Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool: Facilitator's Guide · 1. Organizes and leads the ACA process. 2. Orients and maintains communications with the organization. 3. Prepares the facilitation

Advocacy Capacity Assessment ToolFacilitator’s Guide

USAID Version May 2017

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool: Facilitator’s Guide was developed by Initiatives Inc. and PATH under the Advocacy for Better Health cooperative agreement no. AID-617-A-14-00004. It was adapted from the Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool © 2012 developed by Initiatives Inc. and John Snow, Inc.

Any part of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission from Initiatives and PATH, provided this publication is acknowledged and the material is made available free of charge. Initiatives and PATH would appreciate a copy of any materials in which the contents of this publication are used.

Copyright © 2017 Initiatives Inc. and PATH

Initiatives Inc. PATH264 Beacon Street (6th Floor) 2201 Westlake Avenue, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02116 USA Seattle, WA 98121 USATel: (617) 262-0293 Tel: (206) 285-3500Fax: (617) 262-2514 Fax: (206) 285-6619Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]: www.initiativesinc.com Web: www.path.org

This document was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development. The contents are the sole responsibility of Initiatives Inc. and PATH, and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Cover photos: PATH/Will Boase

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ...........................................................................................................................5

Introduction to the Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool .............................................7

Preparation ....................................................................................................................9

Implementation Overview ........................................................................................... 10

Conducting and Implementing the Assessment Process ........................................... 11

ACA Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 13

Sample Session Guidance ............................................................................................ 14

Facilitation Tips ........................................................................................................... 16

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Team Leader Checklist ............................................................................ 18

Appendix 2: Introductory Letter .................................................................................. 19

Appendix 3: ACA Section Summaries ......................................................................... 20

Appendix 4: Anonymous Staff Questionnaire ............................................................ 21

Appendix 5: Schedule Framework ............................................................................... 22

Appendix 6: Scoring and Rationale Worksheet ........................................................... 23

Appendix 7: Action Plan .............................................................................................. 24

Appendix 8: Score Sheet .............................................................................................. 25

Appendix 9: Evaluation ............................................................................................... 26

Appendix 10: ACA Report Outline .............................................................................. 27

Appendix 11: ACA Overview ........................................................................................ 29

4

ACRONYM LIST

ABH ............................. Advocacy for Better Health

ACA .............................. advocacy capacity assessment

CSO .............................. civil society organization

M&E ............................ monitoring and evaluation

MARPs......................... most-at-risk populations

OCA ............................. organizational capacity assessment

TOR ............................. terms of reference

USAID ......................... United States Agency for International Development

5

PREFACE

The advocacy capacity assessment (ACA) tool was created for the USAID Advocacy for Better Health (ABH) Project by PATH and Initiatives Inc. in 2014. It is meant to help civil society organizations (CSOs) assess their current level of functioning in various aspects of policy advocacy. The assessment process reveals training and other technical assistance needs and enables the ABH Project and its subgrantees to jointly design and implement plans and activities to help strengthen core competencies in policy advocacy—which contributes to enhancing project results. The process, when it is repeated annually, can identify progress and additional areas for further development.

Within the ABH Project, the ACA acts as an addendum to the Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool, developed by Initiatives Inc. and John Snow, Inc. The organizational capacity assessment (OCA) process guides CSOs in reviewing their overall organizational development and enabling them to define a capacity-building improvement plan based on self-assessed need.

Specifically, it examines functionality in the following areas: governance, administration, human resources management, financial management, organizational management, and project performance management.

The ultimate goal is to help local organizations develop into stronger entities positioned to source United States Government and other funding or an integrated Organizational and Advocacy Capacity Assessment (OACA) to continue and expand programs. To conduct an OCA, download the relevant materials at www.Initiativesinc.com.

This guide adapts the OCA process, tools, and approach and provides step-by-step instructions for those wanting to conduct a stand-alone assessment of their advocacy programming.

Although many ACAs exist, this tool’s structure and process distinguishes it from others. It is intended to foster team building and organizational learning and the guided self-assessment by skilled facilitators instills ownership on the part of the organization for a capacity-building plan. Its ability to be used seamlessly in conjunction with an overall OCA ensures a holistic understanding of an organization’s strengths and challenges.

Advocacy for Better Health: Where everyone is accountable, everyone wins

USAID Advocacy for Better Health is a five-year, $20 million project implemented by PATH and Initiatives Inc. ABH aspires to more fully engage communities in the planning and monitoring of health and social services, while also enhancing the capacity of CSOs to represent citizen interests and conduct advocacy to strengthen health-related policies, budgets, and programs. Across 35 target districts and at the national level, more than 20 local implementing partners are mobilizing communities to demand and hold duty-bearers accountable for health-related goals and commitments—from the facility to the highest levels of decision-making.

6

ACA AT A GLANCE

Audience Management and program staff from CSOs in the public or private health and social sectors interested in strengthening their organization’s advocacy capacity.

Process The ACA is a facilitated self-assessment to assist organizations to review their advocacy effectiveness. Key advocacy functions or components are defined along a continuum of four levels, ranked from 1 (basic) to 4 (strong) based on detailed criteria. Organizations agree on their status and develop plans to address gaps and/or strengthen areas.

Objectives To build the capacity of organizations to (1) implement high-quality, results-oriented advocacy programs and (2) attract new resources in support of advocacy.

Components Advocacy strategy development and implementation

Policy and budget analysis and development

Gathering and use of evidence

Networking and negotiation with decision-makers

Advocacy communications and outreach

Partnering and coalition-building

Community mobilization and empowerment

Women, youth, and most-at-risk populations

Key Steps 1. Introduction

2. Assessment, Scoring, and Action Identification

3. Plenary Score Review and Prioritization

4. Action Planning

5. Wrap-Up

6. Final Report and Follow-Up

Facilitators Facilitators experienced in advocacy and capacity-building guide the process, encouraging broad discussion and consensus-driven scoring and action planning.

Time Frame Generally 1 to 2 days for the initial ACA and .5 to 1 day for repeat ACAs.

7

INTRODUCTION TO THE ADVOCACY CAPACITY ASSESSMENT TOOL

The advocacy capacity assessment (ACA) tool is designed to measure an organizations’ overall advocacy capacity. The tool assesses in key capacity areas:

1. Advocacy Strategy Development and Implementation

2. Policy and Budget Analysis and Development

3. Gathering and Use of Evidence

4. Networking and Negotiation with Decision-Makers

5. Advocacy Communications and Outreach

6. Partnering and Coalition-Building

7. Community Mobilization and Empowerment

8. Women, Youth, and Most-at-Risk Populations (MARPS)

Not all areas will be relevant given the specific organization, project, or country context. ACA facilitators and organizations may adapt the sections as needed, including developing additional sections that examine an organization’s technical understanding of a specific advocacy issue (e.g., immunization, family planning) as necessary.

Each of the current eight sections is broken down into four stages of advocacy capacity development ranked from 1 (basic) to 4 (strong). The scoring is intended to help the ACA facilitation team and the organization identify their key strengths in order to better inform current policy advocacy planning and implementation, while at the same time highlighting priority areas for organizational growth. In addition, it enables the team to document progress in key areas and monitor capacity improvement over time.

Recognizing that advocacy capacity development is a process, the use of the ACA tool results in concrete action plans to provide CSOs with a clear road map to strengthen their advocacy program. The ACA can be repeated on an annual basis to monitor the effectiveness of previous actions, evaluate progress in capacity improvement, and identify new areas in need of strengthening.

PREPARATION

Prior to conducting the ACA, the organization is provided with information describing the process and confirming the dates, a list of documents to have on hand to assist the process, guidance on which staff members should participate, and suggestions on the type of facility that might be needed for the plenary meetings.

APPROACH

The team: The ACA is implemented with a team of facilitators with skills in advocacy and capacity-building and CSO representatives from management and/or the advocacy program.

Time: The initial ACA takes one to two days to complete and results in an agreed action plan that maps priority areas and actions the organization will take to address gaps in advocacy capacity.

(Re)assess Capacity

Identify NeedsAdapt Practices

Support Implementation

(technical assistance)Monitor Progress

8

Steps: The ACA process is conducted in six steps, as noted below.

Step 1: Introductory Meeting. Overview of the process.

Step 2: Assessment, Scoring, and Action Identification. Determine current status of the organization’s strengths and areas in which they want to improve.

Step 3: Plenary Score Review and Prioritization. Organizational review and prioritization of findings.

Step 4: Action Planning. Completion of the problem statements, actions, and responsibilities.

Step 5: Closing. Evaluation and next steps.

Step 6: Final Report. Documentation of findings, actions, and technical assistance needs.

SUPPORTING TOOLS

Tool Description

Participant’s ACA Tool The participant and facilitator tools contain the matrix with all eight capacity areas. Each section has a continuum of scores, 1 (basic) to 4 (strong). Guided by the facilitators, the team discusses the descriptions of each section and then assesses the organization’s stage of development against the continuum. This leads to a score for each section and overall score.

Facilitator’s ACA Tool This tool includes all of the same information as the participant ACA tool and adds probing questions that may be used to guide the conversations. Questions are asked, as needed, to help participants carefully think through their existing advocacy efforts. A list of possible verification documents (e.g., stakeholder mapping) is also included in the facilitator’s guide. The verification documents are requested in advance or on-site to help validate advocacy competencies. The facilitator’s tool is generally not provided to the participants during the ACA process but may be shared later upon request.

ACA Facilitator’s Guide This guide includes all the instructions, guidance, and tools (e.g., sample invitation letters, and tips for managing assessments to help a facilitator organize, implement, and complete the ACA process).

Scoring and Rationale Sheets These sheets, completed by the facilitators, summarize the organizational representatives’ justification for their ranking and note actions proposed for improvement. Scores guide prioritization, but the facilitators should help participants focus on the ranking definitions rather than the scores.

Score Sheet On the score sheet, each ACA section is listed. Each section is assessed according to four stages of advocacy capacity based on detailed criteria. Those scores should be compiled to create an average score for the section. As desired, those scores can then be averaged for an overall advocacy score, although that is not necessary. This can be done in Excel or manually.

Action Plan Facilitators use the information from the scoring and rationale sheets to define the areas for growth and actions. The organization reviews or adjusts the problem statement and builds on the suggested actions to define action steps, responsibilities, time frame, and possible technical assistance needs.

9

PREPARATION

The team leader should have an understanding of the ACA and required facilitation skills to take on the tasks outlined below.

The team leader:

1. Organizes and leads the ACA process.

2. Orients and maintains communications with the organization.

3. Prepares the facilitation team.

4. Uses the Team Leader Checklist (Appendix 1) to ensure readiness for the assessment process.

5. Leads the one- to one-and-a-half-day assessment process from orientation to closing, keeps the process on track and on time, and closes the meeting.

6. Finalizes and submits the final report.

COMMUNICATION WITH THE ORGANIZATION

The team leader:

1. Establishes contact with the organization to be assessed at least two weeks in advance and explains the process in detail. The leader emphasizes the self-assessment focus and the role of the facilitation team in guiding the process. S/he discusses with the CSO which categories of the assessment tool are appropriate to be used and an ideal group size to help the organization decide which staff members should attend. Finally, s/he discusses the preparation required in terms of documentation and logistics.

2. Adapts the ACA tool as appropriate and sends an introductory letter (Appendix 2) confirming the dates, timing, location, and logistics. Together with the letter, the facilitator should send the ACA section summaries (Appendix 3), which provide a list of documents that should be available for review at the assessment, and encourages organizations, as possible, to provide the materials in advance.

3. Clarifies the need for anonymous staff questionnaires (Appendix 4) to get comprehensive (participant and nonparticipant) views on their roles and understanding of the organization’s advocacy work. Sends the questionnaires in advance and asks them to be returned prior to the assessment. This can be done individually by respondents to the facilitator’s email, or agreement can be made for one person at the organization to collect and mail or email all questionnaires.

4. Reconfirms the meeting time and planned logistics (meeting space, provision of breaks and refreshments, etc.) and answers any outstanding questions and concerns one week before the assessment.

ORIENTATION MEETING WITH FACILITATORS

The team leader:

1. Describes the structure of the tool, the section contents, the role of the guiding questions to support discussions, and the suggested resource documents.

2. Ensures the appropriate resource documents, as well as hard and soft copies of the ACA participant and facilitator tools and compiled anonymous questionnaires, are distributed to the facilitators.

3. Explains that the role of the facilitator is to guide the discussion and help participants reach decisions on their current status, the scores, and needed actions using a participatory, nonjudgmental, and positive approach.

4. Encourages facilitators to take every opportunity to make participants feel comfortable and gain participant trust by avoiding an audit approach; explains scores are less important than actions and reminds them to keep in mind that the ACA is most importantly a self-assessment and opinions may vary.

5. Describes the process and tools for which the facilitator is responsible. These include facilitating sections, completing the scoring and rationale sheets, setting up action planning, and summarizing their sections for the final report.

6. Assigns co-facilitators to take notes of the discussions using the rationale sheets.

10

IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW

SUGGESTED AGENDA

Illustrative Agenda for an Initial ACADay 1Morning • Welcome, introductions, and review of process.

