-opt a non-partisan campaign because it helps discredit the
government, but do nothing to actually support the effort to reduce or
stamp out corruption, thereby undermining the advocacy campaign. For
these reasons, CSOs may or may not want to forge links with political
parties.

In sum, it is important for donors and CSOs to note the distinction
between partisan and political issues, but it is not necessary for them
to automatically avoid advocacy issues that also happen to be partisan,
as long as the advocacy efforts themselves are non-partisan. Making the
distinction between political and partisan issues can help donors
justify support for advocacy agendas regardless of whether they coincide
with the agenda(s) of political parties. There is no rule of thumb, of
course, and prudence should dictate in each situation.

***When is it appropriate to support adversarial advocacy versus
negotiated advocacy?***

As described in Section II, there are two basic types of advocacy
approaches. **Adversarial advocacy** employs actions that express
opposition and dissent to decision-makers, whereas **negotiated
advocacy** emphasizes consensus-building, compromise and conflict
management while working cooperatively with decision-makers. Although
the two approaches are quite different, they can be used in tandem, and
adversarial advocacy can be an excellent prelude to negotiated advocacy.

Depending on a host of variables specific not only to each country, but
also to each advocacy issue, a DG strategy may include either approach,
or a combination of both. In situations where there is little political
will, an adversarial approach may often be necessary. Such an approach
can be counterproductive, however, if authorities take repressive
measures against the advocates, possibly stifling other initiatives in
the process. A negotiated approach may be more productive when there is
more political will for involving citizens in public policy, but it may
also be more appropriate when political will is lacking and civil
society is easily ignored or intimidated by authorities. When supporting
negotiated advocacy, USAID's primary role may be that of facilitator;
giving credibility and voice to CSOs and citizens that would be ignored
if not for USAID giving them a seat at a table with government
officials.

Whether a CSO chooses to undertake negotiated or adversarial advocacy
should almost certainly be at its own discretion, and not that of a
donor. The main issue for the DG officer is to realize that, in some
cases, supporting CSOs that undertake adversarial advocacy may put them
in a dangerous situation\-- possibly a situation brought about as a
result of over-confidence due to USAID support.

***What are the implications of supporting advocacy campaigns led by
well-known, high-profile, or "charismatic" individuals?***

The advantages and disadvantages of high profile individuals in advocacy
will vary from campaign to campaign and issue to issue. A charismatic
leader may bring needed attention and credibility to a campaign. But an
advocacy campaign too closely associated with one individual brings
risks, such as alienating potential coalition partners, providing a
target for opponents to discredit the campaign, and discouraging
internal democratic practices within the CSO or coalition. The following
chart highlights some of the advantages and disadvantages of charismatic
leadership that donors and CSOs should keep in mind.

**Advantages and Disadvantages of Charismatic Leadership**

  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
  Advantages                         Disadvantages

  Provides leadership                Personalizes a campaign

  Gives credibility to a campaign    Leader becomes target of attack by
                                     campaign opponents

  Gives publicity to a campaign      Can damage credibility of a campaign

  Helps raise resources for a        Can cause division amongst campaign
  campaign                           allies

  Helps to mobilize support for a    Judgment calls personalized
  campaign                           

  Can be more decisive               Can lead to crisis of accountability
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------

From: *SANGOCO Advocacy Training Manual*, SANGOCO South Africa, 1998/99.

***How can CSOs overcome widespread public apathy and sentiments that
politics is corrupt, elitist, and irrelevant to people's lives?***

In pre-transition and transition societies, advocacy must start with
exploring people's perceptions of politics and power. Many CSOs in Asia
and Latin America use popular education techniques, including those
developed by Paolo Freire, to make people realize the relevancy of
politics to their lives and overcome feelings of powerlessness. This is
a crucial pre-requisite as it addresses cultural barriers to citizen
involvement in advocacy.

**B. Recommendations for Donors**[^13]

This section provides a set of broader recommendations on how donors,
including USAID, might enhance their contributions to democratic
transitions through the medium of civil society advocacy. The material
is drawn from *Constituencies for Reform: Strategic Approaches to
Donor-supported Civic Advocacy Programs*.

-   **DG officers need to chart and follow a disciplined approach to
    ensure that investments in civil society do not lose their focus on
    and relevance to the reform process**.

There is a risk that investments in civil society will be dissipated
over a wide range of activities that may yield minimal results. To avoid
this pitfall, support for civil society should be viewed less as an end
itself and more as a means for advancing a strategic reform agenda
toward greater democratic governance. Investment strategies for civil
society should aim at attaining structural reforms within the polity.
Then they should be calibrated and sequenced tactically in accordance
with the transition process under way within a particular country.

-   **DG officers must be prepared to exercise considerable leverage
    when supporting CSOs engaged in foster­ing democratic transitions in
    the pre‑ and early transition phases**.

During the pre‑ and early transition phases, CSOs are often not strong
enough to advance the reform process alone. In such situations the added
weight of donor coordination in using conditionality to pressure for
political liberalization may well be critical. It also may be critical
to the survival of activist organizations, which in the pre‑ and early
transition phases can be operating in a high‑risk environment in which
they are vulnerable to government attack.

-   **DG officers need to devote significant attention to building a
    favorable policy environment for the growth of civil society,
    particularly with respect to expanding in‑country funding sources
    for this sector.**

Most CSOs depend in great part, if not entirely, on outside donor
financing. Thus there is a need for strategies to promote more financial
independence and sustain­ability. Creating an in‑country enabling
environment for individu­al and corporate contributions to public
interest organizations by changing tax laws is one such strate­gy.
Another, one that USAID has helped pioneer, is providing funds to
establish host country endowments and founda­tions.

-   **DG officers need to be aware of potential trade‑offs in countries
    undergoing political transitions while also engaging in fundamental
    economic reforms in the move from statist to free‑market
    economies.**

Many countries are undergoing economic and political reform
simultaneously, although at different speeds. In these situations donors
need to calculate whether pressing vigorously for reforms in one area
could undermine commitment to making progress in the other.

When a ruling coalition demonstrates genuine commitment to painful
economic reforms, it may be more appropriate to complement this effort
by supporting CSOs that can help champion and consolidate these reforms,
even if such an approach may delay addressing more systemic political
reforms.

**VII. PERFORMANCE INFORMATION**

Performance information, which includes both performance monitoring and
evaluative data, is an essential tool for effective management of USAID
programs. While the terms "performance monitoring" and "evaluation" are
often used together, they differ in important ways, particularly in the
USAID context.

***Performance monitoring*** systems track and alert management as to
whether actual results are being achieved as planned. They are built
around a hierarchy of objectives logically linking USAID activities and
resources to intermediate results and strategic objectives through
cause-and-effect relationships. For each objective, one or more
indicators are selected to measure performance against explicit targets
(planned results to be achieved by specific dates). Performance
monitoring is an ongoing, routine effort requiring data gathering,
analysis, and reporting on results at periodic intervals.

***Evaluations*** are systematic analytical efforts that are planned and
conducted in response to specific management questions about performance
of USAID-funded development assistance programs or activities. Unlike
performance monitoring, which is ongoing, evaluations are
occasional---conducted when needed. Evaluations often focus on why
results are or are not being achieved. They may also address issues such
as relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, or sustainability.
Often, evaluations provide management with lessons and recommendations
for adjustments in program strategies or activities.

Because it is more relevant to the every day program management
responsibilities of the DG officer, this section will focus on
performance monitoring. Including a performance monitoring plan in the
early stages of program design will ease program management and
reporting responsibilities down the road.

