Advocacy

Development Activities

We can define advocacy as being “ the process of influencing decision-makers to change public policies and practices in ways that will have a positive and lasting impact on the lives of men and women living in poverty.”

Advocacy is essentially about changing public policies and practices in ways that will have a positive impact on poor people’s lives. Oxfam uses the generic term "advocacy" to incorporate all of these methods. This might involve:

·         Advocating new policies and practices;

·         Advocating reform of existing policies and practices

·         Advocating the enforcement of existing policies and practices;

·         Advocating the elimination of current policies and practices.

·         Advocacy can take place at a variety of levels from local communities through to international institutions, and include a variety of methods including lobbying, media work, popular campaigning and changing public attitudes.

The terms "campaign" and "campaigning" are generally used to describe advocacy initiatives that involve either public or supporter mobilisation.

The term "lobbying" is used to refer to the direct advocacy work that Oxfam undertakes with decision-makers.

According to the Harvard Evaluation Exchange Periodical (Spring 2007), "Advocacy represents the strategies devised, actions taken, and solutions proposed to inform or influence local, state, or federal decision making. Advocacy strategies to inform or influence policy can include activities such as one-on-one meetings, testimony at hearings, community meetings or forums, coalition building, public education campaigns, street marches, media outreach, and electronic advocacy. Advocacy may be done by a range of individuals and groups, including professional advocates, community members, researchers, and policy analysts, and it may target different players in the policy process, including elected officials, government administrators, and the media. Advocacy can also be defined much more broadly, both in terms of the activities it encompasses and its desired goal. For example, advocacy’s goal might extend to achieving social justice— that is, fair treatment for all members of society—but socially just results may or may not include changes in public policy."

Some examples of  Advocacy Outcomes; Some examples of Advocacy Outcome Indicators 

Strengthening the advocacy component in the country programme for example in women’s rights and gender equity, water and sanitation and public health, etc. is an important quality requirement of programmes and projects.

Examples of Oxfam’s recent advocacy work include:

·         Lobbying members of the UN Security Council against scaling down the UN mission in DRC (MONUC) too early and leaving people vulnerable to organised violence;

·         Urging African and global leaders attending the AU Summit to take urgent action to stem the rising violence against civilians and aid workers in Darfur;

·         Successfully lobbying members of the UN’s General Assembly to support a proposal to begin work on an international Arms Trade Treaty;

·         Campaigning for Starbucks to recognise Ethiopia’s rights to trademark its most famous coffee names so that producers can capture a greater share of the value of their coffee;

·         Lobbying for reform of the US Farm Bill and EU Common Agricultural Policy as a means of reducing trade-distorting subsidies and breaking the deadlock in WTO trade talks;

·         Urging Novartis to drop its controversial court case against the Indian Government that challenges a section of the country’s patent law designed to allow the provision of cheap, generic drugs for poor patients who cannot afford patented medicines;

·         Promoting the We Can campaign in South Asia that aims to recruit five million "change-makers" to change attitudes and behaviours with respect to domestic violence;

·         Lobbying the G8 to live up to their promises on Universal Primary Education
 

II.         Why Do Advocacy?

The main benefit of advocacy work is its potential to maximise Oxfam’s impact on poverty.

While Oxfam can, and does, achieve significant change through its development and humanitarian work, its impact here is generally limited to the immediate beneficiaries of these programmes. Furthermore, such programmes often have to operate within the constraints imposed by national and international power structures, rather than challenging them.

By complementing its development and humanitarian work with advocacy, Oxfam is able to scale up its impact by tackling the underlying causes and consequences of poverty. If Oxfam is successful in advocating policy change at national or international level, its overall programme will benefit a much larger number of people and significantly increase Oxfam’s impact on poverty.

However, it is important to remember that Oxfam’s legitimacy in undertaking advocacy is primarily derived from its development and humanitarian work. Rather than seeing advocacy as either a stand-alone initiative or an optional add-on, Oxfam seeks to incorporate advocacy into its development and humanitarian work as part of a single, one-programme approach.