• Begin group discussions of assessment areas. Afternoon • Group discussions continue.Day 2Morning • CSO team privately reviews scoring and rationale sheets (using track changes, if possible) to

confirm scoring and notes compiled by facilitators. • Facilitators discuss and make necessary changes based on organizational feedback. • Action planning begins.

Afternoon • Complete action planning and next steps.• Evaluation of assessment process.

DETAILED STEPS

Step 1: Introduction. The process begins with a meeting in which the CSO and facilitation team review the tool, process, and schedule (Appendix 5).

Step 2: Assessment, Scoring, and Action Identification. The objective of this step is to identify the organization’s capacity level in each subsection of the ACA. Participants rank the organization along a continuum of 1 (basic), 2 (weak), 3 (adequate), and 4 (strong); provide a rationale for the selected scores; and propose follow-up actions. This step may be completed in small groups or plenary sessions. Facilitators record scores and justifications for the scores on the scoring and rationale sheet (Appendix 6). It is important to remember there is no such thing as a bad score! Scores are simply intended to help prioritize focus topics. Not all topics will be relevant given the specific issue or country context and/or may be a result of factors outside an organization’s control. When determining action items, it is more valuable to focus on ranking definitions than the numerical score.

Step 3: Plenary Score Review and Prioritization. The CSO staff meet in private to review the scoring and rationale sheets. It is their opportunity to learn from each other by discussing and coming to consensus on the findings, set a priority for addressing each issue, and recommend potential actions to remedy problems or gaps. Priority levels—low, medium, and high—help the team to focus the action plan on the most important issues, as well as those that are easy to accomplish. Other problems may be deferred until the more pressing matters have been addressed.

Step 4: Action Planning. Led by the team leader, the organization completes and finalizes the action plan (Appendix 7) in plenary. The team adds their thoughts on the problem statement and recommended actions, assigns priority levels, adds deadlines and responsible parties, and identifies any technical assistance needs. The facilitator then shows the score sheet (Appendix 8) on the LCD projector or in paper form as a summary for the organization. Ideally, action planning is captured in real-time on one or multiple computers. However, if not available, action planning can be done using flipchart or printed worksheets and later typed up.

Step 5: Closing. Participants are asked to complete an evaluation (Appendix 9) and closing remarks are made by the facilitation team and the organization. The team leader leaves the action plan behind for the organization’s review. S/he asks for it to be returned, if possible, within one week with any changes so that it can be included in the final report.

Step 6: Final Report. The final report is prepared by the team leader with assistance from the other facilitators and is presented to the organization within one week. This report summarizes the findings, actions, and technical assistance needs (Appendix 10). The version reviewed by the CSO should be returned to the facilitators within two weeks.

11

CONDUCTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

OPENING SESSION INTRODUCTION

The team leader:

1. Briefly explains that the objective of this meeting is to introduce everyone to the assessment purpose, process, and timeline and to refine the agenda.

2. Introduces the facilitators and asks participants to state their name, position, and role within their organization and state their understanding, expectations, and questions regarding the ACA.

OUTLINE THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The team leader:

1. Reviews in detail the assessment components and process. Shares the ACA overview (Appendix 11) so the sections are clear.

2. Reviews the one- to two-day agenda. The small group discussions start on Day 1. On Day 2, the CSO representatives review the rationale and scoring sheets (Appendix 6) for accuracy and sharing. The organization reports any inaccuracies to the facilitators and the final changes are made. Day 2 is also used to complete an action plan and close the assessment.

3. Explains that the methodology is a guided self-assessment that encourages active participation. Facilitators ask open-ended, probing questions to encourage group discussion and take notes on participant responses. These notes are later used for the action planning.

4. Emphasizes that scores are designed to set priorities for the actions and are not used to judge performance. The ability to identify areas to be addressed will strengthen the organization and, in subsequent years, enable it to view improvement and note where progress is still needed.

5. Asks the executive director if s/he would like to orient the facilitators about the organization—especially any major changes that had an impact on the organization’s advocacy work within the past year or so—before the assessment starts.

6. Responds to any additional questions or need for clarification.

IMPLEMENT THE ASSESSMENT

The team leader:

1. Leads the relevant group discussions and/or ensures the assigned facilitator leads his/her sections and captures notes.

2. At the end of each day, reviews the sections to ensure they are completed and all rationale and action sheets are filled in. This is best done electronically.

3. Compiles all the rationale and action sheets after all sections are completed and makes copies for the organization to review independently of the facilitators.

4. Informs the organization that they can have time to review the scoring rationale and action summaries; their task is to make any desired revisions (electronically, using the track changes function, if possible) to the scores, actions, or rationale; prioritize the action items; and think about where they might want technical assistance. The organization should meet in private without the facilitators present. The private nature of the meeting encourages exchange of ideas among the staff about one another’s responsibilities and challenges. This meeting usually takes place at the end of the first day or early on the second day.

5. The facilitation team and CSO meet after the review to discuss any desired changes to the scoring rationale and action worksheets; changes should be entered on the scoring rationale sheet, Excel score sheet, and action plan format.

12

6. Displays the action plan format (Appendix 7) using an LCD projector to assist the process. In the event there is no projector, the group may use one computer if visibility allows or break the group into small groups led by a facilitator and multiple computers to finalize relevant sections of the tool; alternatively, print the document and work from the hard copy. The actions should be generated by the team. Compile all items into one Excel action planning sheet.

7. Provides the action plan to the organization in soft or hard copy and explains how it can be sorted by date, person responsible, etc., to assist them as they manage the plan. Reviews the sorted version of the action plan to see if deadlines are overly clustered in one month if the group is unrealistic in their deadlines or if some people are overburdened.

8. Provides a copy or shows (as appropriate) the score sheet (Appendix 8) on the LCD projector and reminds them that the scores are helpful guidance for continuing to prioritize their action plan.

9. Explains that organizations may want to make further changes to the action plan and they are free to do so; it is their plan. Within ten days, the organization should send a copy of the revised action plan to the team leader. Although a copy of the action plan is included in the ACA report, this does not preclude the organization from making additional changes in the future.

10. States that a final report, including the action plan, will be sent to the organization first for review and then as a final copy.

11. Conducts the evaluation (Appendix 9).

12. Thanks everyone for their time.

FINAL REPORT

A report (Appendix 10) that includes a section-by-section description of the identified challenges and potential solutions, as well as the score sheet and action plan, is an appropriate product for the organization that was assessed. It provides direction to the CSO and any assistance that will be provided by the facilitation team’s home organization. Facilitators should be requested to write up their own sections while their memory is fresh and provide it to the team leader for compilation and finalization. There may be others, such as donor groups, who would like the report; the organization should be consulted on any others with whom this should be shared. The organization should always have the opportunity to review the final draft before it is shared with a wider audience.

13

ACA NEXT STEPS

REPEAT ACAS

A repeat ACA is helpful to provide a record of organizational growth and to identify new areas to address. It also gives organizations an opportunity to celebrate their success. When doing a repeat ACA, remember that the process is not an external evaluation; the organization’s participation in the process is key to its success. Recognize the previous assessment and results throughout the process. Ask the organization to reflect on what it has done since the last ACA, how successful it has been, and what else the organization wants or needs to do to move forward. Generally, repeat ACAs can be completed in one day or less, with the discussions taking place in the morning and the rationale sheet review and action planning taking place in the afternoon (if conducted alongside an OCA, it will likely take longer). Other considerations are as follows:

1. Review the previous ACA and, if applicable, other assessments for background information and discuss key priority areas with other staff/managers.

2. Communicate the schedule and any variation to the organizations.

3. Send staff questionnaires for the follow-up annual assessment.

4. Compare, after completing the scoring for a repeat ACA, this assessment to previous assessment scores to identify progress and issues.

FINAL ACA

The final ACA usually takes one day, and when it occurs depends on the length of the project. It gives both the organization and the project an opportunity to review progress over time and discuss remaining challenges and ways in which the organization can continue to monitor growth. The final ACA should result in an action plan and a commitment to continue conducting periodic self-assessments to identify areas of need and success.

14

ADVOCACY STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

Facilitators use a detailed ACA tool that includes objectives, definitions, and probing questions to assist participants. Participants receive a tool with only the section components and definitions for each level.

The facilitator explains to participants that s/he will be reviewing their current status against the criteria in the four continuously more comprehensive definitions in each section. S/he emphasizes that the score is only a guide; understanding of current functioning and needed improvements is paramount and creates a collegial and supportive atmosphere to encourage participation and learning.

Using the example of advocacy strategy development and implementation (see below), the facilitators complete the following steps:

1. Orient participants to the overall advocacy assessment objective: to assess the organization’s capacity to effectively manage advocacy programs to improve the quality, accessibility, and availability of health and social services.

2. Cite the advocacy strategy development and implementation section objective: to assess the organization’s capacity to develop and implement advocacy strategies and adapt them to the ever-changing political environment.

3. Introduce scoring as a mechanism for prioritizing actions and reviewing progress over time, and help participants come to a consensus on their ranking. Ensure participants understand that scores matter less than the actual plan for improvement; do not make this a stumbling point.

4. If not done prior to the assessment, ask for and review the resources that support staff understanding of advocacy strategy development and implementation; this includes the organization’s own statements and the anonymous staff questionnaires and an organizational advocacy strategy, which point to how well staff understand and comply with the guiding statements.

5. Ask a participant to read aloud, or the group to read silently, the four levels of criteria for advocacy strategy development and implementation. Explain that the standards get more rigorous as they approach the recognized best practice.

6. Ask them to describe how their advocacy strategy (if they have one) was developed and how it is currently used and understood.

7. Use any relevant checklist questions from the facilitator’s tool to aid the discussion. These questions are meant as a reference if more information is needed. Ensure questions are asked in an open-ended manner and allow for in-depth discussion. Refer to the resources provided in discussions. Take notes during the discussion to help complete the rationale sheet (these should be edited later).

8. In summary, ask participants to suggest where their organization is in relation to the scoring criteria and to provide a rationale for their response.

9. Note their response on the scoring and rationale sheet.

10. Ask participants to state what actions are necessary to help them reach the next level and note them along with others articulated during the discussions in the action section of the scoring and rationale sheet.

SAMPLE SESSION GUIDANCE

15

Advocacy Strategy Development and Implementation

Section Objective: The objective of this section is to assess the organization’s capacity to develop and implement advocacy strategies and adapt them to the ever-changing political environment.

Resources: Organizational advocacy strategy.


1 2 3 4

The organization has:

• No advocacy strategy or an outdated advocacy strategy.


• A current strategy, but it has not defined priority issues or SMART goals and objectives that are clearly linked to policy change/implementation.

• A current strategy, but it is not based on a community needs assessment and/or policy/stakeholder mapping.

• A current strategy, but it does not include a detailed work plan that outlines targets, activities, partners, resource needs, and time frame.


• A current strategy that defines priority issues and SMART goals and objectives, is based on a thorough assessment and/or policy/mapping, and includes a detailed work plan.

• Implemented its current advocacy program/activities in accordance with its strategy.

• A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan to measure program effectiveness and progress toward goals and objectives.


• A process for regularly consulting its strategy when making new programmatic decisions and updating its strategy to reflect changes in the political environment.

• A systematic process for collecting data that measures the strategy’s effectiveness and progress toward goals and objectives.

• A process for regularly adjusting its strategy and advocacy activities given M&E data and learning.

Guiding Questions


Subsection Checklist Yes No NA Notes

What has your organization been doing in the area of advocacy?

Does your organization have a current advocacy strategy? If yes, what does it include?Who is involved in developing your strategy? What type of information do you use to inform your strategy?How do you use your strategy to make decisions about which advocacy activities you will or will not pursue?

How regularly do you update your strategy and for what reasons?

Do you have an M&E plan? What type of information do you monitor and evaluate?How do you know your activities are resulting in progress toward your goals and objectives?What examples can you provide about changes you have made to your strategy given shifts in the political environment or M&E information? How do you document these changes?

16

FACILITATION TIPS

Facilitating meetings is a skill that requires a combination of diplomacy and control. At times, personal motives can sidetrack a meeting. The facilitator should use the following techniques if process or communication management is needed.

MANAGE THE PROCESS

Managing the Facilitators and Organizers

1. Difficulty in comprehension: Language or cultural variations.

Response: Recognize differences and speak slowly and articulately. Set a model for others by gently asking them to speak louder, clearer, or slower. Avoid using words like “should” or showing emotions through your body language. Always check that people understand and are paying attention by reviewing their facial expressions and body language or by asking directly if anything needs repeating or clarification.

Managing Personalities

1. The dominator: One person uses a meeting for his or her personal forum on every agenda item.

Response: Handle the situation by looking for a place to interrupt him/her, quickly summarize his point of view, and turn to the group and say, “Does anyone else have an opinion about this?” or “Denis, I’d be interested in your opinion about this.”

2. The wallflower: Participant has good ideas but is shy or reluctant to share them in a group setting.

Response: Encourage the person by stating “Florence, you’ve had experience with this in your last position. What can you tell us?” or “Maria, you were telling me about an idea you had last week. Why don’t you share it with all of us?”