Several USAID publications detail Agency guidelines and procedures for
performance monitoring, its relationship to results reporting, and
recommended procedures. Chief among these are G/DG's *Handbook of
Democracy and Governance Program Indicators* and CDIE's TIPS series.
Please refer to these resources for more detailed information on DG
performance monitoring and evaluation information.

###### A. Advocacy Performance Monitoring

######### Long-term performance measurement

History abounds with examples that systemic change (institutional,
constitutional, policy, legislative, behavioral and attitudinal change)
takes time---often generations. Those at the forefront of democratic
change are required to build incrementally on small victories, learn
from previous mistakes, and adapt to changing contexts.

Some attempts at performance monitoring place too much emphasis on
output indicators such as number of newsletters printed, workshops
conducted, meetings held, etc. This short-term outcome-oriented approach
overlooks important gains related to more subtle, long-term progress,
including:

-   **Relationship-building** between NGOs and government, between NGOs
    and donor agencies, and among NGO leaders. Relationship building
    refers to cultivating allies as well as engaging opponents.

-   **Skill and leadership development** of NGO staff. This includes
    professional skills in research, budget analysis, media relations,
    management and accounting. Leadership development fosters
    'enlightened leadership,' or leadership that is participatory,
    democratic, people-centered, cooperative, caring, transparent, and
    accountable.

-   **Organizational and institutional development** of NGOs. This
    refers to sound organizational structures for NGOs (boards of
    directors, permanent staff, developing internal mechanisms of
    accountability and transparency) and creating strong institutions
    that promote democracy and good governance.

-   **Citizen empowerment**. This is a crucial element of social justice
    advocacy, and involves channeling powerlessness into empowerment by
    tapping into the "social capital" of constituents and their
    communities, and allowing them to develop their own solutions.

###### *Levels of Change*

In measuring performance, it is also important to realize that change
takes place on different levels. Advocacy efforts should be gauged by
each of these levels in order to assess their full impact:

-   **Macro level** changes refer to changes in policy and legislation
    at the national level.

-   **Meso level** changes refer to changes in policy and legislation at
    the sub-national level, or to institutional changes, such as
    creation of formal mechanisms to facilitate citizen involvement in
    public policy formation, and change in media coverage of advocacy
    CSOs and their issues.

-   **Micro level** changes refer to changes at the level of the
    community, organization, and individual, such as strengthened
    capacity of advocacy CSOs, development of grassroots activism and
    increased citizen participation in advocacy movements.

###### *Measuring Protective Advocacy*

Advocacy may lead to changes that are protective as well as pro-active.
**Pro-active advocacy** produces a change, such as amended legislation
or new public policies, that are almost always quantifiable.
**Protective advocacy**, on the other hand, refers to maintaining the
status quo and "protecting" rights from being eroded. Protective
advocacy is more difficult to measure because it doesn't involve change
even though it may require a tremendous amount of organizing and
advocacy.

This creates a real, but not insurmountable, challenge in terms of
performance measurement. For the DG officer, it simply means designing
indicators that factor in the possibility of protective advocacy
outcomes. The sample CSO advocacy index in Table 2, for example, can be
used to measure both protective and pro-active advocacy progress.

**B. Performance Indicators**

Successful performance monitoring and evaluation require clearly
articulated results

against which performance will be assessed.

In their performance monitoring plans, USAID

Missions must define in detail the performance

measures they will track to monitor their strategic objectives and
intermediate results, together with information on the source, method,
and schedule of data collection.

Good indicators of results are timely and relevant and can be measured
with quality data at reasonable cost. They also are understandable to
the program stakeholders who will use the performance information in
decision-making or program assessment. As such, they must fit a specific
objective, program, and country setting.

Useful and effective performance measures are

Objective, to ensure that they are interpreted the same way by different
people. The most important criterion is that there is effective demand
for the information.

Appendix A offers three tables with information to assist the DG officer
with performance measurement. **Table 1** lists sample indicators for
measuring the progress of broad aspects of an advocacy program. The
indicators are categorized by key aspects of advocacy: the **enabling
environment** for advocacy, strengthened **CSO capacity**, improved
**CSO advocacy**, and increased **citizen participation** in the policy
process. The categories and indicators are illustrative, and offered as
a starting point for designing performance measurement indicators
appropriate to the context of your country and advocacy program.

**Table 2** describes a sample CSO Advocacy Index for measuring the
progress of specific advocacy CSOs. An index is a tool for quantitative
analysis of largely subjective assessments, and can be a useful type of
indicator. An index is typically a combination of information gathered
from scales, or a rating device that presents a range of options, such
as on a scale from 1 to 5. See Appendix C of the G/DG *Handbook of
Democracy and Governance Program Indicators* for more information on
developing and using scales and indices.

**Table 3** presents a tool for measuring performance on a continuum.
This table is useful for measuring the progress of CSO implementation of
the seven advocacy tools outlined in Section II of this handbook.

**Appendix A Table 1**

**SAMPLE INDICATORS**

**Sectoral Advocacy Performance Measurement**

1.  **Strengthened Enabling Environment**

[1.A. Indicators that Measure Agitation for Legal and Regulatory Reform
to Enable Advocacy]{.underline}

-   Number of target CSOs advocating for legal and regulatory reform

-   Number of advocacy initiatives carried out by CSO coalitions for
    legal reform

[1. B. Indicators that Measure Openness of Public Institutions to CSO
Involvement in the Policy Process]{.underline}

-   New mechanisms established by government to allow CSO involvement in
    policy process

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Frequency of use of new mechanisms, for a set of target issues

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   CSO perception of the willingness of government institutions to
    engage in dialogue with them

-   Courts uphold rights of CSOs and citizens to be involved in policy
    process

[1. C. Indicators that Measure Free Flow of Information that Enables
Advocacy]{.underline}

Plural Array of Independent Sources of Information Encouraged

-   Freedom of Information ...

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Percentage or number of target CSOs that say they can obtain needed
    information from key public agencies

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of non-governmental news sources

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of target CSOs publishing bulletins

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of (a) telephones, (b) fax machines, (c) e-mail subscribers
    per capita for given level of GNP

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of hours of minority language programming on radio/TV, (b)
    number of minority language print periodicals

2.  **Strengthened CSO Capacity/Sustainability**

[2. A. Indicators that Measure CSO Management Systems]{.underline}

-   Number of target CSOs with strategic plans being implemented

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of target CSOs that have monitoring and evaluation systems
    and collect/use resulting data

[2. B. Indicators that Measure Financial Resource
Management]{.underline}

-   Number of target CSOs with improved financial accounting practices

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of target CSOs with (a) increased number of successful
    income-producing activities, or (b) increased income from existing
    income-generating activities

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of target CSOs with increased number of individual
    contributions and institutional donations

3.  **Improved CSO Advocacy**

[3. A. Indicators that Measure Effective CSO Advocacy]{.underline}

-   Number of target CSOs showing improvement on the advocacy index or
    reaching a certain level of expertise on the index

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of CSOs from target group undertaking advocacy activities for
    the first time

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Public policies changed consistent with CSO advocacy

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Number of target CSOs active in advocacy coalitions

4.  **Increased Citizen Participation in the Policy Process**

[4. A. Indicators that Measure Opportunities for Public Participation
Increased]{.underline}

-   Number of well publicized policy meetings open to citizens and
    citizen groups (parliamentary, executive, or local government)

-   Number of meetings of joint policy commissions between the executive
    branch and representatives of the for-profit and/or not-for-profit
    private sectors on selected policies

-   Percentage of local governments holding more than x town meetings in
    the last year with more than Y people attending

[4. B. Indicators that Measure Mechanisms for Participation]{.underline}

-   Total number or average number of people attending town meetings
    organized by local government

-   Number of meetings of joint citizen-local council commissions/boards

[4. C. Indicators that Measure Political Participation of Groups
Representing Marginalized Constituencies]{.underline}

-   Number of groups representing marginalized constituencies trying to
    affect government policy or conducting oversight

-   Percentage of mainstream CSO leadership positions held by
    marginalized groups

[4. D. Indicators that Measure Citizen Participation in the Policy
Process and Oversight of Public Institutions]{.underline}

-   Percentage of public knowledgeable about or aware of an issue

-   Number of targeted issues which are receiving heightened public
    attention

While not comprehensive, the list illustrates the kind of measures that
can be used to assess impact. The sampling is drawn from existing USAID
projects, experience of the authors, and the *Handbook of Democracy and
Governance Program Indicator*s, which provides a wealth of sample
indicators with annotations regarding their applicability, data
collection methods, and other interpretive ideas. (See ordering
information back inside cover.)