The associated benefits of advocacy are:

·         It can empower local staff, partners and communities to articulate their own demands of decision-makers, becoming advocates for their own development;

·         This in turn can strengthen civil society and increase the voice of those who are often excluded from the decision-making process;

·         It can strengthen programme work by ensuring that it is underpinned by sound analysis of the wider context - just as Oxfam’s advocacy is informed by its development and humanitarian programmes, so its programme work can be informed by its advocacy;

·         Where advocacy is successful, it effectively scales-up Oxfam’s impact on poverty so it represents a strategic use of Oxfam’s limited resources;

·         It increases Oxfam’s profile and this in turn helps to generate additional support from campaigners and donors alike for Oxfam’s overall mission; (controversial, I know, but it is true!)

·         It increases Oxfam’s credibility with and access to key decision-makers, and this further increases Oxfam’s ability to influence them.

However, engaging in advocacy also involves potential risks for Oxfam. The main risks associated with advocacy work are: 

·         The risks to staff, partner and programme security when Oxfam speaks out on controversial issues in difficult operating environments, such as those the organisation currently faces in Darfur and Zimbabwe. Oxfam International has developed a specific tool to help managers weigh up the benefits of speaking out versus maintaining its development or humanitarian programme - 

·         Reputation risk - advocacy is often a high-profile activity and if Oxfam gets it wrong, it does so very publicly, creating the potential for damage to the organisation’s reputation;

·         Relationship risks - engaging in high profile advocacy may also damage existing relationships, especially when allies, supporters or "on-side" decision-makers do not agree with the policy position that Oxfam has adopted on a particular issue;

·         Expectation risks - a high profile campaign can create unrealistic expectations on the part of supporters, partners and beneficiaries about the likelihood of rapid change - most change comes slowly, and expectations need to be carefully managed to avoid anger and disappointment.

·         Financial risks - where advocacy fails to achieve its goals, its impact on poverty is zero. NGOs are coming under greater scrutiny over the amount they invest in advocacy. Consistent monitoring and evaluation of advocacy work is vital to ensure that funds are not wasted on initiatives that are doomed to failure 

·         Risk to charitable status - Oxfam GB is a registered charity under English law and as such is subject to regulation by the Charity Commission. Oxfam GB must not be politically biased but in can engage in broadly political activities to achieve its aims, provided that these are directly linked to its charitable purpose (to work with others to overcome poverty and suffering) and are founded on "well-founded, reasoned argument". (possible link to relevant web page on campaigning and charity law).

III.        Selecting an Advocacy Issue

Context

When identifying and selecting an advocacy issue to work on, the first thing to remember is that you are not starting with a blank sheet: Oxfam is already engaged in a wide range of national and international advocacy initiatives, the majority which take place within the context of OI’s four priority campaigns – Make Trade Fair, Control Arms, Health and Education, and Climate Change. They enjoy the lion’s share of Oxfam’s advocacy resources.

If you identify an important national issue that falls outside these campaigns, it is perfectly legitimate to pursue this. However, you need to bear in mind the likelihood that you will need to resource the majority of this advocacy work yourselves, as central policy, media and campaigns resources are largely devoted to the priority campaigns.

If you select a national issue that fits within these international campaigns, you are much more likely to be able to draw on organisation-wide resources, although you advocacy on this issue will have to be developed within the context of Oxfam’s existing campaign.

Bearing the above points in mind, the following checklist can be used to help you select an issue to work on:

·         Checklist for choosing an advocacy issue

·         Success on this issue must result in positive impact on the lives of women and men living in poverty.

·         The issue should be both widely and deeply felt – something that many people feel passionately about, and agree with you on.

·         Linked to this, it should be an issue on which you are confident you can build powerful alliances, and, if necessary,  mobilise supporters.

·         It should be winnable, or at least partially winnable, and recognised as such, rather than being seen as a noble, but  lost cause.

·         It should have a clearly identified political or policy solution.

·         Both the problem and the solution should be easy to communicate in simple language.

·         It should have a clear target, and one that Oxfam is able to access - if the issue is not already on your target’s   agenda, you must be sure that you can put in on there.

·         Your campaign on this issue should have a clear timeframe, based on both external and internal factors.

·         The issue should be one that maximise the opportunities and minimises the potential risks of undertaking advocacy 

·         The issue should be linked to Oxfam’s programme experience and must be consistent with Oxfam’s vision, values and   charitable mandate.

IV.        Devising an Advocacy Strategy

An advocacy strategy is essentially a plan of work that brings together actions including lobbying, media and popular mobilisation, designed to achieve changes in policy and practice. The purpose of developing an advocacy strategy is to ensure that our plans are well thought through, commonly understood and adequately resourced before we begin advocacy work on a specific issue.