3. The complainer: Participant voices issues or negativity constantly.

Response: Summarize the basic concern the person is griping about. Use neutral words such as “she thinks the policy isn’t fair.” Turn to the rest of the group and say, “What about this concern? Let’s examine it. Does anyone else feel this way?” If no one else joins in, the group can often diffuse the griper and you won’t have to take any additional actions. If the person is a chronic griper, have a private one-on-one conversation during the next break about what is at the bottom of his or her discontent.

Managing Group Dynamics

1. Side conversations: Two people hold a conversation that competes with the larger group’s discussion.

Response: Wait before making your next point. Sometimes that will cause them to stop talking. Call on someone who is sitting next to one of them. That will startle them enough to stop, without embarrassing them. If all else fails, say something like “hey, you two. You must have a good idea over there. How about filling the rest of us in?”

2. Quiet group: This can occur due to dominance by a few people, resistance, too much information, or too long a session.

Response: Learn to read the group; don’t prolong the discussion unnecessarily and be clear about what you want to say, but don’t repeat without need. Ask someone else to summarize the discussion to see if it is clearly understood. Make people feel comfortable participating by verbal and nonverbal support. Keep your manner nonjudgmental. Encourage others to communicate, stop for breaks, and keep the discussion on topic. If you sense the stillness is due to the presence of the “boss,” try to talk separately to him/her about encouraging input from all, or call directly on other participants to speak.

17

Managing the Meeting

1. Size of group: Either too large or too small.

Response: Prior to the assessment, discuss with the CSO which categories of staff are appropriate for which topics and an ideal size. Make a draft schedule using the point person’s input. Review the schedule during the meeting and explain that multiple groups assist in time management and ensure key people are correctly placed. Suggest a core group is used to cover most, if not all, topics, but bring in others as relevant for specific sessions. Sometimes all activities are held in plenary due to the size of the organization; this is the reality of the situation and is generally not an issue.

2. Scoring in advance: Too high or too low.

Response: The organization receives the tool in advance and at times may agree on scores prior to the assessment or give themselves unjustified scores. The opening session should stress that this is their tool, and that their ability to identify areas needing improvement will strengthen the organization. Scores set priority for actions and are not used to judge the organization. In subsequent years, it will be helpful to see how the scores and organization improve and where progress is still needed.

Even if the scoring was determined prior to the assessment, the facilitator should help the participants think through the rationale for the score, review documents, and use the facilitator’s guide to challenge, in a helpful way, their thinking. The facilitator should set the ground rules for an open, honest, and nonjudgmental approach.

3. Addressing defensiveness.

Response: Organizations like to be recognized and commended for what they do well. Most organizations are in a continuum toward meeting best practices and should understand that it takes time and understanding to meet the requirements of best practices. In other areas, there is always new information and practices that can make programs better.

Acknowledge that they are doing well, but the program needs to meet national and international standards to evolve, be more effective in management and services, and be more attractive to donors.

4. Managing time: Over- or underestimating.

Response: Develop a schedule and assign team leaders to keep the process moving; use a “parking lot” to place items that are not directly related to the discussion. If you have time remaining or can find time after hours, address the “parking lot”; otherwise decide together how to respond. Always keep the action planning in mind—this is critical and time-consuming—and work backward to assign time to other activities. Normally activities take more time on Day 1, until a rhythm is established.

18

APPENDIX 1: TEAM LEADER CHECKLIST

TEAM LEADER CHECKLIST

Preparation

1. Correspond with organization at least two weeks in advance __________

a. List of documents to pull together for review (section summaries) __________

b. ACA Overview __________

c. ACA Tool __________

d. Staff Questionnaires __________

2. Compiled staff questionnaire responses __________

Document Preparation

1. ACA Overview __________

2. Participant’s ACA Tool __________

3. ACA Section Summaries __________

4. Facilitator’s ACA Tool __________

5. ACA Schedule Worksheet __________

6. Anonymous Staff Questionnaires __________

7. Scoring and Rationale Worksheet __________

8. Action Plan __________

9. Score Sheet __________

10. ACA Evaluation __________

19

APPENDIX 2: INTRODUCTORY LETTER

Dear _____________,

In order to prepare for the advocacy capacity assessment (ACA) that is scheduled for [insert date] ___________, please share this email and attached documents with everyone from [insert name of organization] _______ who will be participating.

Please also provide us with the names and positions of those individuals whom you expect to participate in the assessment, as it would be extremely helpful for the ACA team to have this information in advance. If there are significant scheduling constraints that will prevent anyone from participating for the entire duration, please let us know.

Regarding logistics, it would also be helpful to discuss the requirements for the meeting room, your hours of operation, and whether an LCD projector would be available for use.

Please note that the following documents have been attached to this email for your review:

1. Overview of the ACA. This document outlines the basic structure of the ACA, provides a brief schedule of the two days, details which staff should participate, and lists the documents that will be needed.

2. Anonymous Staff Questionnaires. In preparation for the ACA, we would appreciate your assistance in distributing questionnaires to select staff (if relevant). Staff knowledge about the organization will be helpful in providing a picture of how widely known and understood the structure, policies, and procedures of your organization are. The attached questionnaires should be supplied to a representative sample of your staff, which should include both those participating in the ACA and those who are not. Please ask the staff members to reply to the questions independently of each other and return the questionnaire to [insert name of team leader] ________ [and her/his email] _____________by [insert date] ___________ so that the information can contribute to the assessment findings.

3. ACA Participant Tool. This is the tool that will be used during the ACA.

4. ACA Section Summaries. This provides guidance on what documents would be useful to have on hand during the ACA, as well as suggested participants.

We kindly request that you send the relevant documents to us three days prior to the assessment; documents should also be available at the assessment. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this email.

Best regards,

20

APPENDIX 3: ACA SECTION SUMMARIES

Section Suggested Facilitator and Participants Objective Related Documents


Advocacy specialist and program manager/senior technical staff supervisors, and service delivery staff.

To assess the organization’s capacity to develop and implement advocacy strategies and adapt them to the ever-changing political environment.

Organizational advocacy strategy.

Policy and Budget Analysis and Development

Same as above. To assess the organization’s ability to conduct policy and budget analysis related to their areas of concern and develop relevant solutions.

Policy mapping, policy or budget analyses, policy/budget recommendations, or copies of policies/budgets the organization has helped to develop.

Gathering and Use of Evidence

Same as above. To assess the organization’s ability to gather, use, and disseminate evidence to advance its advocacy agenda.

Advocacy strategy, needs assessment, evidence dossiers, fact sheets, and other advocacy materials.

Networking and Negotiation with Decision-Makers and Influencers

Same as above. To assess the organization’s ability to effectively identify, access, and influence decision-makers.

Advocacy strategy, stakeholder mapping.

Advocacy Communications and Outreach

Same as above. To assess the organization’s capacity to plan and implement communications and outreach activities in alignment with its overarching advocacy strategy.

Advocacy strategy, messages, examples of communication materials, and media outreach and coverage.

Partnering and Coalition-Building

Same as above. To assess the organization’s ability to partner with other organizations to advance its advocacy agenda.

Stakeholder mapping, memorandums of understanding, joint advocacy strategies, and examples of materials developed by a coalition or in partnership with other organizations.

Community Mobilization and Empowerment

Same as above. To assess whether the organization’s advocacy initiatives respond to and address community needs by reviewing how they involve community members in planning, decision-making, and implementation.

Advocacy strategy, community participation and/or mobilization plan, project activity or after-action reports, community mobilization or monitoring tools, community needs assessment, community action plans.

Women, Youth, and Most-at-Risk Populations (MARPs)

Same as above. To assess the organization’s systems to ensure that issues that impact vulnerable populations, including women, youth, and MARPs, are prioritized and effectively integrating into the advocacy agenda.

Advocacy strategy, community participation and/or mobilization plan, community needs assessments, project activity or after-action reports, community mobilization or monitoring tools, policy and budget analyses.

21

APPENDIX 4: ANONYMOUS STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE

As part of its continuing focus on advocacy, [name of CSO] is participating in an advocacy capacity assessment. It would help the process if you could spend ten minutes filling in this survey and send it back to ____________ by __________.

Please indicate your position (check the appropriate function in the box to the right):

Technical ______

Administrative ______

Financial ______

Management ______

For Facilitator’s Use

On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), rate the following statements by circling the number that best represents your response.

1. My organization: Strongly disagree --------------------------------------- Strongly

agree

A. Engages in meaningful contact with our target decision-makers.

1 2 3 4 5Networking and Negotiation with Decision-Makers

B. Effectively incorporates community perspectives and voices in our advocacy work.

1 2 3 4 5


C. Effectively incorporates the perspectives and voices of women and youth in our advocacy work.

1 2 3 4 5

Women, Youth, and MARPs

2. I am: Strongly disagree --------------------------------------- Strongly

agree

A. Very familiar with how policies and budgets are formulated in this country.

1 2 3 4 5


B. Very comfortable approaching decision-makers for advocacy purposes.

1 2 3 4 5

Networking and Negotiation with Decision-Makers

C. Very comfortable approaching members of the media for advocacy purposes.

1 2 3 4 5


D. Very confident I deliver strong and compelling messages to my advocacy targets when I approach them.

1 2 3 4 5


22

APPENDIX 5: SCHEDULE FRAMEWORK

Section Facilitators CSO Participants Meeting Time Meeting Location






Partners and Coalition-Building



23

APPENDIX 6: SCORING AND RATIONALE WORKSHEET

Section ___________

Score Justification Recommended Action

Section ___________


Section ___________


Section ___________


24

APPENDIX 7: ACTION PLAN

Name of Organization: ___________ ACA Dates:________________mm/dd/yyyy

Note: Enter participant names in space provided below the table.

Action Plan Monitoring Strategy (person responsible for monitoring progress of action plan):

Section Issue Action Person Responsible

Technical Assistance/

Support Desired

Priority Level

L/M/H

Timeline Date

mm/dd/yyyy

Follow-Up on Activities

Status Date

Participants

Organization: ___________________

___________________

___________________

___________________

___________________

___________________

Facilitators: Other:

25

APPENDIX 8: SCORE SHEET

Assessment Area

Section Average Score per Section

Overall Average Score for Advocacy

Advocacy Advocacy Strategy Development and Implementation





Partnering and Coalition-Building



26

APPENDIX 9: EVALUATION

ACA Evaluation

Organization name: ____________________________________________

Dates of ACA: ________________________________________________

1. Did you participate in the entire ACA process? Yes No

2. If no, in which sections did you participate? _______________________________________________

3. Do you feel the ACA process allows for a fair assessment of your organization? Yes No

4. Please explain your response: __________________________________________________________

5. Do you feel the members of your organization were adequately included in the assessment process? Yes No

6. Please explain your answer: ___________________________________________________________

7. Do you feel the agreed action plan will help your organization address issues and grow? Yes No

8. What do you think worked well in this process? ____________________________________________

9. What did you not like about this process? _________________________________________________

10. What would you change in this process? __________________________________________________

11. Other comments or suggestions: _______________________________________________________

27

APPENDIX 10: ACA REPORT OUTLINE

The report is a tool to help the assessed organization implement changes to build its capacity. It should summarize the ACA process, findings, and action plan.

1. BACKGROUND

Brief description of the organization and objectives for conducting ACA.

2. ACA PARTICIPANTS

Facilitators Organization Board Others

3. ACA PROCESS

Describe briefly how the ACA was conducted:

• Dates and location of ACA

• General participation and response of staff

4. ACA FINDINGS

4.1. ACA Quantitative Results

Analysis of scoring:

• Provide a graph with scoring by section.

• Denote areas of great strength and areas needing improvement.

• Add any clarification or explanation that might help the organization understand the reason for scores that may be particularly high or low.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Mobilization and empowerment

Coalition-building

Communications

Networking and negotiation

Evidence

Policy and budget analysis

Advocacy strategy

ACA section scores

Capacity: 1 = Basic 2 = Low 3 = Moderate 4 = Strong

2.4

1.8

2.6

2.6

2.3

2.6

2.0

28

4.2. Summary of Issues

Each of the eight sections should be limited to one or two paragraphs summarizing the scoring and rationale worksheets to complement and expand on the action plan and the partner’s strengths and weaknesses:

• Provide statements about each section that qualify the score and the issue.

• Include any details that will help the organization be specific in its action plans.

• List areas of particular concern that should be prioritized.

4.2.1. Advocacy Strategy Development and Implementation (Score: )

4.2.2. Policy and Budget Analysis and Development (Score: )

4.2.3. Gathering and Use of Evidence (Score: )

4.2.4. Networking and Negotiation with Decision-Makers and Influencers (Score: )

4.2.5. Advocacy Communications and Outreach (Score: )

4.2.6. Partnering and Coalition-Building (Score: )

4.2.7. Community Mobilization and Empowerment (Score: )

4.2.8. Women, Youth, and Most-at-Risk Populations (Score: )

5. CONCLUSION

Briefly summarize the organization’s understanding of the ACA and acceptance of the action plan as a tool for moving forward:

• Provide perspective for organizational success in meeting standards.

• Identify internal support that can facilitate progress.

• Reiterate any immediate assistance required to implement plan.

