Evidence-based Advocacy

1. Evidence-based Advocacy Serghei Ostaf Brussels, 10 July 2008 for ILGA-Europe

2. Schedule • Session 1: What is Advocacy? Normative-based advocacy vs. evidence-based advocacy • Session 2: What is evidence? Policy-evidence vs. advocacy-evidence! • Session 3: Production of evidence • Session 4: Stages for advocacy based on evidence

3. Session 1: What is advocacy?

4. Case study 1 • 25% of population is an adolescent representing an ever-growing proportion of the population. Hospital treatment of teenagers for the consequences of unsafe abortion accounts for between 20 and 50 % of all such cases. Teens aged 15-19 years also constitute approximately 35 % of all reported HIV/AIDS cases in country. Still, the government prohibits the distribution of contraceptives to adolescents. • The Center for the Study of Adolescence (CSA) was established to conduct research on adolescent health issues and to advocate for policies that promote the well-being of young people. CSA encountered opposition to their advocacy efforts early on, but used this opposition to build a stronger and more creative force for adolsecent reproductive health. Religious organizations that had attended several conferences on adolsecent reproductive health in Kenya opposed CSA.s work. • They were so effective in their opposition to family life education in schools that the Ministry of Education threatened to eliminate the family life program from the curriculum. Against this backdrop, youth-serving organizations including CSA decided to develop a coalition to support adolescent reproductive health.

5. Case study 1 • In 2004, they established the Association for the Promotion of Adolescent Health (KAPAH), conducted advocacy trainings and developed an advocacy strategy. KAPAH developed and distributed fact sheets on adolescent reproductive health which helped to dispel myths and misinformation about adolescent reproductive health and programs such as family life education. KAPAH also worked closely with the press to educate the public about the true content of family life education programs and the extent of reproductive health problems facing country’s youth. • KAPAH paid the newspaper to print an overview of the family life education curriculum and explain the contentious issues. KAPAH.s media advocacy was so successful that they now regularly contribute views, opinions and advice to a column on adolescent health in newspaper . The column is sponsored by the Youth Initiative. KAPAH also reached out to the opposition and engaged them in consultations in order to understand their concerns and to find common ground. In addition, KAPAH met with individual policy makers and found that while these leaders supported adolescent health privately, it was difficult for some of them to take a public position on the subject. • The Association made an effort to support these decision makers both publicly and .behind the scenes. As a result, KAPAH developed better relationships with several ministries including the Ministry of Education. In fact, KAPAH successfully advocated for pregnant school girls to be allowed to stay in school while pregnant and to return to school after delivery.

6. Case study 1 • Now that you have read the case study, discuss how you would define advocacy. • Describe the advocacy strategies KAPAH used?

7. Advocacy-policy

8. What is Advocacy? • Advocacy is the pursuit of influencing outcomes – including public-policy and resource-allocation decisions within political, economic, and social systems and institutions – that directly affect people’s life.

9. … definitions of advocacy • Advocacy is an action directed at changing the policies, positions or programs of any type of institution. • Advocacy is speaking up, drawing a community’s attention to an important issue, and directing decision makers toward a solution. • Advocacy is working with other people and organizations to make a difference. • Advocacy is putting a problem on the agenda, providing a solution to that problem and building support for acting on both the problem and solution. • Advocacy can aim to change an organization internally or to alter an entire system. • Advocacy consists of different strategies aimed at influencing decision-making at the organizational, local, provincial, national and international levels. • Advocacy strategies can include lobbying, social marketing, information, education and communication, community organizing, or many other tactics. • Advocacy is the process of people participating in decision-making processes which affect their lives.