Developing an advocacy strategy involves addressing the following basic questions:

·         What is the problem?

·         What is the solution?

·         What changes are necessary to get us from one to the other?

·         What are the most effective ways of making that change happen ?

Guidelines for Content

Give the length of time the strategy covers, and the status of the document (ie draft, signed-off, OGB or OI etc.). Our strategies should be no more than 3 pages. Additional information should be attached as an Annex.

Standard Advocacy Strategy Format

• Title:
• Date:
• Duration of strategy:
• Status:

1. Problem. Give a brief (two paragraph) description of the problem we want to solve, always explaining:
   • how it affects men and women differently, and also considering other relevant factors (eg class, race, religious denomination);
   • why there is a problem;
   • what is currently preventing change. 
2. Overall Aim. Describing the solution to the problem will set out Oxfam’s overall aim - one to two sentences only.
3. Specific Objectives. Set out the specific changes we need to achieve as a contribution to realising the overall aim. You should have no more than four of these objectives and ensure that at least at least addresses the issue of gender justice. Try to keep objectives SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound)
4. Rationale for Oxfam engagement. State briefly the reasons for Oxfam’s engagement with this issue, and our added value.
5. Targets
   • Who makes they key decisions?
   • Who are the actors who have the power to solve the problem or achieve our objectives, and whom we therefore want to influence?
   • These may be government departments, international institutions or private companies.
   • List the key people within these institutions.
6. Power Analysis
   • What will influence the decision makers?
   • Undertaking a power analysis helps you to target the right actions, to the right people, at the right time, in order to secure change.
   • Summarise power analysis in three paragraphs or so, but provide a more detailed power analysis as an Annex, as this is a critical part of the strategy - it determines basic viability of strategy and informs detailed action-planning.
   • What is a power analysis ?
   • A power analysis enables you to develop:
   • a clear understanding of the political, social and economic environment in which you are operating;
   • an analysis of how change can be made to happen within that context;
   • clarity on the key individuals that you need to influence;
     tailor-made strategies on how best to influence them.

V.         Conducting a power analysis

Undertaking a power analysis helps you to target the right actions to the right people at the right time in order to secure change. It maximises the efficiency of your campaign by helping you get the most bangs for your bucks.

Three key recommendations:

Keep the power analysis light: don’t waste time on detailed analysis – it just needs to be good enough to direct your actions strategically;

Update the power analysis as necessary: no power-analysis is static – key actors change and so does the power-balance between them;

Identify champions, blockers and swingers: identify the competing forces within your power analysis - the champions who are on your side, the blockers who oppose you and the swingers who may be open to persuasion. Know what will strengthen the will of the champions, undermine the blockers and convince the swingers to come on board.

Checklist. Before you start work on your power analysis, make sure that you have:

• Lessons from previous power analyses or campaigns about what works and what doesn’t;
• Available data and analysis on which to base your work (including field evidence, academic research, political intelligence and media analysis);
• A clear and inclusive process for developing the power analysis that confronts different points of view, and includes policy experts (especially in phase one) plus lobbyists, media and campaigning staff (especially for phases two and three). 
• A means of checking information and verifying assumptions (rather than relying on one person’s point of view).

Phase 1. Defining your policy objectives

1. Define the policy change objective clearly. What do you want to change, why, and what impact will it have on poverty reduction and the lives of poor people?
2. How does it link to other objectives?
3. What needs to change in order to achieve this goal (what laws, policies, practices, markets or relationships?)
4. Is it an international, regional or national agreement or law, company or institutional practices or a mixture of these? Are all equally important to securing the objective?
5. If there are several elements, how are they related? Could one either paralyse progress or act as a catalyst for change?
6. What are the obstacles to change?
   • Intellectual – is it defying conventional wisdom or long-accepted truths? Is there a body of academic research going against this policy change ? Are there valid counter-arguments? Is there uncertainty about the nature/impact of the problem?
   • Political – are there negative side-effects linked to this policy change? Are there clear losers, are they organised, do they have political clout? Who would gain from the reform, who are their allies, what clout do they have? What credit/reward will politicians get if they act on this?
   • Financial  - what is the cost/benefit analysis of the policy change? If it costs money, who will pay, are funds available or can they be raised? What are the costs of inaction?
   • Practical – is the policy change feasible, under what conditions, are these achievable? How long will it take, is it compatible with poor people’s needs, are interim solutions required for their protection?
7. What are the political opportunities for change specifically related to this objective?
8. Are there any imperatives from reform eg renewal of international agreements, budgetary restrictions, establishment of panels etc?
9. Are there any existing reform processes that are relevant to this objective ? What is their timeframe and who is pushing for or against?
10. Are there any major events, meetings for a at which this is on the agenda? If not, who can get it on the agenda?
11. Are there new players (eg new government) that may lead to a change in direction?
12. Are there any champions of reform who can lead others?
13. What is window of opportunity for securing change eg parliamentary session, budgetary process, international reform process?