29

APPENDIX 11: ACA OVERVIEW

ACA OVERVIEW

The ACA Tool

The advocacy capacity assessment (ACA) is designed to measure organizations’ overall advocacy capacity. The tool assesses capability in eight key capacity areas:

1. Advocacy Strategy Development and Implementation

2. Policy and Budget Analysis and Development

3. Gathering and Use of Evidence

4. Networking and Negotiation with Decision-Makers

5. Advocacy Communications and Outreach

6. Partnering and Coalition-Building

7. Community Mobilization and Empowerment

8. Women, Youth, and Most-at-Risk Populations (MARPS)

Each of the eight sections is broken down further into four stages of capacity development ranked from one, indicating basic capacity, to four, indicating strong capacity. The scoring will help the ACA team and the organization identify key strengths and priority need areas. In addition, it will enable the team to document progress in key areas and monitor advocacy capacity improvement over time.

Recognizing that capacity-building is a process, the use of the ACA tool results in concrete action plans to provide organizations with a clear road map for strengthening their programmatic impact. The ACA can be repeated on an annual basis to monitor the effectiveness of previous actions, evaluate progress in capacity improvement, and identify new areas in need of strengthening.

Preparation

Prior to conducting the ACA, the organization is provided with a letter describing the process and confirming the dates, a list of documents to have on hand to assist the process, guidance on which staff members should participate, and the type of facility that might be needed for the plenary meetings. A set of questions for staff is also submitted to the organization so that inputs on selected issues can be collected in advance of the ACA process.

Approach

The team: The ACA is implemented with a team of facilitators who ideally have skills in advocacy, meeting facilitation, and capacity-building.

Time: The initial ACA will take one to two days to complete and will result in an agreed-upon action plan that will map priority areas and the actions the organization will take to address gaps.

Steps: The ACA process will be conducted in six steps, as noted below.

Step 1: Introductory Meeting. The process begins with a meeting in which the organization and facilitation team review the tool, process, and schedule (Appendix 5) and identify subgroups for specific sections as needed (for a full list of suggested participants see Appendix 3).

Step 2: Assessment, Scoring, and Action Identification. The objective of this step is to identify the organization’s capacity level in each section of the ACA. Participants rank the organization along a continuum of 1 (basic), 2 (weak), 3 (adequate), and 4 (strong); provide a rationale for the selected scores; and propose follow-up actions. This step may be completed in small groups or plenary sessions. Facilitators record scores and justifications for the scores on the scoring and rationale sheet (Appendix 6).

Step 3: Plenary Score Review and Prioritization. The organization meets in private to review the scoring and rationale sheets. It is their opportunity to learn from each other by discussing and coming to consensus on the findings, set a priority for addressing each issue, and recommend potential actions to remedy problems or gaps. Priority levels—low, medium, and high—help the team focus the action plan on the most important issues, as well as those that are easy to accomplish.

30

Step 4: Action Planning. Led by the team leader, the organization completes and finalizes the action plan (Appendix 7) in plenary. The team adds their thoughts on the problem statement and recommended actions, assigns priority levels, adds deadlines and responsible parties, and identifies any technical assistance needs. The facilitator then shows the score sheet (Appendix 8) on the LCD or in paper form as a summary for the organization.

Step 5: Closing. Participants are asked to complete an evaluation (Appendix 9) and closing remarks are made by the facilitation team and the organization. The team leader leaves the action plan behind for the organization’s review. S/he asks for it to be returned within one week with any changes so that it can be included in the final report.

Step 6: Final Report. The final report is prepared by the team leader with assistance from the other facilitators and is presented to the organization within one week. This report summarizes the findings, actions, and technical assistance needs (Appendix 10).

Follow-up: While the action plan is usually completed at the end of Day 2, a revised/finalized action plan may need to be compiled by the organization in the days following the assessment process. The final action plan should be available no more than one week following the ACA, as it will be used as a road map for capacity development.

Final Report: Provides a section-by-section description of the identified problems and potential solutions, as well as the score sheet and action plan.

Repeat: It is recommended to repeat the ACA process on an annual basis to monitor organizational and program development, identify persistent or new problems, and establish new action plans.

31

AD

VO

CA

CY

CA

PAC

ITY

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

TO

OL

: FA

CIL

ITA

TO

R’S

CO

PY

For O

rgan

izat

ions

Fun

ded

by U

SAID

AD

VO

CA

CY

Ove

rall

Obj

ectiv

e: T

o as

sess

the

orga

niza

tion’s

cap

acity

to e

ffec

tivel

y m

anag

e ad

voca

cy p

rogr

ams t

o im

prov

e th

e qu

ality

, acc

essib

ility,

and

ava

ilabi

lity

of h

ealth

and

so

cial

serv

ices

.

Thi

s too

l spe

cific

ally

ass

esse

s org

aniz

atio

nal c

apac

ity in

pol

icy

advo

cacy

, rou

ghly

defi

ned

by th

e A

dvoc

acy

for B

ette

r Hea

lth p

roje

ct a

s the

del

iber

ate

proc

ess o

f in

fluen

cing

dec

ision

-mak

ers i

n su

ppor

t of

evid

ence

-bas

ed p

olic

y ch

ange

and

pol

icy

impl

emen

tatio

n, in

clud

ing

reso

urce

mob

iliza

tion.

It is

impo

rtan

t to

shar

e th

is de

finiti

on w

ith p

artic

ipan

ts b

efor

e ap

plyi

ng th

e to

ol.

AD

VO

CA

CY

ST

RA

TE

GY

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T A

ND

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Sect

ion

Obj

ectiv

e: T

he o

bjec

tive

of th

is se

ctio

n is

to a

sses

s the

org

aniz

atio

n’s c

apac

ity to

dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t adv

ocac

y st

rate

gies

and

ada

pt th

em to

the

ever

-ch

angi

ng p

oliti

cal e

nviro

nmen

t.

Res

ourc

es: O

rgan

izat

iona

l adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy.

Adv

ocac

y St

rate

gy D

evel

opm

ent a

nd I

mpl

emen

tatio

n 1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:N

o ad

voca

cy st

rate

gy o

r an

outd

ated

ad

voca

cy st

rate

gy.1

A c

urre

nt st

rate

gy, b

ut it

has

not

de

fined

prio

rity

issue

s or S

MA

RT2 g

oals

and

obje

ctiv

es th

at a

re c

lear

ly li

nked

to

polic

y ch

ange

/im

plem

enta

tion.

A c

urre

nt st

rate

gy th

at d

efine

s prio

rity

issue

s and

SM

ART

goa

ls an

d ob

ject

ives

, is

base

d on

a th

orou

gh a

sses

smen

t an

d/or

pol

icy/

map

ping

, and

incl

udes

a

deta

iled

wor

k pl

an.

A p

roce

ss fo

r reg

ular

ly c

onsu

lting

its

stra

tegy

whe

n m

akin

g ne

w

prog

ram

mat

ic d

ecisi

ons a

nd u

pdat

ing

its st

rate

gy to

refle

ct c

hang

es in

the

polit

ical

env

ironm

ent.

A c

urre

nt st

rate

gy, b

ut it

is n

ot b

ased

on

a c

omm

unity

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t and

/or

pol

icy/

stak

ehol

der m

appi

ng.

Impl

emen

ted

its c

urre

nt a

dvoc

acy

prog

ram

/act

iviti

es in

acc

orda

nce

with

its

stra

tegy

.

A sy

stem

atic

pro

cess

for c

olle

ctin

g da

ta th

at m

easu

res t

he st

rate

gy’s

effe

ctiv

enes

s and

pro

gres

s tow

ard

goal

s an

d ob

ject

ives

. A

cur

rent

stra

tegy

, but

it d

oes n

ot

incl

ude

a de

taile

d w

ork

plan

that

ou

tline

s tar

gets,

act

iviti

es, p

artn

ers,

reso

urce

nee

ds, a

nd ti

me

fram

e.

A m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n (M

&E

) pl

an to

mea

sure

pro

gram

eff

ectiv

enes

s an

d pr

ogre

ss to

war

d go

als a

nd

obje

ctiv

es.

A p

roce

ss fo

r reg

ular

ly a

djus

ting

its

stra

tegy

and

adv

ocac

y ac

tiviti

es g

iven

M

&E

dat

a an

d le

arni

ng.

1.

Thi

s sec

tion

is in

tend

ed to

ass

ess w

heth

er th

e or

gani

zatio

n ha

s an

over

arch

ing

orga

niza

tiona

l adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy a

s opp

osed

to in

divi

dual

pro

ject

stra

tegi

es.

2.

Spec

ific,

mea

sura

ble,

achi

evab

le, r

elev

ant,

and

time

boun

d.

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns3

32

Adv

ocac

y St

rate

gy D

evel

opm

ent a

nd I

mpl

emen

tatio

nSu

bsec

tion

Che

cklis

tYe

sN

oN

AN

otes

Wha

t has

you

r org

aniz

atio

n be

en d

oing

in th

e ar

ea o

f ad

voca

cy?

Doe

s you

r org

aniz

atio

n ha

ve a

cur

rent

adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy? I

f ye

s, w

hat d

oes i

t inc

lude

?W

ho is

invo

lved

in d

evel

opin

g yo

ur st

rate

gy? W

hat t

ype

of in

form

atio

n do

you

use

to

info

rm y

our s

trate

gy?

How

do

you

use

your

stra

tegy

to m

ake

deci

sions

abo

ut w

hich

adv

ocac

y ac

tiviti

es y

ou

will

do

or w

ill n

ot d

o?H

ow re

gula

rly d

o yo

u up

date

you

r stra

tegy

and

for w

hat r

easo

ns?

Do

you

have

an

M&

E p

lan?

Wha

t typ

e of

info

rmat

ion

do y

ou m

onito

r and

eva

luat

e?H

ow d

o yo

u kn

ow y

our a

ctiv

ities

are

resu

lting

in p

rogr

ess t

owar

d yo

ur g

oals

and

obje

ctiv

es?

Wha

t exa

mpl

es c

an y

ou p

rovi

de a

bout

cha

nges

you

hav

e m

ade

to y

our s

trate

gy g

iven

sh

ifts i

n th

e po

litic

al e

nviro

nmen

t or M

&E

info

rmat

ion?

How

do

you

docu

men

t the

se

chan

ges?

3.

For t

he a

dvoc

acy

sect

ion,

it is

not

requ

ired

that

all

guid

ing

ques

tions

incl

uded

for e

ach

subs

ectio

n ar

e as

ked;

dep

endi

ng o

n pa

rtic

ipan

ts’ a

nsw

ers,

not a

ll qu

estio

ns m

ay b

e re

leva

nt o

r nec

essa

ry. V

ery

ofte

n pa

rtic

ipan

ts w

ill b

e ab

le

to se

lf-as

sess

with

out n

eedi

ng to

ans

wer

all

of th

e gu

idin

g qu

estio

ns.

33

PO

LIC

Y4 A

ND

BU

DG

ET

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess t

he o

rgan

izat

ion’s

abi

lity

to c

ondu

ct p

olic

y an

d bu

dget

ana

lysis

rela

ted

to it

s are

as o

f co

ncer

n an

d de

velo

p im

pact

ful s

olut

ions

.

Res

ourc

es: P

olic

y m

appi

ng, p

olic

y or

bud

get a

naly

sis, p

olic

y/bu

dget

reco

mm

enda

tions

, or c

opie

s of

polic

ies/

budg

ets t

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has h

elpe

d de

velo

p.

Polic

y an

d B

udge

t Ana

lysi

s an

d D

evel

opm

ent

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s: T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

iden

tified

the

polic

ies/

budg

ets t

hat

gove

rn o

r im

pact

its a

dvoc

acy

issue

(s).

Iden

tified

rele

vant

pol

icie

s/bu

dget

s, bu

t is

uncl

ear a

bout

its e

xist

ing

stre

ngth

s or

wea

knes

ses.

Iden

tified

exi

stin

g ga

ps in

pol

icie

s/bu

dget

s and

dev

elop

ed re

alist

ic

reco

mm

enda

tions

to a

ddre

ss th

em.

Eff

ectiv

ely

part

icip

ated

in a

nd

influ

ence

d th

e re

leva

nt p

olic

y- o

r bu

dget

-mak

ing

proc

ess.

Not

iden

tified

the

step

s in

the

polic

y- o

r bu

dget

-mak

ing

proc

ess f

or it

s adv

ocac

y go

als a

nd o

bjec

tives

to ta

rget

.

A g

ener

al u

nder

stan

ding

of

the

polic

y-

or b

udge

t-mak

ing

proc

ess,

but i

s un

clea

r at w

hat p

oint

s it c

an e

ffec

tivel

y en

gage

in a

nd in

fluen

ce th

e pr

oces

s.

Com

plet

ed a

det

aile

d m

appi

ng o

f th

e po

licy-

bud

get-m

akin

g pr

oces

s and

is

clea

r at w

hich

poi

nts i

t can

eng

age

and

influ

ence

the

proc

ess.

Regu

larly

trac

ked

polic

ies/

budg

ets f

or

resp

onse

to re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd

upda

ted

its a

naly

ses a

ccor

ding

ly.

Dev

elop

ed a

nd/o

r pro

vide

d de

taile

d co

mm

ents

/con

tent

that

are

incl

uded

in

polic

ies a

nd b

udge

ts.4.