USAID program managers can use these sample indicators as a starting
point for establishing a performance monitoring and evaluation system
specific to the host country and to a given DG program.

**Appendix A: Table 2**

**Sample CSO Advocacy Index**

This sample CSO Advocacy Index is taken from Appendix C of the *Handbook
of Democracy and Governance Program Indicator*s. Before using this index
or adapting it for your own use, you should refer to that handbook for
important guidance on methodology for using indices, such as how to form
the rating panel, standardize rating systems, compile scores, etc.

This index is intended to measure the progress of advocacy CSOs pursuing
one or more advocacy issues. Each of the seven index components should
be rated on a scale, such as the following 5-point scale:

1 2 3 4 5

> None; Very little Moderate; Extensive; Very
>
> capacity Reasonable Capacity strong capacity

Items bulleted under each component are provided to help
illustrate/explain the component, and are not intended to be scored
individually. Not all elements are likely to be relevant to every
situation. The total score needs to be accompanied by a narrative
explaining progress or strengths and weaknesses.

+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| * |                                                                  |
| * |                                                                  |
| C |                                                                  |
| o |                                                                  |
| m |                                                                  |
| p |                                                                  |
| o |                                                                  |
| n |                                                                  |
| e |                                                                  |
| n |                                                                  |
| t |                                                                  |
| s |                                                                  |
| o |                                                                  |
| f |                                                                  |
| t |                                                                  |
| h |                                                                  |
| e |                                                                  |
| C |                                                                  |
| S |                                                                  |
| O |                                                                  |
| A |                                                                  |
| d |                                                                  |
| v |                                                                  |
| o |                                                                  |
| c |                                                                  |
| a |                                                                  |
| c |                                                                  |
| y |                                                                  |
| I |                                                                  |
| n |                                                                  |
| d |                                                                  |
| e |                                                                  |
| x |                                                                  |
| : |                                                                  |
| * |                                                                  |
| * |                                                                  |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| S |                                                                  |
| c |                                                                  |
| o |                                                                  |
| r |                                                                  |
| e |                                                                  |
| : |                                                                  |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   | **1)** **Issue is timely and significant**                       |
|   |                                                                  |
|   | > \- Issue is of vital concern to the group's constituents       |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Issue is critically important to the current or future      |
|   | > well-being of the CSO and/or its clients, but its importance   |
|   | > is not yet broadly understood                                  |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- New opportunities for effective action exist                |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- At least a few key decision makers are receptive to the     |
|   | > issue                                                          |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   | ### 2) CSO collects information and input about the issue        |
|   |                                                                  |
|   | > \- Relevant government agencies and their respective roles in  |
|   | > the issue are identified at national and local levels;         |
|   | > knowledge and positions investigated                           |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- General public input is solicited (including from women and |
|   | > minorities) on the issue via public meetings, focus groups,    |
|   | > etc.                                                           |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Representative input is collected on the issue via surveys  |
|   | > (including from women and minorities, where appropriate)       |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Existing information and data on the issue is collected,    |
|   | > such as for summaries or positions papers                      |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Policy analyses, such as the legal, political, social       |
|   | > justice, or health aspects of the issue, are conducted         |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   | **3) CSO formulates a viable policy position on the issue**      |
|   |                                                                  |
|   | > \- Policy formulation done in participatory (and               |
|   | > gender-sensitive) manner                                       |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Policy being advocated exists in writing, with formats and  |
|   | > levels of detail that are appropriate for various audiences    |
|   | > and policy makers                                              |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Policy position is clearly and convincingly articulated     |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Rationale for policy is coherent, persuasive, and uses      |
|   | > information collected in component 2                           |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Presentation of policy position uses attractive and         |
|   | > effective formats, such as graphs                              |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   | **4) CSO obtains and/or allocates resources (especially time and |
|   | money) for advocacy on the issue**                               |
|   |                                                                  |
|   | > \- Contributions collected from members, interested citizens,  |
|   | > and/or from other organizations (businesses, foundations,      |
|   | > religious groups, etc.)                                        |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Financial or other resources assigned to the issue from     |
|   | > within the CSO                                                 |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Volunteer time to help advocate for the issue obtained and  |
|   | > well managed                                                   |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- International agencies with interests in the issue area     |
|   | > identified, and their procedures for applying for financial    |
|   | > support determined                                             |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- (Other resources?)                                          |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   | **5) CSO builds coalitions and networks to obtain cooperative    |
|   | efforts for joint action on the issu**e                          |
|   |                                                                  |
|   | > \- Other groups and individuals with interests concerning the  |
|   | > issue identified or persuaded to take an interest (may include |
|   | > govt. organizations which share concerns)                      |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Coalition formed (defined as any type of joint working      |
|   | > group)                                                         |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- An existing or new coalition or network activated, such as  |
|   | > by having informal contacts, joint meetings, identifying       |
|   | > common interests, sharing resources, etc.                      |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Joint or coordinated actions planned (see #6 and #7 below,  |
|   | > for carrying out the actions)                                  |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   | **6) CSO takes actions to influence policy or other aspects of   |
|   | the issue**                                                      |
|   |                                                                  |
|   | > \- News releases generated or public meetings held             |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Members/citizens encouraged to take appropriate actions,    |
|   | > such as writing letters to legislators                         |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Active lobbying conducted for the policy position, such as  |
|   | > by testifying in hearings, personal visits to legislators,     |
|   | > etc.                                                           |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Model legislation drafted and circulated to legislators     |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Policy relevant position papers and recommendations         |
|   | > disseminated, based on the input collected and coalition's     |
|   | > joint interests                                                |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   | **7) CSO takes follow up actions, after a policy decision is     |
|   | made, to foster implementation and/or to maintain public         |
|   | interest**                                                       |
|   |                                                                  |
|   | > \- Monitoring the implementation of a newly passed law, policy |
|   | > or court decision, such as by making sure that authorized      |
|   | > government funds are disbursed or implementing regulations     |
|   | > written and disseminated, checking implementation in field     |
|   | > sites, asking members for feedback on how well it is working,  |
|   | > etc.                                                           |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- Some staff or volunteer time and resources are allocated to |
|   | > the issue or policy for monitoring                             |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- \[If desired policy was not passed\] At least a minimal     |
|   | > level of advocacy methods maintained to take advantage of next |
|   | > opportunity for pressing the issue, perhaps with a             |
|   | > reformulated approach or different specifics                   |
|   | >                                                                |
|   | > \- \[If desired policy was not passed\] Public awareness and   |
|   | > interest in issue monitored, to look for examples, incidents,  |
|   | > opportunities to create or renew a sense of urgency on the     |
|   | > issue                                                          |
+---+------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Appendix A Table 3**

**Measuring the Progress of CSO Implementation of Advocacy Tools**[^14]

The information in this table is based on the *Advocacy Issue Life
Cycle* developed by the Advocacy Institute, and is a useful means for
viewing the progress of advocacy CSOs on a continuum. The measurements
below are not indicators as written, but are meant as a tool for
tracking progress or as the basis for developing indicators.