Phase 2. Defining your targets – who has the power to make change happen?

1. Who are the decision-makers and institutions that define the policies, practices and structures that need to change? At what level are key decisions made? (officials, advisers, Ministers, Head of State?) Who has access to them and influence over them? Who is consulted in the decision-making process? Who has formal and informal power within the process?
2. Amongst all of the targets, which individuals have a decisive influence (ie power to propose or oppose reform, or to shape proposals) and which are secondary/intermediate targets?
3. Of all of these targets, which ones are most accessible? Which are most sympathetic to Oxfam, or to the issue? Which are most negative (“lost causes”) and which are “swingers” – the undecided or persuadable? Who influences the people in this key group, who are often the principle target for our campaign?

Phase 3: Defining tools to influence your targets

• Putting the right kind of pressure on your target means knowing your target, and understanding what makes them tick.
• What is their background (professional, political, family, social interests)?
• Who are their key advisers, and who do they listen to informally?
• Who are their political allies and opponents?
• What are their personal priorities and goals, and how might these help or hinder us?
• What tactics have worked with them in the past?
• What might produce a counter-productive reaction?
• Which tools can best be adapted for a specific target? What is most likely to change their mind? (compelling research, lobbying, key advisers and trusted colleagues on whom s/he depends for political or policy judgement, positive/negative publicity? In what media outlet specifically?, Private or public criticism by foreign governments, renowned academics, journalists, politicians, parliamentarians, CEOs, religious leaders, international organisations (for instance, UN resolution)?, Joint call for action by a coalition of politically influential organisations (i.e. farmers, trade unions), Public outrage with mass demonstrations or mass e-mail or mail action?, Consumer purchases, share holders and banks?
• What sequencing and combination of tools is needed to maximise the likelihood of change with the least investment of Oxfam’s resources?
• What do you need in order to use these tools? (resources, research, marketing, alliances etc)
• Feasibility: Does Oxfam have these tools to hand? What is the cost/benefit analysis of these tools? Can other actors pick up on tools where we are not so well placed?
• Conclusion. Putting it all together

When you have finished the exercise, check back to ensure that the three phases fit together as coherent whole – where different teams have been involved, there could be a disjoined analysis;

Once you are satisfied with the power analysis, you need a clear process for feeding it into your strategy and workplan (rather than carrying on with business as usual regardless of the results);

Make sure that the objective you’ve been working on fits with an overall strategy, in which objectives are ranked according to their relevance to poverty reduction and their ease of implementation;

Build in monitoring and evaluation tools to check whether your strategy is working, and that you alter it if the problem, the opportunities or the targets change.

VI.        Lobbying

“I would have written a short letter, but I didn’t have time” Abraham Lincoln

Some aspects of written communications to decision-makes are culturally-specific – for example knowing and observing the correct protocol or the levels of deference expected. Nevertheless, there are some basic rules that are universally applicable. We know that all decision-makers are busy people and it is vital that we recognise this in our communications with them. The following guidelines are intended to help staff draft short, clear and appropriately worded lobbying letters.

• Is your letter really necessary? What do you want the decision-maker to do and is a formal letter the best means of achieving this? Would a quick phone call or email be better?
• Keep it short – letters should be kept to one-side of A4 maximum, other than in exceptional circumstances.
• Make it personal – pro-forma letters are a real turn-off, especially for people we know well – open with a line that is tailor-made to the individual eg a reflection on our last meeting with them or on something they have recently said/done – alternatively, leave space for the signatory to add opening or final sentences.
• Start on a positive note (whenever possible) - and give credit when it’s due.
• Then get straight to the point – decision-makers seldom need an extensive briefing on the situation on the ground from us  - do not patronise them by telling them what they already know!
• Stick to two or three key messages - numbering or bullet-pointing them for clarity.
• Be clear on the “asks” – what do we want the decision-maker to do and when by?
• Write in clear, simple language, making each of your points as succinctly as possible.
• Short background briefings can be enclosed when extra information is felt necessary, though it’s safe to assume that these are often not read.
• Finally, check for accuracy – especially correct spelling of names, titles, contact details and cc details.