Po

licie

s in

the

broa

dest

sens

e of

the

wor

d ca

n in

clud

e le

gisla

tion,

pla

ns, s

trate

gies

, age

ndas

, fra

mew

orks

, pro

toco

ls, p

roce

dure

s, gu

idel

ines

, reg

ulat

ions

, bud

gets,

and

circ

ular

s. Fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

the

Adv

ocac

y fo

r Bet

ter H

ealth

Pr

ojec

t, di

stric

t pol

icie

s suc

h as

Dist

rict M

anag

emen

t Im

prov

emen

t Pla

ns, D

istric

t Ope

ratio

nal P

lans

, Dist

rict D

evel

opm

ent P

lans

, Dist

rict I

mpl

emen

tatio

n Pl

ans,

and

the

Budg

et F

ram

ewor

k Pa

pers

are

incl

uded

.

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns

Polic

y an

d B

udge

t Ana

lysi

s an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Subs

ectio

n C

heck

list

Com

men

ts/Q

ualit

y N

otes

Wha

t pol

icie

s aff

ect y

our a

dvoc

acy

issue

s? W

hat a

re th

eir s

treng

ths a

nd

wea

knes

ses?

How

can

they

be

impr

oved

?W

hat p

olic

y- o

r bud

get-m

akin

g pr

oces

s are

you

tryi

ng to

influ

ence

and

why

? Wha

t ar

e th

e m

ajor

step

s in

this

proc

ess?

How

hav

e yo

u en

gage

d in

the

proc

ess?

How

succ

essf

ul d

o yo

u co

nsid

er y

our

effo

rts t

o ha

ve b

een?

How

hav

e yo

u he

lped

to in

form

or d

evel

op p

olic

ies o

r bud

gets

?H

ave

your

reco

mm

enda

tions

or c

onte

nt b

een

incl

uded

in ta

rget

ed p

olic

ies o

r bu

dget

s? W

hy o

r why

not

?

34

GA

TH

ER

ING

AN

D U

SE

OF

EV

IDE

NC

E

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess t

he o

rgan

izat

ion’s

abi

lity

to g

athe

r, us

e, an

d di

ssem

inat

e ev

iden

ce to

adv

ance

thei

r adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, nee

ds a

sses

smen

t, ev

iden

ce d

ossie

rs, f

act s

heet

s, an

d ot

her a

dvoc

acy

mat

eria

ls.

Gat

herin

g an

d U

se o

f E

vide

nce

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

col

lect

ed e

vide

nce5 t

o in

form

and

su

ppor

t its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.Se

mi-r

egul

arly

col

lect

ed st

atist

ics a

nd

gene

ral b

ackg

roun

d in

form

atio

n to

in

form

and

supp

ort i

ts a

dvoc

acy-

agen

da.

Rout

inel

y co

llect

ed u

p-to

-dat

e ev

iden

ce

from

a v

arie

ty o

f cr

edib

le so

urce

s to

info

rm a

nd su

ppor

t its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Con

duct

ed o

r com

miss

ione

d cu

rren

t an

d cr

edib

le re

sear

ch to

influ

ence

its

advo

cacy

targ

ets.

Sem

iregu

larly

pac

kage

d an

d di

ssem

inat

ed st

atist

ics a

nd b

ackg

roun

d in

form

atio

n to

its a

dvoc

acy

targ

ets.

Rout

inel

y pa

ckag

ed a

nd d

issem

inat

ed

up-to

-dat

e, cr

edib

le, a

nd v

arie

d ev

iden

ce to

its a

dvoc

acy

targ

ets.

Con

siste

ntly

col

labo

rate

d w

ith

rese

arch

ers a

nd p

rogr

amm

atic

exp

erts

to

info

rm it

s adv

ocac

y.Se

mire

gula

rly c

olla

bora

ted

with

re

sear

cher

s and

pro

gram

mat

ic e

xper

ts

to in

form

its a

dvoc

acy.

Regu

larly

mon

itore

d an

d ev

alua

ted

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

its e

vide

nce

in

influ

enci

ng it

s adv

ocac

y ta

rget

s and

m

ade

adju

stm

ents

as n

eces

sary

.5.

E

vide

nce

may

incl

ude

but i

s not

lim

ited

to li

tera

ture

revi

ews,

key

info

rman

t int

ervi

ews,

DH

S su

rvey

s, ce

nsus

dat

a, pe

er-r

evie

wed

jour

nal a

rtic

les,

WH

O g

uide

lines

, glo

bal s

tand

ards

and

nor

mat

ive

guid

ance

, pub

licly

ava

ilabl

e H

MIS

info

rmat

ion,

focu

s gro

up d

iscus

sions

, and

faci

lity

asse

ssm

ents.

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns

Gat

herin

g an

d U

se o

f E

vide

nce

Subs

ectio

n C

heck

list

Yes

No

NA

Com

men

ts/Q

ualit

y N

otes

How

are

you

r adv

ocac

y go

als a

nd o

bjec

tives

supp

orte

d by

doc

umen

ted

evid

ence

?W

hat t

ype

of in

form

atio

n or

evi

denc

e do

you

use

to su

ppor

t you

r adv

ocac

y ag

enda

?W

hat a

re y

our m

etho

ds fo

r col

lect

ing

and

upda

ting

your

evi

denc

e?W

ho a

re th

e re

sear

cher

s and

pro

gram

mat

ic e

xper

ts y

ou w

ork

with

on

advo

cacy

? How

do

you

col

labo

rate

with

them

?H

ow d

o yo

u us

e th

e ev

iden

ce y

ou c

olle

ct?

How

do

you

asse

ss th

e im

pact

of

your

evi

denc

e on

you

r adv

ocac

y ta

rget

s? W

hat

docu

men

ted

adju

stm

ents

hav

e yo

u m

ade

give

n fe

edba

ck?

Are

you

abl

e to

pro

vide

a d

ocum

ente

d ex

ampl

e of

how

you

r evi

denc

e ha

s hel

ped

pers

uade

a d

ecisi

on-m

aker

to m

ake

a ch

ange

?

35

NE

TW

OR

KIN

G A

ND

NE

GO

TIA

TIO

N W

ITH

DE

CIS

ION

-MA

KE

RS

AN

D I

NF

LU

EN

CE

RS

6

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess t

he o

rgan

izat

ion’s

abi

lity

to e

ffec

tivel

y id

entif

y, ac

cess

, and

influ

ence

dec

ision

-mak

ers.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, sta

keho

lder

map

ping

.

Net

wor

king

and

Neg

otia

tion

with

Dec

isio

n-M

aker

s 1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s: T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

iden

tified

the

key

deci

sion-

mak

er(s

) an

d in

fluen

cers

rela

tive

to it

s adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Map

ped

the

key

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

nd

influ

ence

rs, b

ut h

as n

ot id

entifi

ed th

eir

posit

ions

on

the

advo

cacy

issu

e an

d la

rger

inte

rest

s.

Map

ped

the

key

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

nd

influ

ence

rs, i

nclu

ding

thei

r pos

ition

s an

d in

tere

sts.

Rout

inel

y up

date

d its

map

ping

to re

flect

ch

ange

s in

the

polit

ical

env

ironm

ent

and

succ

essf

ul e

ffor

ts to

line

up

supp

ort.

Occ

asio

nal i

nter

actio

ns7 a

nd

com

mun

icat

ions

with

key

dec

ision

-m

aker

s and

influ

ence

rs o

n its

adv

ocac

y iss

ue.

Map

ped

its o

ppon

ents

’ pos

ition

s, ta

ctic

s, an

d in

fluen

ce a

nd h

as d

evel

oped

m

itiga

tion

stra

tegi

es a

nd m

essa

ges.

Rout

inel

y be

en c

onsu

lted

by k

ey

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

s a so

urce

of

info

rmat

ion

on it

s adv

ocac

y iss

ue.

Regu

lar a

nd c

onsis

tent

inte

ract

ions

and

co

mm

unic

atio

ns w

ith k

ey d

ecisi

on-

mak

ers a

nd in

fluen

cers

on

its a

dvoc

acy

issue

.

Rout

inel

y en

gage

d w

ith p

olic

y ch

ampi

on(s

) to

join

tly st

rate

gize

on

how

bes

t to

adva

nce

a sh

ared

goa

l.

Iden

tified

pol

icy

cham

pion

(s)8 a

nd

occa

siona

lly c

olla

bora

ted

with

them

to

adva

nce

a sh

ared

goa

l.

Succ

essf

ully

mob

ilize

d ke

y in

fluen

cers

to

stra

tegi

cally

reac

h ou

t to

targ

et

deci

sion-

mak

ers.

Regu

larly

mon

itore

d an

d ev

alua

ted

its

netw

orki

ng a

nd n

egot

iatio

n ta

ctic

s with

ke

y de

cisio

n-m

aker

s and

influ

ence

rs

and

mad

e ad

just

men

ts a

s nec

essa

ry.

6.

With

in th

e pr

ogra

m m

anag

emen

t sec

tion,

the

term

dec

ision

-mak

ers i

s also

use

d to

des

crib

e du

ty-b

eare

rs—

indi

vidu

als w

ho a

re a

ccou

ntab

le fo

r the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

pol

icie

s, pr

ogra

ms,

and

reso

urce

s, as

wel

l as i

ndiv

idua

ls w

ith

deci

sion-

mak

ing

auth

ority

. It i

s im

port

ant t

o sh

are

this

defin

ition

with

par

ticip

ants

bef

ore

appl

ying

this

subs

ectio

n of

the

tool

.7.

In

clud

es b

oth

one-

on-o

ne a

nd p

artic

ipat

ion

in la

rger

gro

up p

roce

sses

with

dec

ision

-mak

ers a

nd in

fluen

cers

.8.

A

dec

ision

-mak

er w

illin

g to

act

ivel

y ch

ampi

on a

pol

icy/

budg

et th

roug

hout

the

proc

ess a

nd w

ork

in c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith th

e ad

voca

cy c

omm

unity

to a

dvan

ce a

shar

ed g

oal.

36

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns

Net

wor

king

and

Neg

otia

tion

with

Dec

isio

n-M

aker

sSu

bsec

tion

Che

cklis

tYe

sN

oN

AC

omm

ents

/Qua

lity

Not

esW

ho a

re th

e m

ain

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

nd in

fluen

cers

you

are

targ

etin

g to

adv

ance

you

r ad

voca

cy a

gend

a? W

hy?

Wha

t are

thei

r pos

ition

s and

inte

rest

s rel

ated

to y

our i

ssue

? H

ow a

nd w

hen

do y

ou e

ngag

e w

ith y

our k

ey d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s and

influ

ence

rs? H

ow

succ

essf

ul w

ould

you

des

crib

e yo

ur e

ffor

ts? D

o th

ey v

iew

you

as a

reso

urce

? H

ave

your

targ

et d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s and

influ

ence

rs ta

ken

desir

ed a

ctio

n as

a re

sult

of

your

enc

ount

ers?

How

do

you

know

?C

an y

ou p

rovi

de a

n ex

ampl

e of

how

you

hav

e ad

apte

d yo

ur st

rate

gies

for e

ngag

ing

deci

sion-

mak

ers o

ver t

ime?

Who

are

you

r opp

onen

ts? H

ow d

o yo

u w

ork

to m

itiga

te th

eir i

nflue

nce?

Is y

our o

rgan

izat

ion

invi

ted

to p

artic

ipat

e by

dec

ision

-mak

ers i

n m

eetin

gs o

r co

nsul

tativ

e fo

rum

s? H

ow fr

eque

ntly

do

you

part

icip

ate?

Wha

t is y

our r

ole?

Doe

s you

r org

aniz

atio

n sit

on

any

gove

rnm

ent w

orki

ng g

roup

s or t

ask

forc

es? W

hat i

s its

role

?Is

you

r org

aniz

atio

n ev

er c

onta

cted

by

your

targ

et d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s? H

ow fr

eque

ntly

? Fo

r wha

t rea

sons

?

37

AD

VO

CA

CY

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

AN

D O

UT

RE

AC

H

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess t

he o

rgan

izat

ion’s

cap

acity

to p

lan

and

impl

emen

t com

mun

icat

ions

and

out

reac

h ac

tiviti

es in

alig

nmen

t w

ith it

s ove

rarc

hing

adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, mes

sage

s, ex

ampl

es o

f co

mm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials,

and

med

ia o

utre

ach

and

cove

rage

.

Adv

ocac

y C

omm

unic

atio

ns a

nd O

utre

ach

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

iden

tified

key

aud

ienc

es fo

r its

co

mm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials

and

activ

ities

.Id

entifi

ed k

ey a

udie

nces

, but

has

no

t ana

lyze

d th

eir u

niqu

e in

tere

sts,

info

rmat

ion

need

s, or

pre

ferr

ed

com

mun

icat

ion

chan

nels.

Ass

esse

d its

key

aud

ienc

es’ i

nter

ests,

in

form

atio

n ne

eds,

and

pref

erre

d co

mm

unic

atio

n ch

anne

ls.

Iden

tified

and

trai

ned

spec

ific

spok

espe

ople

/mes

seng

ers f

or it

s key

au

dien

ces.