###### Using Media

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Low**               | **Moderate**          | **High**              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Little (if any) media | Some media coverage   | Regular media         |
| coverage of advocacy  | of advocacy issues or | coverage of advocacy  |
| issues or campaigns.  | campaigns.            | issues and campaigns. |
|                       |                       |                       |
| CSOs view mainstream  | CSOs view mainstream  | Media advocacy and    |
| media as an obstacle  | media as a tool, but  | communications        |
| rather than a         | lack sophisticated    | strategy integrated   |
| resource              | media advocacy skills | into all aspects of   |
|                       | and communications    | CSO activity          |
| Few (if any)          | strategy              |                       |
| relationships between |                       | Established           |
| CSO leaders and       | Beginnings of         | relationships between |
| journalists           | relationships and     | journalists and       |
|                       | networks between CSO  | advocates             |
|                       | leaders and           |                       |
|                       | journalists           |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Coalition Building

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Low**![](medi       | **Moderate**          | **High**              |
| a/image2.wmf){width=" |                       |                       |
| 0.9993055555555556in" |                       |                       |
| height="0             |                       |                       |
| .9145833333333333in"} |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Few (if any)          | Some coalitions, but  | Successful coalition  |
| coalitions,           | marked by competition | campaigns, including  |
| especially those that | and turf battles      | multi-ethnic,         |
| are multi-ethnic,     | among CSOs            | multi-linguistic CSOs |
| multi-linguistic, and |                       |                       |
| multi-issue           | Some opportunities    | Information and       |
|                       | for                   | resource sharing and  |
| Few (if any)          | cross-fertilization   | networking among CSO  |
| opportunities for     | and networking, but   | sector                |
| cross-fertilization   | unwillingness of      |                       |
| and networking        | organizations to      |                       |
|                       | share resources and   |                       |
|                       | information           |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Using Information

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Low**               | **Moderate**          | **High**              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Few (if any) CSOs     | Some CSOs beginning   | Establishment of      |
| generate new          | to develop capacity   | indigenous            |
| information or use    | to use existing       | intermediary CSOs     |
| existing information  | information and       | that conduct capacity |
| effectively           | generate new          | building as it        |
|                       | information           | related to research,  |
| CSOs do not view      |                       | information, and      |
| information culture   | CSOs view information | creating knowledge    |
| as source of strength | culture as source of  |                       |
|                       | strength              | CSOs use information  |
| Few CSOs have         |                       | culture in            |
| technology to access  | Some CSOs have        | organizing,           |
| information from the  | technology to access  | mobilizing,           |
| Internet              | information from the  | networking, and       |
|                       | Internet              | communicating with    |
|                       |                       | policy makers         |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       |                       | Majority of CSOs have |
|                       |                       | technology and use it |
|                       |                       | to access information |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Budget Analysis

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Low**                 **Moderate**            **High**

  Few (if any) CSOs       Some CSOs engaged in    Establishment of
  engaged in budget       budget analysis         indigenous intermediary
  analysis                                        CSOs that offer budget
                                                  analysis training and
                                                  workshops and produce
                                                  books and guides on
                                                  budget analysis
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

**Lobbying**

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Low**               | **Moderate**          | **High**              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Policy/legislative    | CSOs and citizens     | National and local    |
| process closed to     | occasionally are      | governments regularly |
| public.               | invited to public     | hold public hearings  |
|                       | hearings.             | that are open to the  |
| Government            |                       | public.               |
| institutions and      | Government            |                       |
| officials rarely      | institutions and      | CSOs have full-time   |
| acknowledge or engage | officials             | liaisons with         |
| public-policy and     | occasionally engage   | government            |
| advocacy CSOs.        | CSOs on public-policy | institutions and have |
|                       | matters.              | regular access to     |
|                       |                       | government officials. |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Utilizing the Legal System

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Low**                 **Moderate**            **High**

  CSOs/citizens rarely if CSOs/citizens begin to  CSOs/citizens
  ever use courts in      use courts in advocacy  occasionally use courts
  advocacy campaigns.     campaigns, but without  in advocacy campaigns
                          much success.           with some success.
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Grassroots Organizing

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Low**               | **Moderate**          | **High**              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Grassroots community  | Grassroots leaders    | Grassroots leaders    |
| leaders emerge and    | organize around       | are successful in     |
| begin organizing      | common community      | advocacy for change   |
| local residents,      | problems and          |                       |
|                       | solutions to those    | Grassroots leaders    |
| Grassroots community  | problems.             | develop analysis      |
| leaders organize      |                       | about long-term       |
| discussion and        | Grassroots community  | change, and work      |
| analysis of common    | leaders build         | towards nurturing a   |
| community problems.   | organizations that    | second generation of  |
|                       | harness the skills of | grassroots leaders.   |
|                       | local residents and   |                       |
|                       | improve citizen's     |                       |
|                       | lives in tangible     |                       |
|                       | ways.                 |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Strategy Planning & Organizational Development

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Low**               | **Moderate**          | **High**              |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| CSOs lack clearly     | Beginnings of         | CSOs are              |
| defined missions,     | professionalism but   | characterized by high |
| financial and         | need for advocacy     | level of              |
| accounting            | training and skill    | professionalism in    |
| organizational        | development in        | management, volunteer |
| structures, and       | management,           | recruitment and       |
| message development   | accounting, and       | training, accounting, |
| skills to communicate | leadership.           | leadership, etc.      |
| their messages        |                       |                       |
| effectively.          | CSOs have a permanent | CSOs use shared       |
|                       | staff, Board of       | leadership model.     |
| Individual CSOs often | Directors, and        |                       |
| operate as a          | leadership of         | CSOs consistently use |
| "one-person" show.    | organization involves | strategic planning to |
|                       | more than one person. | guide and evaluate    |
| Little (if any) use   |                       | organized actions.    |
| strategic planning to | CSOs use strategic    |                       |
| guide organized       | planning but not      |                       |
| actions.              | consistently.         |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**APPENDIX B: Examples of Advocacy Activities**

**Utilizing the Media**

Creating networks between CSO leaders and journalists is an important
component in facilitating both media advocacy and media strengthening
advocacy. The following example illustrates how CSO leaders can engage
journalists and encourage coverage of third sector issues.

> [Educating Journalists]{.underline}
>
> Gabrielle Watson
>
> *The following is excerpted from a case study on Ecuador for the
> Advocacy Institute- Oxfam America Advocacy Learning Initiative.*
>
> In Ecuador, groups involved in a campaign against Texaco told the
> "unofficial" story of oil contamination by organizing tours for
> journalists, legislators, and members of the military. In contrast to
> "eco-tours" organized by the state oil company, these "toxi-tours"
> showed the very real pollution that Texaco and the state oil company
> had not cleaned up.
>
> The tours were attractive to journalists for a number of reasons.
> First, they were able to speak directly to people affected by the
> population and the leaders of their popular organizations. Second, by
> accompanying the legislators and military personnel, the journalists
> were able to get quotes for their articles from these high-ranking
> decision makers and "experts."
>
> The "toxi-tour" strategy had another benefit: it allowed the local
> people's organizations to build credibility in the media's eyes. Over
> time, journalists started going straight to these leaders for quotes
> and information.