VII.       Lobby Meetings

Tips for face-to-face lobbying meetings

• While writing letters, sending emails and telephoning lobbying targets can be effective, especially if you need to communicate urgently, nothing beats the opportunity of personal engagement with key decision-makers in terms of getting your message across.
• Advisers or officials usually handle indirect communications, whereas a face-to-face lobbying meeting allows you to engage directly with the decision-maker, and forces him/her to think about your issues.
• Good lobbying meetings involve genuine dialogue, rather than a ritual exchange of views, so you learn what your lobbying target actually thinks.
• Finally, this kind of personal contact is essential to building and maintaining relationships with lobbying targets.
• While the benefits of face-to-face meetings are significant, one word of caution: never mistake access for influence. The fact that a decision-maker is willing to meet you, perhaps quite often, does not necessarily mean that s/he agrees with you and will do as you ask.
• The following tips for running successful lobbying meetings are based on the shared experience of lobbyists across Oxfam:
• Confirm the timing and agree the agenda in advance – ideally in writing;
• Be absolutely clear about your objectives for the meeting and your key asks – know what you want the decision-maker to do;
• Know who will be accompanying the person you are meeting (civil servants, advisers, etc) – and if possible, have an informal chat with them in advance;
• Make sure they know who is accompanying you, and that where necessary, security have been given all of the relevant names;
• Think about numbers on both sides – the more people there are, the more formal – and often less useful – the meeting will become;
• Also consider the composition of your delegation taking into account skills and expertise, gender balance, diversity and seniority, ensuring an appropriate mix of these;
• Have a pre-meeting with colleagues in advance to allocate roles and responsibilities, including who is responsible for taking along and handing over any relevant materials;
• If it is an inter-agency meeting, make sure you all agree with each other, or at least agree not to advertise your differences in the meeting;
• Never be late, and allow sufficient time for security clearance before the meeting where this is necessary;
• Think about dress-code – while this is culturally-specific, the basic rule remains the same – sitting in a meeting where you are inappropriately dressed will make you feel uncomfortable, and might make the decision-maker take what you have to say less seriously;
• Agree who will lead the meeting for you and keep it to time, ensuring that they begin by thanking the decision-maker for his/her time, before moving to introductions and a re-cap on your agenda;
• Where possible, always have a note-taker and agree terms of the meeting in advance – on or off the record, confidential etc;
• Know your stuff but don’t be over-rehearsed – it’s meant to be a dialogue, not a monologue, and you need to listen and respond to what the decision-maker has to say – give him/her sufficient space to do this;
• Show respect for the other side’s point of view and try to build on common ground in the discussion in order to create win-win outcomes;
• Ensure that someone is allocated the task of summing up and agreeing next steps, and that they intervene to do this once the meeting is drawing to a close;
• After the meeting, have a de-briefing with your delegation;
• Always follow-up with a letter thanking him/her for the meeting, and noting points of agreement and next steps;
• Make sure that you follow-up on anything you agree to do, like sending further information.

Link to anecdotes from practioners

VIII.      Lobbying and Negotiation Skills

Lobbying is an art, not a science, and every successful lobbyist must develop an individual style that works for him or her, and may vary according to circumstance. There are, however, some basic rules that apply in all situations.

Remember that the most common mistakes are either to adopt an table-thumping, oppositional stance and lecture the decision-maker without listening to what s/he has to say, or to be overly deferential and conciliatory, agreeing with everything s/he says and failing to get your own points across. Don’t fall into either of these traps!