Not

dev

elop

ed fo

rmal

adv

ocac

y m

essa

ges f

or u

se in

its c

omm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials

and

activ

ities

.

Dev

elop

ed a

dvoc

acy

mes

sage

s, bu

t ha

s not

ada

pted

them

for d

iffer

ent

audi

ence

s.

Dev

elop

ed a

udie

nce-

spec

ific

advo

cacy

m

essa

ges a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials

and

chan

nels.

A p

roce

ss fo

r rou

tinel

y m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f its

m

essa

ges,

mat

eria

ls, a

nd c

hann

els a

nd

adap

ting

them

as n

eede

d.D

evel

oped

a li

mite

d se

t of

com

mun

icat

ion

mat

eria

ls an

d ch

anne

ls to

adv

ance

its a

dvoc

acy

goal

s and

ob

ject

ives

.

Dev

elop

ed a

rang

e of

com

mun

icat

ion

mat

eria

ls an

d ch

anne

ls to

adv

ance

its

advo

cacy

goa

ls an

d ob

ject

ives

.

Use

d so

cial

med

ia to

reac

h ad

voca

cy

stak

ehol

ders

, but

eff

orts

hav

e no

t re

sulte

d in

sign

ifica

nt m

obili

zatio

n.

Impl

emen

ted

soci

al m

edia

cam

paig

ns

that

hav

e re

sulte

d in

mas

s mob

iliza

tion.

Succ

essf

ully

pro

duce

d an

d pl

aced

med

ia

mat

eria

ls (e

.g., p

ress

rele

ases

, op-

eds)

.Su

cces

sful

ly a

cqui

red

high

-pro

file

med

ia

cove

rage

and

influ

ence

d th

e m

edia

na

rrat

ive

rela

ted

to it

s adv

ocac

y iss

ue.

38

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns

Adv

ocac

y C

omm

unic

atio

ns a

nd O

utre

ach

Subs

ectio

n C

heck

list

Yes

No

NA

Com

men

ts/Q

ualit

y N

otes

Who

are

you

r adv

ocac

y au

dien

ces?

Wha

t are

thei

r spe

cific

inte

rest

s rel

ated

to y

our

issue

? Wha

t are

thei

r inf

orm

atio

n ne

eds a

nd p

refe

rred

com

mun

icat

ion

chan

nels?

Wha

t are

you

r prim

ary

advo

cacy

mes

sage

s? W

here

are

they

doc

umen

ted?

How

do

you

adap

t the

m fo

r you

r diff

eren

t aud

ienc

es?

Wha

t typ

e of

com

mun

icat

ion

mat

eria

ls an

d ch

anne

ls do

you

dev

elop

or u

se? H

ow d

o th

ey d

iffer

by

audi

ence

?W

ho a

re y

our a

dvoc

acy

mes

seng

ers/

spok

espe

ople

? How

do

you

prep

are

them

? H

ow d

o yo

u en

gage

with

soci

al m

edia

? How

eff

ectiv

e w

ould

you

des

crib

e th

ese

effo

rts?

Will

you

pro

vide

a sp

ecifi

c ex

ampl

e of

whe

n yo

u ac

hiev

ed h

igh-

profi

le m

edia

cov

erag

e an

d in

fluen

ced

the

med

ia n

arra

tive

on y

our i

ssue

? How

did

you

do

this?

W

ill y

ou p

rovi

de a

n ex

ampl

e of

how

you

hav

e ad

apte

d yo

ur m

essa

ges o

r mat

eria

ls gi

ven

M&

E o

f th

eir e

ffec

tiven

ess?

39

PAR

TN

ER

ING

AN

D C

OA

LIT

ION

-BU

ILD

ING

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

To

asse

ss th

e or

gani

zatio

n’s a

bilit

y to

par

tner

with

oth

er o

rgan

izat

ions

to a

dvan

ce it

s adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Res

ourc

es: S

take

hold

er m

appi

ng, m

emor

andu

ms o

f un

ders

tand

ing,

join

t adv

ocac

y st

rate

gies

, and

exa

mpl

es o

f m

ater

ials

deve

lope

d by

a c

oalit

ion

or in

par

tner

ship

with

ot

her o

rgan

izat

ions

.

Part

nerin

g an

d C

oalit

ion-

Bui

ldin

g1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:N

ot id

entifi

ed g

roup

s to

part

ner w

ith

on sh

ared

adv

ocac

y go

als.

Map

ped

part

ner o

rgan

izat

ions

with

sh

ared

adv

ocac

y go

als.

Regu

larly

pla

nned

and

par

ticip

ated

in

join

t adv

ocac

y ac

tiviti

es w

ith c

ore

part

ners

.

Dev

elop

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d a

join

t ad

voca

cy st

rate

gy w

ith c

ore

part

ners

.

Part

icip

ated

in jo

int a

dvoc

acy

activ

ities

w

ith p

artn

ers o

n an

ad

hoc

basis

. Jo

intly

dev

elop

ed a

dvoc

acy

posit

ions

/go

als i

n co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith c

ore

part

ners

. D

evel

oped

a c

oalit

ion9 o

f ac

tive

orga

niza

tions

who

rout

inel

y sh

are

info

rmat

ion

and

impl

emen

t joi

nt

advo

cacy

and

com

mun

icat

ions

in

supp

ort o

f a

shar

ed a

dvoc

acy

agen

da.

Coo

rdin

ated

adv

ocac

y m

essa

ging

with

co

re p

artn

ers o

n sh

ared

goa

ls.Re

gula

rly a

sses

sed

and

addr

esse

d th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f its

coa

litio

n de

cisio

n-m

akin

g pr

oces

ses,

leve

l of

mem

ber

enga

gem

ent,

and

outre

ach

to d

ecisi

on-

mak

ers.

Rout

inel

y do

cum

ente

d an

d sh

ared

ad

voca

cy in

form

atio

n, o

utco

mes

, and

go

od p

ract

ices

with

cor

e pa

rtne

rs.

A la

rge

part

ner n

etw

ork

that

it is

abl

e to

eff

ectiv

ely

mob

ilize

at k

ey a

dvoc

acy

mom

ents.

St

rate

gica

lly a

nd su

cces

sful

ly e

ngag

ed

dive

rse,

nont

radi

tiona

l par

tner

s on

key

aspe

cts o

f its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.9.

Fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

the

prog

ram

man

agem

ent s

ectio

n, c

oalit

ion

is de

fined

as a

gro

up w

hose

mem

bers

form

ally

com

mit

to a

n ag

reed

-on

purp

ose

and

shar

ed d

ecisi

on-m

akin

g to

influ

ence

an

exte

rnal

inst

itutio

n or

targ

et, w

hile

eac

h m

embe

r org

aniz

atio

n m

aint

ains

its o

wn

auto

nom

y; th

e te

rm d

oes n

ot a

pply

to fo

rmal

um

brel

la o

r net

wor

k or

gani

zatio

ns. C

oalit

ions

can

be

shor

t-ter

m o

r per

man

ent.

The

term

coa

litio

n is

ofte

n us

ed in

terc

hang

eabl

y w

ith o

ther

la

bels

for c

olle

ctiv

e ac

tion

such

as a

llian

ce, c

onso

rtiu

m, a

nd w

orki

ng g

roup

. It i

s im

port

ant t

o sh

are

this

defin

ition

with

par

ticip

ants

bef

ore

appl

ying

this

subs

ectio

n of

the

tool

and

to st

ress

—fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

this

tool

—th

at

part

icip

atio

n in

coa

litio

ns m

ust r

elat

e to

furt

herin

g th

eir a

dvoc

acy

agen

da a

nd d

oes n

ot re

late

to n

etw

ork

or c

oalit

ion

mem

bers

hip

mor

e ge

nera

lly.

40

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns

Part

nerin

g an

d C

oalit

ion-

Build

ing

Subs

ectio

n C

heck

list

Yes

No

NA

Com

men

ts/Q

ualit

y N

otes

Who

are

you

r cor

e ad

voca

cy p

artn

ers?

H

ow d

o yo

u de

cide

who

you

will

col

labo

rate

with

?W

hat t

ype

of a

ctiv

ities

do

you

colla

bora

te o

n w

ith y

our p

artn

ers?

Will

you

pro

vide

sp

ecifi

c ex

ampl

es?

How

do

you

com

mun

icat

e an

d en

sure

coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith p

artn

ers?

H

ave

you

deve

lope

d a

join

t adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy w

ith p

artn

ers?

Wha

t was

you

r pro

cess

? H

ow d

o yo

u ho

ld e

ach

othe

r acc

ount

able

?H

ave

you

stra

tegi

cally

org

aniz

ed a

coa

litio

n? F

or w

hat r

easo

ns? H

ow e

ffec

tive

wou

ld

you

cons

ider

it to

be?

Will

you

pro

vide

an

exam

ple

of su

cces

sful

ly m

obili

zing

par

tner

s to

cond

uct o

utre

ach

to

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

t key

mom

ents

?H

ow h

ave

you

enga

ged

with

div

erse

or n

ontra

ditio

nal a

dvoc

acy

part

ners

and

for w

hat

purp

oses

?

41

CO

MM

UN

ITY

MO

BIL

IZA

TIO

N A

ND

EM

PO

WE

RM

EN

T

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

To

asse

ss w

heth

er th

e or

gani

zatio

n’s a

dvoc

acy

initi

ativ

es re

spon

d to

and

add

ress

com

mun

ity n

eeds

by

revi

ewin

g ho

w th

ey in

volv

e co

mm

unity

m

embe

rs in

pla

nnin

g, d

ecisi

on-m

akin

g, a

nd im

plem

enta

tion.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion

and/

or m

obili

zatio

n pl

an, p

roje

ct a

ctiv

ity o

r afte

r-act

ion

repo

rts,

com

mun

ity m

obili

zatio

n or

mon

itorin

g to

ols,

com

mun

ity n

eeds

ass

essm

ent,

and

com

mun

ity a

ctio

n pl

ans.

Com

mun

ity M

obili

zatio

n an

d E

mpo

wer

men

t1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:N

ot a

ctiv

ely

solic

ited

pers

pect

ives

from

or

eng

aged

aff

ecte

d co

mm

uniti

es in

its

advo

cacy

pro

gram

s.

Con

duct

ed a

ctiv

ities

to ra

ise

com

mun

ities

’ kno

wle

dge

of th

eir r

ight

s an

d re

spon

sibili

ties.

Invo

lved

aff

ecte

d co

mm

uniti

es a

nd

lead

ers i

n its

adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy p

lann

ing

and

deci

sion-

mak

ing

and

inte

grat

ed

thei

r vie

ws i

nto

prog

ram

des

ign

and

activ

ities

.

Prov

ided

adv

ocac

y to

ols a

nd o

ngoi

ng

train

ing

to c

omm

unity

mem

bers

to

enab

le th

em to

mor

e co

nfide

ntly

and

ef

fect

ivel

y en

gage

with

dec

ision

-mak

ers.

Use

d to

ols a

nd o

rgan

ized

foru

ms

to c

aptu

re a

ffec

ted

com

mun

ities

’ pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

n he

alth

and

soci

al

serv

ices

.

Con

siste

ntly

supp

orte

d ad

voca

cy a

ctio

n pl

an d

evel

opm

ent a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

by a

ffec

ted

com

mun

ities

.

Eng

aged

aff

ecte

d co

mm

uniti

es

in m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f ad

voca

cy st

rate

gies

, ac

tiviti

es, a

nd fo

rum

s, in

tegr

atin

g th

eir

view

s int

o pr

ogra

m re

visio

ns.

Inte

grat

ed c

omm

unity

-iden

tified

issu

es

with

in it

s adv

ocac

y ag

enda

. Re

gula

rly o

rgan

ized

foru

ms (

both

in

-per

son

and

virt

ual)

that

ena

ble

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs to

adv

ocat

e di

rect

ly to

targ

et d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s and

th

e m

edia

.

An

activ

e co

mm

unity

net

wor

k th

at it

is

able

to e

ffec

tivel

y m

obili

ze a

t key

ad

voca

cy m

omen

ts.

42

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns

Com

mun

ity M

obili

zatio

n an

d E

mpo

wer

men

tSu

bsec

tion

Che

cklis

tYe

sN

oN

AC

omm

ents

/Qua

lity

Not

esD

o yo

u in

volv

e co

mm

unity

mem

bers

in th

e de

sign,

impl

emen

tatio

n, a

nd m

onito

ring/

eval

uatin

g of

you

r adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy? H

ow?

Wha

t too

ls do

you

use

to su

ppor

t the

com

mun

ity in

mon

itorin

g he

alth

serv

ices

?H

ow d

oes y

our o

rgan

izat

ion’s

adv

ocac

y iss

ues r

eflec

t the

com

mun

ities

’ con

cern

s or

need

s?D

o yo

u in

volv

e th

e co

mm

unity

in y

our a

dvoc

acy

activ

ities

? How

?H

ow d

o yo

u su

ppor

t com

mun

ities

in d

evel

opin

g an

d im

plem

entin

g ac

tion

plan

s?W

hat t

ype

of fo

rum

s or c

hann

els d

o yo

u ar

rang

e to

supp

ort c

omm

uniti

es in

dire

ctly

ad

voca

ting

to d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s or t

he m

edia

? How

eff

ectiv

e do

you

con

sider

thes

e fo

rum

s?H

ow d

o yo

u bu

ild th

e sk

ills a

nd c

onfid

ence

of

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs to

mor

e ef

fect

ivel

y en

gage

with

dec

ision

-mak

ers?