Cartoons, puppets, and similar techniques have proven effective in
communicating shared and universal values among younger generations in
countries torn by ethnic or civil strife. Cartoons characters and
puppets that promote tolerance and understanding help educate a new
generation of social actors and break the cycle of hatred and
intolerance that is passed on from one generation to the next. They are
effective because they are not viewed as "political" or subversive even
though the content may encourage substantial changes in political
consciousness. The following story illustrates how puppets can be used
to change political consciousness.

> [Puppets for Peace]{.underline}
>
> Matthew Kalman
>
> *The following is excerpted from an article that appeared in Canada's
> national newspaper,* The Globe and Mail*, Tuesday, December 14, 1999.*
>
> Haneen is a Palestinian puppet who appears on the Arabic version of
> Sesame Street- *Shara'a Simsim*. Haneen's friend Dafi is a puppet on
> the Israeli version of Sesame Street- *Rehov Sumsum. Shara'a
> Simsim/Rehov Sumsum* was born five years ago after the 1993 Oslo Peace
> Agreement was signed. The New York-based Children's Television
> Workshop (CTW) was created to encourage co-existence between two
> peoples inching towards a peaceful resolution of a bitter conflict.
> Gary Knell, president of CTW, says, "\[the series\] is designed to
> teach mutual respect among Israelis, Palestinians, and Palestinian
> Israelis.
>
> The show has won praise by citizens and politicians alike. Yuli Tamir,
> an Israeli cabinet minister, notes that "many children grow up in
> Israel without ever having a Palestinian friend. If through watching
> the program, they can see a Palestinian as a potential friend, that's
> a great achievement."

Using parody has also proven to be effective in media advocacy. The case
studies illustrate the effectiveness of using such techniques. Using
parody can create or broaden public space used to criticize/oppose
government policies. Parody can also decrease the risk associated with
adversarial advocacy.

####### Breaking Through a Culture of Silence

> Moco McCaulay
>
> *The following is an excerpt from an interview with Kenneth Best, a
> journalist, who started an independent newspaper in Liberia and in The
> Gambia. The article appeared in* ChangeExchange*, a publication of the
> Advocacy Institute, Vol. 1, Issue 4, February 1999.*
>
> The most powerful constraint \[to press freedom\] was "the culture of
> silence". Information only circulated through word of mouth, when
> people gathered together to drink attaya (a traditional tea).
>
> The government-owned radio station and other small newspapers didn't
> delve into day-to-day issues and the most sensitive information-
> political and social- was left completely taboo.
>
> During the military dictatorship in Liberia in the 1980s, there was a
> lot that you could not dare to say without getting shutdown or
> imprisoned. Someone suggested the paper carry the interesting sayings
> people were always uttering. So our artist drew an owl with a
> graduate's cap and we published the quotations in small box beside it.
>
> We used sayings from ordinary folks on the streets. Or, we would think
> of a succinct saying to crystallize the most important themes of the
> paper.
>
> It was a popular and powerful column. We used it to say things
> indirectly. The people began to understand this, and would gather and
> argue about what Dr. Owl was saying. It brought intrigue to people's
> minds, and confusion and often consternation to the government.
>
> People eventually began to rely on Dr. Owl for saying what could not
> be spoken about except in a philosophical, proverbial, or hush hush
> way. In a situation where people are not used to talking, Dr. Owl has
> a cultural impact despite the serious constraints.

**Using Information**

> *Contributed by Rana Nishat Jahan, 1995 Advocacy Institute Bangladesh
> Fellow.*
>
> In Bangladesh, the Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE) conducted a
> survey to count the number of school-age children in a selected area,
> and to identify reasons why students drop out. The survey not only
> revealed the main causes of low attendance, but was also a successful
> way to organize the community.

**Analyzing Budgets**

> *The following is a case story written by the Director of Patheya, an
> Indian organization for budget analysis started by Developing
> Initiatives for Social and Human Action (DISHA).*
>
> [Budget Analysis: A Powerful Tool for Social Activists]{.underline}
>
> M.D. Mistry
>
> Developing Initiatives for Social and Human Action (DISHA) recognized
> the value in budget analysis while lobbying the government to raise
> the wages for Tendu leaf-plucker tribal women. We realized that unless
> we had information on the money spent by the national and state
> governments, it would be difficult to fairly represent the issues of
> tribal development. Eventually, this realization forced us to learn
> how to analyze the state budget. Reaction, debate, and studies on the
> national and state budgets are traditionally the domain of academics
> and researchers. However, budget analysis can be a powerful tool for
> grassroots groups to use in negotiation or confrontation with the
> government.
>
> **[Getting Started]{.underline}**
>
> Our first task was getting a copy of the budget. We got it from the
> elected representatives when it was tabled. First, we had to classify
> the data. Next, we had to understand the government's accounting
> system. It took some time to build our self-confidence and create a
> foolproof system. Finally, we published our analysis, *Injustices to
> the Tribals*. Because ours was the first attempt by any public group
> to disseminate such an analysis, we decided to emphasize how poor
> people are left out of the budget policies, and how these policies
> adversely affect the poor. We also used the budget figures
> extensively, showing that we had discovered 172 mathematical errors in
> the 22 budget documents. We decided to prepare brief notes -- six
> pages long for government ministers and bureaucrats, the press,
> academic institutions, and voluntary agencies.
>
> **[Reactions to Our Budget Analysis]{.underline}**
>
> *Injustices to the Tribals* created a great deal of interest. The
> newspaper reported our finding that the government made errors in
> totaling the figures. This created a very embarrassing situation for
> the finance minister. The opposition parties took full advantage of
> our notes to press their own cause. Before each day's budget
> discussion, we prepared more notes and handed them out to assembly
> members. Many of them became addicted to our notes. They were eager to
> receive them as early as possible to help them formulate their own
> arguments to create pressure on the government. Every member in the
> state assembly found our notes useful in a number of ways:
>
> Our notes -- prepared in the local language and with the elected
> members' educational backgrounds in mind -- shaped the budget
> discussions in the assembly.
>
> Government officials became more alert to questions raised in the
> assembly. For the first time, the issues of the poor were discussed,
> questions were answered, and the debate became precise.
>
> Budget discussion became sharper and more factual, forcing the
> ministers to reply to the facts and making the government officials
> work.
>
> Our organization's name became familiar in the "corridors of power."
> Our access to officials, ministers, elected representatives, and the
> press became easier.
>
> Our notes became so popular that a number of Members of the
> Legislative Assembly (MLAs) asked us to conduct budget analysis
> training programs for them.
>
> **[Lessons Learned]{.underline}**
>
> Our analysis shifted the balance of power. In general, NGOs and
> voluntary agencies have rarely addressed the whole field of
> "governance." Until recently, their role had been limited to receiving
> either "finance" or "information" from the government. By doing a
> budget analysis, the group acts as a partner in formulating the
> budget, and pushes the state to collect information and provide it to
> the people. The budget is prepared by a very small group of people in
> the bureaucracy. In order to maintain their monopoly, they don't want
> others to know its intricacies. Knowing the process of making the
> budget documents breaks this monopoly. NGOs must know the process. The
> more one knows about the finance of the state, the more one becomes
> confident and powerful. Using factual information to discuss the
> issues of tribal development sharpened our arguments. The budget
> analysis also widened our vision, and gave us ways to pick up certain
> issues and focus on them. Budget analysis does have its limitations.
> We can't find the answers to all the actions of the state by analyzing
> its budget. Nonetheless, this process can certainly help us understand
> most of the issues that people are facing.

**Lobbying Decision-makers**

This case story illustrates the importance of civic education; i.e.,
disseminating legal information about rights to citizens. Civic
education is an important component of any public interest law reform
campaign.