10. Advocacy dynamics • Stage 1 - identification of action issue, agenda setting. Unlimited problems, few get on the agenda. • Stage 2 - solution formulation. proposed solutions, selected one that is pol. econ. soc. feasible. • Stage 3 - building political will to act on problem, solution, centerpiece of advocacy, include coalition building, meeting with decision makers, awareness building and delivering effective messages. • Stage 4 - policy action, takes place when a problem is recognized, solution accepted and there is political will to act, all at the same time. “window of opportunity” to seize. • Stage 5 - evaluation, often not reached. Good advocates assess the effectiveness of their past efforts and set new goals based on their experience

11. Advocacy Planning

12. Normative based advocacy Use of norms, standards, legislation (national, CoE, EU) Evidence-based advocacy Evidence from quantitative data and information Evidence from qualitative data and information Types of advocacy

13. What is evidence? • Data - facts or representation of facts about situations, incl. statistics, capacities and else, • Information - datathat has meaning, arranged into logical or empirical categories (comparative, etc), • Evidence – information, affects beliefs of important people (icl. you) about significant features of the problem and how to solve it

14. What is evidence for? • Necessary to produce realistic projections of possible policy outcomes: • Assessing the nature and extend of the problem • Assess particular features of concrete policy • Assess policies that have been fought, worked successfully in situations similar to your own

15. Policies • Directions, programs selected by public authorities as a direct response of the problem(s); • Set of goals and proposals proposed by a political party; • Policies are expressed in regulations, laws, finances, institutions, concrete programs (but not laws only);

16. Policies: input-output • INPUT ----> POLICIES ----> OUTPUT • Perception regulation application • Organization distribution respect • Demand redistribution interpretation • Support capitalization evaluation • neglect ethic procedure legitimacy, • modification • adjusting

17. Political process – “public choice” • James Buchanan “public choice revolution” Nobel prize1986; • “public policies will create value added and benefit only if interests of political actors will be in accord with the effective and efficient use of resources” • Economic model of political process: Voter-consumer, politician -supplier;

18. Session -2 • What is evidence? Policy-evidence vs. advocacy-evidence! • Mapping constituencies of advocacy • Understanding what evidence is relevant • Methods to produce evidence

19. Mapping audience • One constructive way to separate audiences into groups is to identify primary and secondary audiences. • What is a primary audience? The primary audience includes decision makers with the authority to affect the outcome for your objective directly. These are the individuals who must actively approve the policy change. These decision makers are the primary targets of an advocacy strategy.

20. Mapping audience • What is a secondary audience? Individuals and groups that can influence the decision makers (or primary audience). They affect the opinions and actions of the decision makers. • May contain oppositional forces to your objective. Address them as part of your strategy.

21. Advocacy audience • Policy-makers I (legislative bodies) • Policy-makers II (ministerial bodies) • Policy-implementers (agencies, service delivers, regulators) • Political parties • Mass-media • Opposing parties • Judiciary

22. Advocacy audience preference for evidence • Based on slide above, what kind of evidence would actors prefer?

23. Role of policy community/network in shaping agenda • Actor interest: • Maximize resources • Additional control of resource • Interest dimensions: • Financial resources; • Political resources; • Human and technological resources • Bureaucracy resources;

25. Research method for audience • Observation This is the most common way to gather information about audiences cheaply and quickly. • Talk with people who are familiar with the group/individual; • Gossip: talk with other advocates and colleagues. This is especially helpful in learning what audiences really think about issues; their true opinion may be different from their .official. position; • Read speeches or other documents written by the key organizations or individuals; • Review the results of recent polls, surveys or focus groups; • Attend open meetings where the individual or group will be speaking or participating.

27. Audience belief, attitude

28. Audience belief, attitude

30. Role of policy community in agenda or policy shaping • a) Public policy community (Ministry, Department, Parliament, Agency, parties); • b) Administrative network (territorial agencies, representatives in the territory) • c) Opportunity groups (any of the above)

31. Policy agenda shaping • Actors: • President: most powerful, can change agenda • Staff of president: important in determining president opinion and alternatives. • Cabinet ministers, prime-minister: important to establish subject on the agenda • Civil servants: technically determine the alternatives, have expertise, link to interest groups, long live, • Parliament: ability to change agenda and alternatives • Staff of Parliament: contributes in shaping the alternatives

32. Public agenda shaping • Outside government: • Interest groups: various degree of influence on alternatives; • Type of business groups: business (important), professional (important), trade unions (important), • Academics, researches, consultants: impact on alternatives, can have impact on long-term perspective; • Media: report on achievements and failures • Public opinion: important only to some extent, affects to some extent institutional agenda and some alternatives;