43

WO

ME

N, Y

OU

TH

, AN

D M

OS

T-A

T-R

ISK

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

eva

luat

e th

e or

gani

zatio

n’s sy

stem

s for

ass

essin

g iss

ues t

hat i

mpa

ct v

ulne

rabl

e po

pula

tions

, inc

ludi

ng w

omen

, yo

uth,

and

mos

t-at-r

isk p

opul

atio

ns (M

ARP

s)10

and

eff

ectiv

ely

inte

grat

ing

thes

e co

ncer

ns in

to it

s adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion,

and

/or m

obili

zatio

n pl

an; c

omm

unity

nee

ds a

sses

smen

ts; p

roje

ct a

ctiv

ity o

r afte

r-act

ion

repo

rts;

com

mun

ity

mob

iliza

tion

or m

onito

ring

tool

s; an

d po

licy

and

budg

et a

naly

ses.

Wom

en, Y

outh

, and

MA

RPs

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

act

ivel

y so

licite

d pe

rspe

ctiv

es fr

om

or e

ngag

ed w

omen

, you

th, a

nd M

ARP

s in

its a

dvoc

acy

prog

ram

s.

Map

ped

vuln

erab

le g

roup

s, in

par

ticul

ar

MA

RPs,

with

in it

s pro

ject

are

as.

Invo

lved

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs

in a

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

pla

nnin

g an

d de

cisio

n-m

akin

g an

d in

tegr

ated

th

eir v

iew

s int

o pr

ogra

m d

esig

n an

d ac

tiviti

es.

Ada

pted

adv

ocac

y to

ols a

nd tr

aini

ng to

en

able

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs t

o m

ore

confi

dent

ly a

nd e

ffec

tivel

y en

gage

w

ith d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s.

Con

duct

ed a

ctiv

ities

to ra

ise

com

mun

ities

’ kno

wle

dge

of th

e un

ique

rig

hts a

nd re

spon

sibili

ties o

f w

omen

, yo

uth,

and

MA

RPs.

Fost

ered

the

voca

l rep

rese

ntat

ion

and

deci

sion-

mak

ing

pow

er o

f w

omen

, yo

uth,

and

MA

RPs i

n co

mm

unity

ac

tion

plan

dev

elop

men

t and

im

plem

enta

tion.

Eng

aged

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs i

n m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g ef

fect

iven

ess

of a

dvoc

acy

stra

tegi

es, a

ctiv

ities

, and

fo

rum

s and

inte

grat

ed th

eir v

iew

s int

o pr

ogra

m re

visio

ns.

Ada

pted

tool

s and

foru

ms t

o sp

ecifi

cally

cap

ture

the

pers

pect

ives

of

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs o

n he

alth

an

d so

cial

serv

ices

.

Ens

ured

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs

have

visi

ble

and

voca

l rol

es in

th

e ad

voca

cy fo

rum

s tha

t brin

g co

mm

uniti

es a

nd d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s/m

edia

toge

ther

.

Org

aniz

ed sp

ecifi

c an

d re

gula

r for

ums

to su

ppor

t act

ion

plan

dev

elop

men

t and

im

plem

enta

tion

by w

omen

, you

th, a

nd

MA

RPs.

Inte

grat

ed is

sues

iden

tified

by

wom

en,

yout

h, a

nd M

ARP

s int

o its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Org

aniz

ed sp

ecifi

c an

d re

gula

r for

ums

(bot

h in

-per

son

and

virt

ual)

that

ena

ble

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs t

o ad

voca

te

dire

ctly

to d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s/m

edia

. C

ondu

cted

spec

ific

polic

y an

d bu

dget

an

alys

is th

roug

h a

wom

en, y

outh

, and

M

ARP

s len

s. 10

. Re

lativ

e to

the

Adv

ocac

y fo

r Bet

ter H

ealth

Pro

ject

, thi

s inc

lude

s orp

hans

and

vul

nera

ble

child

ren,

com

mer

cial

sex

wor

kers

, and

fish

ing

com

mun

ities

.

44

Gui

ding

Que

stio

ns

Wom

en, Y

outh

, and

MA

RPs

Subs

ectio

n C

heck

list

Yes

No

NA

Com

men

ts/Q

ualit

y N

otes

Wha

t are

the

diff

eren

t pop

ulat

ions

you

wor

k w

ith?

Do

you

invo

lve

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs i

n th

e de

sign,

impl

emen

tatio

n, a

nd M

&E

of

you

r adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy? H

ow?

How

doe

s you

r org

aniz

atio

n’s a

dvoc

acy

issue

s refl

ect t

he c

once

rns o

r nee

ds o

f w

omen

, yo

uth,

and

MA

RPs?

Do

you

invo

lve

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs i

n yo

ur a

dvoc

acy

activ

ities

? How

?H

ow d

o yo

u su

ppor

t wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs i

n de

velo

ping

and

impl

emen

ting

actio

n pl

ans?

Wha

t typ

e of

foru

ms o

r cha

nnel

s do

you

arra

nge

to su

ppor

t wom

en, y

outh

, and

M

ARP

s in

dire

ctly

adv

ocat

ing

to d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s or t

he m

edia

? How

eff

ectiv

e do

you

co

nsid

er th

ese

foru

ms?

How

do

you

build

the

skill

s and

con

fiden

ce o

f w

omen

, you

th, a

nd M

ARP

s to

mor

e ef

fect

ivel

y en

gage

with

dec

ision

-mak

ers?

How

doe

s you

r pol

icy

or b

udge

t ana

lysis

refle

ct th

e un

ique

nee

ds o

r int

eres

ts o

f w

omen

, you

th, a

nd M

ARP

s?

45

AD

VO

CA

CY

CA

PAC

ITY

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

TO

OL

: PA

RT

ICIP

AN

T’S

CO

PY

For O

rgan

izat

ions

Fun

ded

by U

SAID

AD

VO

CA

CY

Ove

rall

Obj

ectiv

e: T

o as

sess

you

r org

aniz

atio

n’s c

apac

ity to

eff

ectiv

ely

man

age

advo

cacy

pro

gram

s to

impr

ove

the

qual

ity, a

cces

sibili

ty, a

nd a

vaila

bilit

y of

hea

lth a

nd

soci

al se

rvic

es.

Thi

s too

l spe

cific

ally

ass

esse

s org

aniz

atio

nal c

apac

ity in

pol

icy

advo

cacy

, rou

ghly

defi

ned

by th

e A

dvoc

acy

for B

ette

r Hea

lth p

roje

ct a

s the

del

iber

ate

proc

ess o

f in

fluen

cing

dec

ision

-mak

ers i

n su

ppor

t of

evid

ence

-bas

ed p

olic

y ch

ange

and

pol

icy

impl

emen

tatio

n, in

clud

ing

reso

urce

mob

iliza

tion.

AD

VO

CA

CY

ST

RA

TE

GY

DE

VE

LO

PM

EN

T A

ND

IM

PL

EM

EN

TA

TIO

N

Sect

ion

Obj

ectiv

e: T

he o

bjec

tive

of th

is se

ctio

n is

to a

sses

s you

r org

aniz

atio

n’s c

apac

ity to

dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t adv

ocac

y st

rate

gies

and

ada

pt th

em to

the

ever

-ch

angi

ng p

oliti

cal e

nviro

nmen

t.

Res

ourc

es: O

rgan

izat

iona

l adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy.

Adv

ocac

y St

rate

gy D

evel

opm

ent a

nd I

mpl

emen

tatio

n 1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:N

o ad

voca

cy st

rate

gy o

r an

outd

ated

ad

voca

cy st

rate

gy.1

A c

urre

nt st

rate

gy, b

ut it

has

not

de

fined

prio

rity

issue

s or S

MA

RT2 g

oals

and

obje

ctiv

es th

at a

re c

lear

ly li

nked

to

polic

y ch

ange

/im

plem

enta

tion.

A c

urre

nt st

rate

gy, b

ut it

doe

s not

in

clud

e a

deta

iled

wor

k pl

an th

at

outli

nes t

arge

ts, a

ctiv

ities

, par

tner

s, re

sour

ce n

eeds

, and

tim

e fr

ame.

A p

roce

ss fo

r reg

ular

ly c

onsu

lting

its

stra

tegy

whe

n m

akin

g ne

w

prog

ram

mat

ic d

ecisi

ons a

nd u

pdat

ing

its st

rate

gy to

refle

ct c

hang

es in

the

polit

ical

env

ironm

ent.

A c

urre

nt st

rate

gy, b

ut it

is n

ot b

ased

on

a c

omm

unity

nee

ds a

sses

smen

t and

/or

pol

icy/

stak

ehol

der m

appi

ng.

A c

urre

nt st

rate

gy th

at d

efine

s prio

rity

issue

s and

SM

ART

goa

ls an

d ob

ject

ives

, is

base

d on

a th

orou

gh a

sses

smen

t an

d/or

pol

icy/

map

ping

, and

incl

udes

a

deta

iled

wor

k pl

an.

A sy

stem

atic

pro

cess

for c

olle

ctin

g da

ta th

at m

easu

res t

he st

rate

gy’s

effe

ctiv

enes

s and

pro

gres

s tow

ard

goal

s an

d ob

ject

ives

.

Impl

emen

ted

its c

urre

nt a

dvoc

acy

prog

ram

/act

iviti

es in

acc

orda

nce

with

its

stra

tegy

.

A p

roce

ss fo

r reg

ular

ly a

djus

ting

its

stra

tegy

and

adv

ocac

y ac

tiviti

es g

iven

M

&E

dat

a an

d le

arni

ng.

A m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n (M

&E

) pl

an to

mea

sure

pro

gram

eff

ectiv

enes

s an

d pr

ogre

ss to

war

d go

als a

nd

obje

ctiv

es.

1.

Thi

s sec

tion

is in

tend

ed to

ass

ess w

heth

er th

e or

gani

zatio

n ha

s an

over

arch

ing

orga

niza

tiona

l adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy a

s opp

osed

to in

divi

dual

pro

ject

stra

tegi

es.

2.

Spec

ific,

mea

sura

ble,

achi

evab

le, r

elev

ant,

and

time

boun

d.

46

PO

LIC

Y3 A

ND

BU

DG

ET

AN

ALY

SIS

AN

D D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess y

our o

rgan

izat

ion’s

abi

lity

to c

ondu

ct p

olic

y an

d bu

dget

ana

lysis

rela

ted

to y

our a

reas

of

conc

ern

and

deve

lop

impa

ctfu

l sol

utio

ns.

Res

ourc

es: P

olic

y m

appi

ng, p

olic

y or

bud

get a

naly

sis, p

olic

y/bu

dget

reco

mm

enda

tions

, or c

opie

s of

polic

ies/

budg

ets t

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has h

elpe

d de

velo

p.

Polic

y an

d B

udge

t Ana

lysi

s an

d D

evel

opm

ent

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s: T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

iden

tified

the

polic

ies/

budg

ets t

hat

gove

rn o

r im

pact

its a

dvoc

acy

issue

(s).

Iden

tified

rele

vant

pol

icie

s/bu

dget

s, bu

t is

uncl

ear a

bout

its e

xist

ing

stre

ngth

s or

wea

knes

ses.

Iden

tified

exi

stin

g ga

ps in

pol

icie

s/bu

dget

s and

dev

elop

ed re

alist

ic

reco

mm

enda

tions

to a

ddre

ss th

em.

Eff

ectiv

ely

part

icip

ated

in a

nd

influ

ence

d th

e re

leva

nt p

olic

y- o

r bu

dget

-mak

ing

proc

ess.

Not

iden

tified

the

step

s in

the

polic

y- o

r bu

dget

-mak

ing

proc

ess f

or it

s adv

ocac

y go

als a

nd o

bjec

tives

to ta

rget

.

A g

ener

al u

nder

stan

ding

of

the

polic

y-

or b

udge

t-mak

ing

proc

ess,

but i

s un

clea

r at w

hat p

oint

s it c

an e

ffec

tivel

y en

gage

in a

nd in

fluen

ce th

e pr

oces

s.

Com

plet

ed a

det

aile

d m

appi

ng o

f th

e po

licy-

bud

get-m

akin

g pr

oces

s and

is

clea

r at w

hich

poi

nts i

t can

eng

age

and

influ

ence

the

proc

ess.

Regu

larly

trac

ked

polic

ies/

budg

ets f

or

resp

onse

to re

com

men

datio

ns a

nd

upda

ted

its a

naly

ses a

ccor

ding

ly.

Dev

elop

ed a

nd/o

r pro

vide

d de

taile

d co

mm

ents

/con

tent

that

are

incl

uded

in

polic

ies a

nd b

udge

ts.3.