Basic ground rules:

• Think about targets as individuals, get to know what makes them tick, and tailor your arguments accordingly;
• Give them credit where it’s due – failure to do so is what many decision-makes dislike most about NGOs;
• Be clear about what you want to get out of the meeting, make sure you get your “big ask” across at the outset and keep it simple – long lists of demands are a real turn-off;
• Research their likely response, and prepare your counter-arguments accordingly 
• Use reasoned, evidence-based arguments to make your case rather than emotive, subjective language;
• Ask questions and make suggestions to engage them and build trust;
• Always listen, don’t interrupt, and show respect for the other person’s point of view, even when you disagree with it;
• Remember that proposition is generally more effective than opposition – where possible, look for common ground you can build on rather than focussing solely on areas of difference, and try to present win-win solutions;
• Don’t dominate the meeting yourself, but try not to allow your target to dominate it either – you’re aiming for a constructive dialogue, not a monologue by either side;
• Be sensitive to a change of mood on their part (agreement, anger, boredom) and change your tack accordingly;
• Know when to stop – learn to judge how far you can push a particular argument and when it’s time to move on;
• It is often appropriate to be assertive in lobbying meetings – it is never appropriate to be aggressive or insulting;
• Similarly, while it may be appropriate to attack bad policies, it is never appropriate to launch personalised attacks on decision-makers;
• If you are entering a genuine negotiation where both sides are expected to make compromises, be clear on your bottom lines, and on your authority to negotiate on behalf of the organisation;
• Test and summarise decisions at the end of the discussion so that both sides leave with the same impression of what has been agreed.

IX.                Working with Allies

Most of Oxfam’s major advocacy successes in recent years have been based on working closely with others who share Oxfam’s goals, for example: Jubilee 2000, The International Campaign to Ban Landmines. 

However there are clear pros and cons of engaging in joint advocacy work, whether as part of an informal network or on a formal coalition basis:

Pros

• Working with others increases the skills and resources invested in advocacy on the selected issue(s);
• It develops the skills and capacities of the least experienced individuals and organisations, and provides opportunities for mutual learning;
• It avoids duplication of effort, and is therefore valued by donors and targets alike;
• It reduces the risks associated with advocacy by providing the safety of numbers – often vital in sensitive situations;
• It enables us to build consensus before taking key messages to decision-makers, thereby presenting a united front;
• Weight of numbers adds authority to our message, making our case more compelling;
• Working with high-profile or unexpected allies (eg celebrities, businesses) can help us gain attention from and access to decision-makers, and increases our potential impact;
• It connects us to a wider group of like-minded people and communities, which is in itself a powerful force for change;
• Above all, experience demonstrates that working with others increases our chances of advocacy success.

Cons

• Negotiating common policy positions can require us to compromise our own views in order to maintain consensus, and sometimes results in the adoption of joint policies that represent the lowest common denominator;
• Working in coalition often requires Oxfam to subordinate its own organisational profile – despite making a significant contribution to joint initiatives;
• Coalitions are often dominated by their largest members – something Oxfam is frequently accused of;
• Conversely, members are sometimes guilty of free-riding, deriving the benefits of joining the coalition whilst making no contribution themselves;
• Competition and/or public disagreement between allies who are supposedly working together is potentially damaging;
• Unclear roles and poor decision-making processes slows things down and makes reactive work difficult;
• Networks and coalitions can become overly bureaucratic and out of touch, taking on a life of their own at the expense of their members;
• Conversely, they can be starved of staff time and resources as members pursue their own initiatives at the expense of collective efforts.
• In summary, the main downside of working with others is that it is typically time-consuming, often frustrating, and invariably slows us down.

The key to maximising the pros and minimising the cons is to take care in the initial selection of allies. The following checklist offers some pointers:

• Which individuals or organisations have an established track record on this issue, or can be easily persuaded to support Oxfam?
• To what extent do they share Oxfam’s policy position(s)?
• To what extent do they share Oxfam’s strategy and tactics with regard to the issue?
• How strongly do they feel about the issue and what level of priority will they give to joint work?
• How does Oxfam perceive them? - effective? experienced? powerful? reliable? (and how do they perceive Oxfam?) 
• If Oxfam has worked with them before, what have we learned from that experience?
• What concrete resources can they be expected to commit to joint work?
• How informed/involved do they need to be to remain your ally?
• How will we work with them on a day to day basis (what structures exist/need to be put in place to facilitate joint work?)
• What is their added value to Oxfam on this issue ? (and what is Oxfam’s added value to them?)

X.         Monitoring and Evaluation in Advocacy Work

Ensuring that we monitor and evaluate our advocacy work is essential because:

• It tells us whether or not we are making a difference;
• It holds us accountable to all of our stakeholders;
• It enables us to learn from experience.