> **[Tolerance Foundation's Equal Rights Project]{.underline}**
>
> Ina Zoon
>
> *Excerpted from: Vol. I of Symposium on Public Interest Law in Eastern
> Europe and Russia. Durban, South Africa June 29- July 8,1997.*
>
> The aim of the Tolerance Foundation's Equal Rights Project was to
> amend the Czech citizenship law to alleviate the hardship of the clean
> criminal record requirement, make it easier to apply for permanent
> residence, reduce the administrative feeds, and improve the
> regulations concerning children.

#### Role of Information

> The human rights community was not yet in a position to ask for
> dialogue with government officials because they did not have enough
> documented cases to build up a serious argument. The first step in our
> advocacy strategy was to gather information.
>
> **Fact finding missions**, conducted by a network of Roma and non-Roma
> human rights activists, were carried out in five different cities. In
> 10 months, the project documented approximately 1,000 cases.
>
> **Publication of report** "The Effect of the Citizenship Law on the
> Czech Republic's Roma Community." Later, a second, more in-depth
> report was published.
>
> **Networking with international allies**. The report was distributed
> at the Human Dimension seminar on Roma in Warsaw. Five members of the
> Project's staff used the opportunity to network with international
> actors, and it worked. At a conference in Hungary, the Organization
> for the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) High Commissioner on
> National Minorities urged the Czech government to considered the
> "negative impact of such legislation." Similar concerns were expressed
> by the US and European delegation and other NGOs.
>
> The Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic did not have a
> history of accepting dialogue with human rights groups. However, after
> fact finding missions documented the extent and nature of the problem
> and international criticism was being directed at the Czech Executive,
> for the first time officials of the Ministry of the Interior agreed to
> meet NGO representatives and to discuss some of their findings and
> arguments.
>
> **[Mistakes made and lessons learned]{.underline}**
>
> The project focused on decision makers from the executive branch and
> did not pay enough attention to President Havel. President Havel, who
> is admired by a large international community, is considered in his
> country as the highest moral authority. Havel is a widely recognized
> advocate of human rights and could have been persuaded, at the very
> least, not to publicly say the law is not discriminatory. (In one
> particular case, President Havel publicly stated that the Roma were
> subject to individual acts of racism, not state-sponsored racism.) The
> statement of President Havel was later used by the Executive to
> justify maintaining the law as is. The fact that the President had no
> decisional power is no justification for not trying to prevent a
> statement, which obviously damaged the campaign.
>
> **[Conclusions]{.underline}**
>
> Many of the problems created by the citizenship law were alleviated.
> The standard of proof for permanent residency was liberalized and the
> clean criminal record requirement was modified. However, many problems
> still persist. Even today, four years and three amendments later,
> thousands of Roma are still undocumented. Despite significant
> legislative change, only a small number of Roma are able to take
> advantage of the law as few Roma know of these new developments.
> Information on permanent resident permits has not appeared on national
> television, local radios and newspaper, or Roma publications.
>
> **[Campaign to Increase Agricultural Wages]{.underline}**
>
> Ulka Mahajan
>
> In Maharashtra state, India, the government had not increased wages
> for five years. To protest government apathy, the agricultural
> laborers' unions mobilized people from all over the state for a huge
> rally. The delegation went to the minister's office with their
> demands. The minister, busy in the state legislative session, refused
> to meet with them.
>
> After this experience, we made an effort to understand the state's
> legislative procedures and methods. We used two legislative tools:
>
> **Calling an "attention motion"** about an issue of urgent public
> importance. We created this urgency by initiating several simultaneous
> events -- picketing, a hunger strike, demonstrations -- at the local
> and state level. The media covered the events and the issue was taken
> up in the legislature. We learned how to draft the motion ourselves to
> make sure the core of the issue would be addressed.
>
> **Using question hour to call attention to an issue.** Before the
> question hour, we spoke with the leader of the opposition and
> different party leaders. We convinced them of the issue's importance
> and the issue was discussed.
>
> Within the next two years, we managed to get the issue discussed
> thoroughly and consistently on the legislative floor. We also managed
> to make it a sizable issue for the opposition, which had neglected it
> for years.
>
> As a result of our consistent efforts, wages for agricultural laborers
> were increased in 1994. However, the wage increase was inadequate.
> This gave us another opportunity to intervene. We investigated, and
> found out that we could challenge the inadequate wage increase by
> submitting petitions to the Minimum Wage Advisory Board. Seventeen
> unions of laborers submitted their objections in well-drafted,
> informed memoranda. For the first time in the state, the agricultural
> laborers recorded their say with the Advisory Board and, moreover,
> were well received. The wages were increased again in 1997, this time
> as a major cabinet decision.

**Organizing and Mobilizing the Grassroots**

### Donor Case Story 

> [Global Fund for Women's Innovative Approach to
> Grantmaking]{.underline}
>
> The Global Fund for Women (hereafter referred to GFW) was created in
> 1987 to provide grants to grassroots women's organizations all over
> the world. GFW is based upon a vision of mutual trust and respect and
> a belief that women within their own cultures know best what the most
> important problems may be and the best ways to address them. Since
> 1989, GFW has developed effective mechanisms to give away grant money
> with as little administrative hassle as possible.
>
> *Lessons Learned About Grassroots Grantmaking:*
>
> **Unrestricted (general and flexible support) grants are crucial** for
> organizations, particularly in their start-up phase.
>
> **Even after initial start-up, unrestricted (general and flexible)
> support is extremely important for organizational and program
> development**. Support for organizational development is crucial in
> enabling fledgling organizations to progress from being the ambition
> of a few dedicated founders to becoming an organization with a larger
> staff and structures capable of supporting growing program activities.
> Support for program development allows organizations to take advantage
> of opportunities as they present themselves.
>
> **Minimizing bureaucratic requirements in grantmaking results in more
> time for action**. Most small NGOs feel choked by the reporting
> demands of donors.
>
> **Support and facilitate networking and sharing** among women's NGOs
> within countries and internationally.

**APPENDIX C: Sources, Types, and Methods of Gathering Information**

**APPENDIX D: Lobbying Tips**

Tips for Engaging in Lobbying

-   Treat opponents respectfully and courteously, avoid demonizing
    opponents. Remember the adage- no permanent friends, no permanent
    enemies

-   Plan relations and encounters with opponents carefully to avoid
    cooptation or divulging too much information

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Monitor opponents' actions over time

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assess and rank opponents' power

-   Assess and rank the potential danger opponents may pose, looking
    closely at whether they are willing to use violence

-   Do not engage opponents if they are un-persuadable or likely to use
    violence

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Make the best of rivalries or potential differences among opponents,
    using the divide and rule conquer principle

> ***a. Assessing the representation of legislative bodies***

Representation is a critical element of democracy. The extent to which a
legislative body (i.e., Congress, Parliament, National Assemblies, State
Assemblies, municipal councils, water, health, and sanitation
authorities, etc.) represents the needs and aspirations of the citizenry
will determine the kinds funding interventions appropriate for promoting
increased representation. The following questions allow USAID DG
officers to assess the representation of a legislative body.

*Does the legislative body promote a two-way flow of information?* Do
legislators, their staff, and their publications explain the how
decisions are made to citizens? Are public records of legislative
actions available? Does the legislative body solicit public opinion
(through hearings, polls, etc.)? Do members have district or local
offices or do they have incentives to establish such offices?

*How open and accountable is the legislative body to citizens and the
media?* Can citizens and reporters visit for plenary and committee
sessions when legislation is drafted? Do reporters and editors have
access to and understand processes and functions?