33. Shaping policy agenda

34. Agenda setting

35. Session 3 • Production of evidence • Problem analysis • Problem analysis approaches • Research methods

36. Problems -- > Subjects -- > Advocacy Strategy Substantive problems Process problems Participatory (constituency based) problem definition Causes-problem effects Problem tree analysis Causes: economic, political, socio-cultural Advocacy problem definition

37. Identify the key factors first Access Finance Training Promoting inclusionof children withspecial needs inmainstream extendedservices Attitudes Transport Capacity

38. Analyse each of the key factors (main bones) in turn Access Finance Clarity offuture budgetprovisions Training Wheelchairaccess limited Need forspecial equipment& materials Reliance onvoluntaryagencies Unreliableestimates ofcosts Need totrain upmainstreamstaff Stairs limitaccess tofacilities High costs ofspecial medical& social support Promoting inclusionof children withspecial needs inmainstream extendedservices Limited No.of speciallyqualified staff Specialisttransport required Low awareness and toleranceamongmainstream Staff work-life balanceissues Dependent onexisting LAcontract Higher staff to pupil ratio Bullying Need toadjust traveltimes Attitudes Transport Capacity

39. Advocacy problem definition • SITUATION -> PROBLEM 1, (PROBLEM 2), (PROBLEM 3) • "deficit-excess", • "existenceof unfairness“, "discriminationunjustified", • “market failure", • “nonfunctioning of systems, processes"; • “failure of government to exercise obligations"; • absence of the system, • “factors that cause the problems also constitute a problem"; • “too much, many”, “too little”, “rapid growth”, “not working”, “bad”;

40. Quantitative evidence • Surveys assisted by operators • Surveys (self-completion questionnaires) not assisted by operators • Exit polls • Hypothesis, questions, answers

41. Evidence from qualitative research -1 • Interviewing and semi-structured interviewing, • Focus-groups (interview of group on a topic, experts, beneficiaries, etc), • Case study of a particular situation, phenomenon, occurrence (or a number of cases), • Discourse content analysis (politicians, experts, etc), • Review (meta-review) of secondary sources and information,

42. Evidence from qualitative research -2 • Analysis of information on budgets, finances (administrative, policy), • Institutional analysis (procedures, allocations), • Secondary analysis of statistics (regular, administrative, etc)

43. Case study 2 • Evaluation of LGBT mental health policy in Moldova • What research methods have been used in the paper? • What specific evidence you can find in the paper? • What are the conclusions, recommendations of the paper?

44. Session 4 • Stages for advocacy based on evidence

45. Evidence strategy • What evidence is needed and for whom? • Schedule evidence production process! • Evaluate internal and locate external resources!

46. Advocacy strategies (tactics) • Monitoring & reporting • Media awareness and public education • Policy lobby • Strategic litigation • Partnerships/constituency building • Empowerment • Nonviolent resistance

47. General Advocacy Strategy • Strategy approach • Offensive • Defensive • Driving Forces (what changes the whole situation) • Key Success Factors (KSF)

48. Advocacy SWOT analysis • Outward looking • Inward looking • Advocacy issue • SWOT analysis (force field)

49. Outward Looking Assessment • a.       political parties, who are they, orientation (relate to main stream definitions or doctrine orientation if possible, name leading individuals, get some facts about them), are there any international links?! – research what is their attitude towards LGBT • b.      What are important civil society groups (human rights, resource centres, media based, think tanks, youth, etc), specifically what is their attitude towards LGBT • c.       Type of democracy of your country – presidential based, parliamentary based, government led • d.      Mass-media actors – main papers, influence, links to parties or other groups, get facts of chief editors • e.       Are there specific human rights bodies – ombudsman, etc • f.        Assess the degree of awareness on human rights in the country and critical it is for the country • g.       Are there any polls on LGBT attitude from the population

50. Inward Assessment • a.       Describe experience of advocacy (types of strategies: media work, reporting, litigation, lobby, etc) • b.      Types of experts in the organization (legal, political science, journalist, human rights backgrounds) or links to experts outside • c.       Describe what organization does now (services, activities) • d. Describe Leadership capacity in the organization