• Monitoring is an ongoing internal process that allows us to:
  hold ourselves accountable, by checking that we are doing the things we said we would do in our strategy;
• measure incremental progress towards meeting agreed objectives.

The project manager overseeing implementation of the advocacy strategy should take responsibility for monitoring, using existing structures such as regular meetings or telecons to check that all team members are delivering allocated tasks on time. S/he should also task team members to track progress towards objectives using relevant measures such as:

• The response from targets to our lobbying demands, noting any changes in tone and/or content over time;
• Our success in getting key targets to sign-up to our advocacy objectives (eg number of individuals/governments supporting a particular initiative);
• How much media coverage we have generated on this issue;
• Use of public opinion tracking surveys where relevant (eg where public support is essential to advocacy success);
• Number of allies publicly joining/endorsing our campaign;
• Number of supporter sign-ups and/or campaign actions taken.
• Monitoring allows us to judge how we are doing, and to make adjustments to our strategy on the basis of what we learn.

Evaluation

Whereas monitoring is ongoing, evaluation takes place at a specific moment in time – generally at the end of a piece of advocacy work, but sometimes part way through as a mid-term review. Whereas monitoring is generally limited to internal actors, evaluation should ideally include representatives from all stakeholder groups, both internally and externally.

Evaluating advocacy is notoriously difficult because when change happens, it is usually impossible to attribute it to a specific initiative or a single actor. Many of Oxfam’s major advocacy successes have been achieved over a long period of time and in coalition with a wide variety of international actors – eg the ongoing debt campaign.

Despite the difficulties, evaluation of advocacy work remains vital and a number of NGOs have developed methodologies for this. While the terms of reference for each advocacy evaluation will be specific to that piece of work, the main questions you should be asking in any evaluation are:

• To what extent did we achieve our objectives? 
• What factors contributed to our successes and failures?
• Which specific initiatives worked, which did not, and why?
• Process - did our ways of working help or hinder progress?
• What needs to be changed as a result of this evaluation?
• What lessons have we learned/What should we do differently next time?

The time and resources you invest in evaluation should be commensurate with the scale of the project itself. For relatively small pieces of work, a brief evaluation by the project team, drawing on their own external contacts, should be sufficient. For major pieces of work, you may wish to commission an independent external evaluation. In drawing up the terms of reference for an evaluation, you should also consider whether you want it to remain private or be a public document. While the latter is always preferable in terms of accountability to stakeholders, you need to be mindful of the potential consequences.

XI.        What is a Policy Position

On many of the core issues that Oxfam works on, it already has clearly defined public policies that are expressed it is briefing papers, reports and press releases. You can find these on the Oxfam intranet site. On other issues, Oxfam may need to develop a specific “policy position”. A policy position is a clear statement that sets out Oxfam’s public policy on a specific issue. In common with other public policy statements, it must go through the correct sign-off procedures in order to become adopted as formal Oxfam policy (
 
A policy position is designed for use both internally and externally, and once adopted, should form the basis of all of the organisation’s communications on that issue unless otherwise stated. For example, Oxfam might develop a policy position that forms the basis of private lobbying and/or confidential media briefings, but is specifically not for use on a publicly attributable basis.

When is it used?

A policy position is used when Oxfam needs to develop or clarify its public policy on a specific issue. This might be because:

• a new issue emerges on which Oxfam wishes to define its views eg GM crops or climate change;
• Oxfam needs to respond to a new humanitarian crisis, or to a new phase of an ongoing crisis eg the latest situation in Afghanistan or Northern Uganda;
• Oxfam decides to update or amend its existing policy position, perhaps in response to changes in the external environment, eg the state of play on WTO negotiations.

A policy position is generally drafted by the relevant policy adviser. The usual sign-off rules apply (

Click here to view OGB policy positions

XII.       Reactive Line

A “reactive line” is a brief statement of organisational policy developed in the anticipation that Oxfam may be asked potentially difficult questions about an issue on which it is not actively seeking publicity or profile.

Those asking the questions are most likely to be journalists, but can sometimes be MPs, government departments, companies or even other NGOs.

A reactive line is not the same as giving a quote or media reaction to a story, when Oxfam is proactively seeking media coverage.

A reactive line is not something that Oxfam would ever seek to promote actively to those outside the organisation: it is a defensive tool developed to ensure that Oxfam is not “put on the spot” by being asked questions that it is unable to answer.