*Do committees hold public hearings*? What is the process of submitting
testimony? Are meeting notices published? Are meeting places accessible?

*Are political parties open to public input*? Do political parties
encourage and permit public input to determine party platforms and
policy proposals?

*Do organized interest groups effectively interact with the legislative
body*? Are CSOs able to fulfill their roles as advocates and watchdogs?
Do organized groups have equal access to the legislative body?

> ***b. Strategic mapping***

Strategic mapping involves identifying the stakeholders and developing
strategies to reach them. There are three rough groupings of people or
"stakeholders":

-   Those affected by the issue

-   Those with the power and authority to make decisions about the issue

-   Others (e.g., media, businesses, funders, international movements,
    international bodies)

CSOs with limited resources (i.e., time, people, and money) need to
focus on the stakeholders who will help or hurt the issue the most. To
prioritize stakeholders in each rough grouping, answer these three
questions:

-   Who has an interest or a "stake" in how the issue is resolved?

-   How important is each stakeholder to the issue? What is their level
    of support or opposition?

-   What can you find out about each stakeholder?

*Who has an interest or a "stake" in how the issue is resolved*? Be as
specific as you can in naming each stakeholder.

-   Who is affected by the issue?

-   Who are your allies? Think about individuals and groups.

-   Who can give you what you want? Which decision makers have the power
    and authority? Think about each branch and level of government, or
    other decision making structures (such as corporations or community
    leaders).

-   Who influences these decision makers?

-   Whose support do you need?

Justice advocacy efforts seek to shift the balance of power.

-   Who will benefit from the change you want?

-   Who may lose power, or feel threatened by the change you want?

To use limited resources wisely, also think about stakeholders within
the NGO sector.

-   Do other groups working on the issue complement your efforts? Can
    you work together to avoid overlap?

-   Are other groups competing with you for resources and recognition?

*For each stakeholder, what is their level of support or opposition? How
important is each stakeholder to the issue?*

Place each stakeholder into one of these categories:

-   Strong support

-   Moderate support

-   Strong opposition

Moderate opposition

Think About:

What is the stakeholder's stated position on the issue?

-   Why does this stakeholder support or oppose the issue?

Specific instances of support or opposition? e.g., What is their voting
record?

Rank each stakeholder from 1 (not important) to 10 (very important).

Plot each stakeholder on a graph based on their importance and level of
support or opposition. Stakeholders from all three groupings will fall
into one of five categories:

**Strong Supporters.** Your strongest and most important supporters.

**Passive/Silent Supporters.** Your silent supporters who are important
to the issue.

**Moderates.** Those who are important to the issue but are not engaged.
Moderates are sometimes opportunistic opponents or supporters who may be
convinced by one or more aspects of your arguments.

**Soft-liners.** Your silent opponents who are important to the issue
and will probably not take action until you are perceived as a direct
threat.

**Hard-liners.** Those who are important to the issue and can hurt the
issue the most. These hard-core opponents usually stand to lose
something, either tangibly or morally.

**APPENDIX E: References**

Advocacy Institute, *Blowing Away the Smoke: A Series of Advanced Media
Advocacy Advisories for Tobacco Control Advocates,* September 1998.

Advocacy Resource Directory. Oxfam America. Advocacy Learning
Initiative. Volume 4. Publication in 2000[^15].

Asia Foundation and the Center for Legislative Development.
*Perspectives on Advocacy, Participation, and Social Change: Report of
the Asia-Pacific Regional Advocacy Training of Trainers.* Quezon City,
Philippines, 1997.

Cohen, David. "Reflections on Advocacy." *Advocacy Learning Initiative*.
Volume 1. Advocacy Institute-Oxfam America. Publication in 2000[^16].

De la Vega, Rosa. "Advocacy Skills." *Advocacy Learning Initiative*.
Volume 2. Advocacy Institute-Oxfam America. Publication in 2000[^17].

Falk, Stefan and Isaac Shapiro. *A Guide to Budget Work. A Systematic
Overview of the Different Aspects of Effective Budget Analysis.* The
International Budget Project of the Center for Budget Policies and
Priorities. Washington, D.C.: 1999.

Fox, Leslie M. and Priya Helweg. *Advocacy Strategies for Civil Society:
A Conceptual Framework and Practitioner's Guide*. Unpublished paper
prepared for The Center for Democracy and Governance. Washington, D.C.:
USAID 1997.

Fund for Peace with The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of
Human Rights. *Human Rights Institution Building: A Handbook on
Establishing and Sustaining Human Rights Organization.* New York: 1994.

Inayatullah, Dr. C. *Development and Application of Results-Based
Monitoring and Evaluation System: Experience of UNDP Pakistan*. New
York: UNDP 1999.

Kalman, Matthew. "Puppets for Peace," *Globe and Mail,* Tuesday,
December 14, 1999.

McCaulay, Moco. "Breaking Through a Culture of Silence,"
*ChangeExchange* Vol. 1, Issue 4. Advocacy Institute: February 1999.

Miller, Valerie and Jane Covey. *The Advocacy Sourcebook: Frameworks for
Planning, Action, and Reflection.* Washington, D.C.: Institute for
Development Research.

Miller, Valerie. "Evaluating Advocacy Impact" in *NGO and Grassroots
Policy Influence: What is success*. Institute for Development Research
1994.

Mousalli, Ahmad. "Democracy, Pluralism, and Human Rights in Islam."
Lecture at Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, D.C. February 3, 2000.

Rawls, Amanda C. "Media-Advocacy Relationships: The View From the Other
Side," *ChangeExchange* Vol. 1, Issue 6. Advocacy Institute: October
1999.

Roach, Chris. "Impact Assessment in Advocacy" in *Impact Assessment:
Seeing the Wood and the Trees*. Novib/Oxfam GB.

Samuel, John. "Public Advocacy in the Indian Context," in
*Straight-Talk*, July 1999.

SANGOCO, *Advocacy Training Manual,* SANGOCO, South Africa: 1998/99.

United Nations Development Program. *Evaluation Findings 1994*. New
York: UNDP.

United National Development Program. *Result-oriented Monitoring and
Evaluation*. New York: UNDP.

United National Development Program. *Annual Report of the Administrator
for 1998.* New York: UNDP.

USAID. *Technical Appendix C: Democracy.* Center for Democracy and
Governance.

USAID. *1998 NGO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and
the New Independent States.* Center for Democracy and Governance Second
Edition, 1998.

Van Tuijl, Peter. *Social Watch: Development an Evaluation*. New York:
Social Watch 1999.

Wallack, Lawrence, Lori Dorfman, David Jernigan, and Makani Themba.
*Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention.* Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications, 1993.

Watson, Gabrielle. "Advocacy Case Stories." *Advocacy Learning
Initiative.* Vol. 3. Advocacy Institute-Oxfam America. Publication in
2000.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. *Grassroots Community Leadership: A Guide for
Funders.* Written for Kellogg Foundation by Jeanne Campbell and edited
by Tom Adams. Saint Paul, MN, 1998.

W.K.Kellogg Foundation. *Lessons Learned About Grassroots Community
Leadership: An Analysis of the Kellogg Foundation's Grassroots Community
Leadership Initiative.* Written for Kellogg Foundation by Campbell and
Associates. Saint Paul, MN, 1997.

**Additional Advocacy Resources**

A joint project of Oxfam America and the Advocacy Institute, the
Advocacy Learning Initiative (ALI) captures learning of front-line
advocates around the world to create training and reflection materials
for policy advocacy by grassroots activists and non-governmental
organizations. Supported by the Ford Foundation and the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Advocacy Learning Initiative is a
four-part comprehensive advocacy resource guide to deepen understandings
about advocacy, civil society, and democracy, and provide concrete tools
for engaging in policy advocacy work. The four volumes described more
fully below are Volume I: Reflections on Advocacy; Volume II: Advocacy
Skills Building; Volume III: Comparative Advocacy Case Studies; and
Volume IV: Advocacy Resource Directory.