There are a number of situations in which it might be appropriate for Oxfam to develop a reactive line. These include:

• On new areas of policy on which the organisation has done little work, so does not feel able to comment in detail;
• On existing areas of policy that are only loosely connected to Oxfam’s mandate;
• On sensitive areas of policy where any public pronouncement might jeopardise staff or programme security;
• On any issues where there reputation of the organisation is potentially at risk, such as allegations concerning staff, fundraising practices, charity law, adverse evaluations etc.

The need for a reactive line is usually identified by media staff who then work with relevant colleagues in developing the line. The usual sign-off procedures apply
 

XIII.      Question and Answer

A Q&A is a list of potential questions with suggested answers to be used by Oxfam spokespeople on a specific issue. The object of the exercise is to anticipate the questions that are likely to be asked, and to think through Oxfam’s responses.

When is it used? A Q&A is generally developed as a tool to help Oxfam spokespeople anticipate questions and rehearse answers prior to radio or TV interviews. However, the discipline of developing a Q&A can also be useful preparation for face-to-face lobbying meetings.

How do you do it? A typical Q&A has three sections:

1)    Main messages

Start by setting out the three or four key messages that Oxfam wants to get across in all of its communications work on this issue. Make these short and snappy, and set them out in bullet point form.

2)    Background

The next section provides the spokesperson with important background information and context in case s/he is asked about it eg information about key meetings, decision-making processes, history of a particular issue or crisis, key statistics etc.

3)    Questions and answers

Start by anticipating the obvious questions that Oxfam is likely to be asked about the issue, and the supplementary questions that might follow on from these.

In drafting your preliminary responses, remember your key messages and try to weave these into your answers.

Next, think about any potentially difficult questions that Oxfam may be asked, and draft appropriate responses.

Because Q&As are generally used in preparation for spoken rather than written communications, the answers need to be drafted with this in mind, using simple, jargon-free language. To help you do this, practice saying the responses out loud before writing them down.

Drafting a good Q&A is all about anticipating correctly the issues that might come up. Several heads are generally better than one at this, so involve both policy and media colleagues, and try out your questions and answers on each other before finalising them.

Link to examples:

XIV.     Gender Mainstreaming in Advocacy

Ensuring that what we do in our advocacy work, and how we do it, promotes the rights of men and women by transforming the power relations between men and women

Why do we want to do this?

Unless Oxfam explicitly identifies and challenges gender inequities in its advocacy work, it risks perpetuating policies, structures and institutions that are gender unaware, and missing the opportunity to promote the empowerment of women and gender equality.

How do we do it?

To be successful in mainstreaming gender in its advocacy work, Oxfam must incorporate gender analysis at all stages of the advocacy process from identifying and analysing the problem, through to designing objectives, undertaking power analysis, implementing the strategy, and finally evaluating impact.

Key questions to ask at each stage:

1)       Identifying and analysing the problem

• Have you identified the problem in terms of its impact on men and women, and of the power relations between men and women on this issue?
• Have you analysed why men and women experience the problem differently, and considered any specific barriers to women? 
• Have you identified how the policies/structures/institutions relevant to this problem treat men and women differently?

2)       Agreeing advocacy objectives

• Do your advocacy objectives address the different problems of men and women?
• Will realisation of these objectives benefit men and women equally, and promote equal rights for men and women?
• Will the achievement of these objectives either potentially marginalise women further, or specifically promote their rights?

3)       Power analysis

• Did you include in your analysis factors that either reinforce gender stereotypes or those that further marginalise women?
• Have you specifically included analysis of decision-makers and allies who can help you promote gender equality in relation to this issue?
• Have you identified sources of potential resistance to the promotion on gender equality in relation to this issue?

4)       Formulating strategies and plans

• Have you included ways for women to be involved in delivering of your strategy as a means of gaining experience and confidence?
• Will your plans raise awareness of, and support for, gender issues?
• Are your plans suitable for both men and women, or could they lead to further marginalisation, especially for women?

5)       Monitoring and evaluation

• As you monitor implementation of your strategy, are you specifically considering the differential impact of progress on men and women?
• Do the terms of reference for any evaluation you commission specifically take into account the impact of your advocacy on men and on women, in terms of both process and impact?

---

See Evaluation of advocacy programmes