Unlike other advocacy training materials, the Advocacy Learning
Initiative provides comprehensive advocacy resources, from tools to
reflect on diverse and innovative advocacy experiences, develop and
refine strategic advocacy planning skills, and access advocacy capacity
building resources available around the world. Written in
straightforward, non-academic language, the texts are structured to be
adaptable to multiple social, cultural, and political contexts.

**Description of Advocacy Learning Initiative Products**

**Volume I, Reflections on Advocacy**, written by David Cohen of the
Advocacy Institute draws on experiences from South Asia, Southern
Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, and the U.S. Presented in three
parts, it includes a working definition and characteristics of advocacy;
lessons about the nature of change, public problem solving processes,
and sustaining individuals, organizations, and social change movements;
and analyses the factors affecting the modern context for advocacy --
democratization, decentralization, economic liberalization, and
globalization.

**Volume II, Advocacy Skills Building,** written by Rosa de la Vega of
the Advocacy Institute, draws on the Advocacy Institute's capacity
building curriculum to present a framework for helping readers analyze
their own political, social, and cultural contexts in order to develop
advocacy strategies. Discussing core advocacy skills: collaboration,
using information and research, message development, and message
delivery, Volume II presents worksheets, examples, and brief essays to
help guide users through their own advocacy strategy development
process.

**Volume III, Advocacy Case Studies,** a collaborative research project
by Gabrielle Watson of Oxfam America and six case researchers in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, and the U.S., presents in-depth comparative
analysis of six advocacy experiences. The cases, from Guatemala,
Ecuador, Mozambique, Senegal, Cambodia, and the US South, represent a
range of issues: from gender violence to industrial pollution, political
contexts: from authoritarian regimes to consolidated democracies, and
targets: from the very local to the international. Describing the
approaches to advocacy crafted for each specific case, and asking what
worked, and why, these cases will demystify notions of advocacy and
provide concrete examples and inspiration for groups newly engaging in
advocacy efforts.

**Volume IV, Advocacy Resource Directory,** compiled by Oxfam America,
is a collection of 475 organizational profiles and advocacy resources
from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Western Europe,
North America, and the Middle East. Organizations work in one or more of
the following areas: advocacy capacity building, funding, NGO
networking, and policy analysis and research. In addition, the Directory
contains information on published advocacy training materials,
directories and catalogues, training and degree programs, and Internet
resources.

All four volumes will be published and commercially available around
November 2000. In addition, the Advocacy Learning Initiative will
translate the materials from English into French, Portuguese, and
Spanish. For more information about the Advocacy Learning Initiative,
contact Gabrielle Watson at Oxfam America, 26 West Street, Boston, MA
02111, telephone (617) 728-2481, fax (617) 728-2562, e-mail
<gwatson@oxfamamerica.org>.

**[Important Points]{.underline}**

-   Advocacy may be adversarial or negotiated. **Adversarial advocacy**
    uses actions that express opposition, protest and dissent.
    **Negotiated advocacy** engages stakeholders with decision-makers,
    and emphasizes consensus-building, negotiation and conflict
    management.

-   The most common advocates in a USAID program are **civil society
    organizations (CSOs)**, but other advocates that could be included
    in a USAID program include **businesses, professional and trade
    associations, and grass roots movements.** Furthermore, advocates
    are only one set of actors involved in advocacy. Other important
    advocacy actors that might be targets of assistance, direct or
    indirect, include **journalists, media, lawyers, judges, government
    officials, and local or national state bodies**.

-   While pure **advocacy CSOs**, such as human rights groups, may be
    easy to identify by their activities, many NGOs whose primary
    purpose is not advocacy may in fact be extremely effective
    advocates. For example, a **social service CSO** whose primary
    purpose is to provide shelter to homeless children might also be an
    effective advocate of children's rights through occasional or less
    visible secondary activities. The same is true for professional
    associations. For example, a farmers' association formed to
    disseminate information on farming techniques might also have a
    secondary purpose to advocate for farmers' rights. Similarly, a
    lawyers association formed to provide legal education to its members
    may also have a secondary purpose of advocating for judicial reform.

-   Because negotiated advocacy invlives engagement between advocates
    and decision makers, a USAID-funded advocacy program should not rule
    out working with government institutions and officials.

-   

[^1]: Chief among these is USAID/PPC/CDIE's *Constituencies for Reform*.
    The current handbook relied extensively on the CDIE publication in
    its development. Particular credit is given to select sections in
    this handbook that were borrowed directly from *Constituencies for
    Reform*, but credit must also be given to its influence over the
    rest of this publication.

[^2]: USAID is grateful to the following organizations for their
    participation in a \[DATE??\] roundtable discussion on advocacy that
    helped inform this guide: Advocacy Institute, Global Women in
    Politics Program/The Asia Foundation, CEDPA, Women\'s Edge, and
    World Learning.

[^3]: The Policy Project, [Networking for Policy Change: An Advocacy
    Training Manual]{.underline} USAID contract no. CCP-C-00-95-00023,
    October 1999.

[^4]: This model is based upon the "Nine Questions Model' developed by
    Jim Shultz, Director, Democracy Center (Advocacy Institute West),
    1995, but has been materially changed.

[^5]: The seven tools are based on a model provided by the Advocacy
    Institute.

[^6]: Lawrence Wallack, Lori Dorfman, David Jernigan, and Makani Themba,
    *Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention*, Newbury
    Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1993.

[^7]: Advocacy Institute-Oxfam American [Advocacy Learning
    Initiative]{.underline}, Publication in 2000.

[^8]: Some information in this section is borrowed from the Implementing
    Policy Change publication series, Technical Notes \# 7*, Developing
    Lobbying Capacity for Policy Reform*, March 1996.

[^9]: Some information in this section is borrowed from the Implementing
    Policy Change publication series, Technical Notes \# 7*, Developing
    Lobbying Capacity for Policy Reform*, March 1996.

[^10]: Programs such as Freedom House AVID, International Executive
    Service Corps (IESC), or the Peace Corps are possible sources of
    volunteers.

[^11]: The primary definition of "political" is: *Of, relating to, or
    dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or
    the state.* (Source: American Heritage Dictionary). "Political" is
    also sometimes used to mean "partisan", but in the context of this
    text,"political" only refers to the primary definition.

[^12]: Partisan is defined as: *1.Of, relating to, or characteristic of
    a partisan or partisans; 2.Devoted to or biased in support of a
    party, group, or cause: partisan politics.*

[^13]: This section has been excerpted from *Constituencies for Reform:
    Strategic Approaches for Donor-Supported Civic Advocacy Programs*
    with minor revision. (USAID Program and Operations Assessment Report
    No. 12. February 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Agency for International
    Development/Center for Development Information and Evaluation).

[^14]: All are developed by Farah Nazarali-Stranieri. Based on the
    Advocacy Life Cycle developed by Advocacy Institute Co-director
    David Cohen and a modification of sustainability indexes from the
    USAID *1998 NGO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe
    and the New Independent States.* Advocacy Institute, 2000.

[^15]: Ibid.

[^16]: For more information or to obtain a copy, please contact: The
    Advocacy Institute, Davis Building, 1629 K Street N.W., Suite #200,
    Washington, D.C. 20006, tel: (202) 777-7575, fax: (202) 777-7577.

[^17]: Ibid.