Po

licie

s in

the

broa

dest

sens

e of

the

wor

d ca

n in

clud

e le

gisla

tion,

pla

ns, s

trate

gies

, age

ndas

, fra

mew

orks

, pro

toco

ls, p

roce

dure

s, gu

idel

ines

, reg

ulat

ions

, bud

gets,

and

circ

ular

s. Fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

the

Adv

ocac

y fo

r Bet

ter H

ealth

Pr

ojec

t, di

stric

t pol

icie

s suc

h as

Dist

rict M

anag

emen

t Im

prov

emen

t Pla

ns, D

istric

t Ope

ratio

nal P

lans

, Dist

rict D

evel

opm

ent P

lans

, Dist

rict I

mpl

emen

tatio

n Pl

ans,

and

the

Budg

et F

ram

ewor

k Pa

pers

are

incl

uded

.

47

GA

TH

ER

ING

AN

D U

SE

OF

EV

IDE

NC

E

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess y

our o

rgan

izat

ion’s

abi

lity

to g

athe

r, us

e, an

d di

ssem

inat

e ev

iden

ce to

adv

ance

you

r adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, nee

ds a

sses

smen

t, ev

iden

ce d

ossie

rs, f

act s

heet

s, an

d ot

her a

dvoc

acy

mat

eria

ls.

Gat

herin

g an

d U

se o

f E

vide

nce

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

col

lect

ed e

vide

nce4 t

o in

form

and

su

ppor

t its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.Se

mire

gula

rly c

olle

cted

stat

istic

s and

ge

nera

l bac

kgro

und

info

rmat

ion

to

info

rm a

nd su

ppor

t its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Rout

inel

y co

llect

ed u

p-to

-dat

e ev

iden

ce

from

a v

arie

ty o

f cr

edib

le so

urce

s to

info

rm a

nd su

ppor

t its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Con

duct

ed o

r com

miss

ione

d cu

rren

t an

d cr

edib

le re

sear

ch to

influ

ence

its

advo

cacy

targ

ets.

Sem

iregu

larly

pac

kage

d an

d di

ssem

inat

ed st

atist

ics a

nd b

ackg

roun

d in

form

atio

n to

its a

dvoc

acy

targ

ets.

Rout

inel

y pa

ckag

ed a

nd d

issem

inat

ed

up-to

-dat

e, cr

edib

le, a

nd v

arie

d ev

iden

ce to

its a

dvoc

acy

targ

ets.

Con

siste

ntly

col

labo

rate

d w

ith

rese

arch

ers a

nd p

rogr

amm

atic

exp

erts

to

info

rm it

s adv

ocac

y. Se

mire

gula

rly c

olla

bora

ted

with

re

sear

cher

s and

pro

gram

mat

ic e

xper

ts

to in

form

its a

dvoc

acy.

Regu

larly

mon

itore

d an

d ev

alua

ted

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

its e

vide

nce

in

influ

enci

ng it

s adv

ocac

y ta

rget

s and

m

ade

adju

stm

ents

as n

eces

sary

.4.

E

vide

nce

may

incl

ude

but i

s not

lim

ited

to li

tera

ture

revi

ews,

key

info

rman

t int

ervi

ews,

DH

S su

rvey

s, ce

nsus

dat

a, pe

er-r

evie

wed

jour

nal a

rtic

les,

WH

O g

uide

lines

, glo

bal s

tand

ards

and

nor

mat

ive

guid

ance

, pub

licly

ava

ilabl

e H

MIS

info

rmat

ion,

focu

s gro

up d

iscus

sions

, and

faci

lity

asse

ssm

ents.

48

NE

TW

OR

KIN

G A

ND

NE

GO

TIA

TIO

N W

ITH

DE

CIS

ION

-MA

KE

RS

AN

D I

NF

LU

EN

CE

RS

5

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess y

our o

rgan

izat

ion’s

abi

lity

to e

ffec

tivel

y id

entif

y, ac

cess

, and

influ

ence

dec

ision

-mak

ers.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, sta

keho

lder

map

ping

.

Net

wor

king

and

Neg

otia

tion

with

Dec

isio

n-M

aker

s 1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s: N

ot id

entifi

ed th

e ke

y de

cisio

n-m

aker

(s)

and

influ

ence

rs re

lativ

e to

its a

dvoc

acy

agen

da.

Map

ped

the

key

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

nd

influ

ence

rs, b

ut h

as n

ot id

entifi

ed th

eir

posit

ions

on

the

advo

cacy

issu

e an

d la

rger

inte

rest

s.

Map

ped

the

key

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

nd

influ

ence

rs in

clud

ing

thei

r pos

ition

s and

in

tere

sts.

Rout

inel

y up

date

d its

map

ping

to re

flect

ch

ange

s in

the

polit

ical

env

ironm

ent

and

succ

essf

ul e

ffor

ts to

line

up

supp

ort.

Occ

asio

nal i

nter

actio

ns6 a

nd

com

mun

icat

ions

with

key

dec

ision

-m

aker

s and

influ

ence

rs o

n its

adv

ocac

y iss

ue.

Map

ped

its o

ppon

ents

’ pos

ition

s, ta

ctic

s, an

d in

fluen

ce a

nd h

as d

evel

oped

m

itiga

tion

stra

tegi

es a

nd m

essa

ges.

Rout

inel

y be

en c

onsu

lted

by k

ey

deci

sion-

mak

ers a

s a so

urce

of

info

rmat

ion

on it

s adv

ocac

y iss

ue.

Regu

lar a

nd c

onsis

tent

inte

ract

ions

and

co

mm

unic

atio

ns w

ith k

ey d

ecisi

on-

mak

ers a

nd in

fluen

cers

on

its a

dvoc

acy

issue

.

Rout

inel

y en

gage

d w

ith p

olic

y ch

ampi

on(s

) to

join

tly st

rate

gize

on

how

bes

t to

adva

nce

a sh

ared

goa

l.

Iden

tified

pol

icy

cham

pion

(s)7 a

nd

occa

siona

lly c

olla

bora

ted

with

them

to

adva

nce

a sh

ared

goa

l.

Succ

essf

ully

mob

ilize

d ke

y in

fluen

cers

to

stra

tegi

cally

reac

h ou

t to

targ

et

deci

sion-

mak

ers.

Regu

larly

mon

itore

d an

d ev

alua

ted

its

netw

orki

ng a

nd n

egot

iatio

n ta

ctic

s with

ke

y de

cisio

n-m

aker

s and

influ

ence

rs

and

mad

e ad

just

men

ts a

s nec

essa

ry.

5.

With

in th

e pr

ogra

m m

anag

emen

t sec

tion,

the

term

dec

ision

-mak

ers i

s also

use

d to

des

crib

e du

ty-b

eare

rs—

indi

vidu

als w

ho a

re a

ccou

ntab

le fo

r the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

pol

icie

s, pr

ogra

ms,

and

reso

urce

s, as

wel

l as i

ndiv

idua

ls w

ith

deci

sion-

mak

ing

auth

ority

. It i

s im

port

ant t

o sh

are

this

defin

ition

with

par

ticip

ants

bef

ore

appl

ying

this

subs

ectio

n of

the

tool

.6.

In

clud

es b

oth

one-

on-o

ne a

nd p

artic

ipat

ion

in la

rger

gro

up p

roce

sses

with

dec

ision

-mak

ers a

nd in

fluen

cers

.7.

A

dec

ision

-mak

er w

illin

g to

act

ivel

y ch

ampi

on a

pol

icy/

budg

et th

roug

hout

the

proc

ess a

nd w

ork

in c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith th

e ad

voca

cy c

omm

unity

to a

dvan

ce a

shar

ed g

oal.

49

AD

VO

CA

CY

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

NS

AN

D O

UT

RE

AC

H

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

ass

ess y

our o

rgan

izat

ion’s

cap

acity

to p

lan

and

impl

emen

t com

mun

icat

ions

and

out

reac

h ac

tiviti

es in

alig

nmen

t w

ith y

our o

vera

rchi

ng a

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, mes

sage

s, ex

ampl

es o

f co

mm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials,

and

med

ia o

utre

ach

and

cove

rage

.

Adv

ocac

y C

omm

unic

atio

ns a

nd O

utre

ach

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

iden

tified

key

aud

ienc

es fo

r its

co

mm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials

and

activ

ities

.Id

entifi

ed k

ey a

udie

nces

, but

has

no

t ana

lyze

d its

uni

que

inte

rest

s, in

form

atio

n ne

eds,

or p

refe

rred

co

mm

unic

atio

n ch

anne

ls.

Ass

esse

d its

key

aud

ienc

es’ i

nter

ests,

in

form

atio

n ne

eds,

and

pref

erre

d co

mm

unic

atio

n ch

anne

ls.

Iden

tified

and

trai

ned

spec

ific

spok

espe

ople

/mes

seng

ers f

or it

s key

au

dien

ces.

Not

dev

elop

ed fo

rmal

adv

ocac

y m

essa

ges f

or u

se in

its c

omm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials

and

activ

ities

.

Dev

elop

ed a

dvoc

acy

mes

sage

s, bu

t ha

s not

ada

pted

them

for d

iffer

ent

audi

ence

s.

Dev

elop

ed a

udie

nce-

spec

ific

advo

cacy

m

essa

ges a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

n m

ater

ials

and

chan

nels.

A p

roce

ss fo

r rou

tinel

y m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f its

m

essa

ges,

mat

eria

ls, a

nd c

hann

els a

nd

adap

ting

them

as n

eede

d.D

evel

oped

a li

mite

d se

t of

com

mun

icat

ion

mat

eria

ls an

d ch

anne

ls to

adv

ance

its a

dvoc

acy

goal

s and

ob

ject

ives

.

Dev

elop

ed a

rang

e of

com

mun

icat

ion

mat

eria

ls an

d ch

anne

ls to

adv

ance

its

advo

cacy

goa

ls an

d ob

ject

ives

.

Use

d so

cial

med

ia to

reac

h ad

voca

cy

stak

ehol

ders

, but

eff

orts

hav

e no

t re

sulte

d in

sign

ifica

nt m

obili

zatio

n.

Impl

emen

ted

soci

al m

edia

cam

paig

ns

that

hav

e re

sulte

d in

mas

s mob

iliza

tion.

Succ

essf

ully

pro

duce

d an

d pl

aced

med

ia

mat

eria

ls (e

.g., p

ress

rele

ases

, op-

eds)

.E

xper

ienc

ed su

cces

sful

ly a

cqui

ring

high

-pro

file

med

ia c

over

age

and

influ

enci

ng th

e m

edia

nar

rativ

e re

late

d to

its a

dvoc

acy

issue

.

50

PAR

TN

ER

ING

AN

D C

OA

LIT

ION

-BU

ILD

ING

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

To

asse

ss y

our o

rgan

izat

ion’s

abi

lity

to p

artn

er w

ith o

ther

org

aniz

atio

ns to

adv

ance

you

r adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Res

ourc

es: S

take

hold

er m

appi

ng, m

emor

andu

ms o

f un

ders

tand

ing,

join

t adv

ocac

y st

rate

gies

, and

exa

mpl

es o

f m

ater

ials

deve

lope

d by

a c

oalit

ion

or in

par

tner

ship

with

ot

her o

rgan

izat

ions

.

Part

nerin

g an

d C

oalit

ion-

Bui

ldin

g1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:N

ot id

entifi

ed g

roup

s to

part

ner w

ith

on sh

ared

adv

ocac

y go

als.

Map

ped

part

ner o

rgan

izat

ions

with

sh

ared

adv

ocac

y go

als.

Regu

larly

pla

nned

and

par

ticip

ated

in

join

t adv

ocac

y ac

tiviti

es w

ith c

ore

part

ners

.

Dev

elop

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d a

join

t ad

voca

cy st

rate

gy w

ith c

ore

part

ners

.

Part

icip

ated

in jo

int a

dvoc

acy

activ

ities

w

ith p

artn

ers o

n an

ad

hoc

basis

. Jo

intly

dev

elop

ed a

dvoc

acy

posit

ions

/go

als i

n co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith c

ore

part

ners

. D

evel

oped

a c

oalit

ion8 o

f ac

tive

orga

niza

tions

who

rout

inel

y sh

are

info

rmat

ion

and

impl

emen

t joi

nt

advo

cacy

and

com

mun

icat

ions

in

supp

ort o

f a

shar

ed a

dvoc

acy

agen

da.

Coo

rdin

ated

adv

ocac

y m

essa

ging

with

co

re p

artn

ers o

n sh

ared

goa

ls.Re

gula

rly a

sses

sed

and

addr

esse

d th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f its

coa

litio

n de

cisio

n-m

akin

g pr

oces

ses,

leve

l of

mem

ber

enga

gem

ent,

and

outre

ach

to d

ecisi

on-

mak

ers.

Rout

inel

y do

cum

ente

d an

d sh

ared

ad

voca

cy in

form

atio

n, o

utco

mes

, and

go

od p

ract

ices

with

cor

e pa

rtne

rs.

A la

rge

part

ner n

etw

ork

that

they

ar

e ab

le to

eff

ectiv

ely

mob

ilize

at k

ey

advo

cacy

mom

ents.

St

rate

gica

lly a

nd su

cces

sful

ly e

ngag

ed

dive

rse,

nont

radi

tiona

l par

tner

s on

key

aspe

cts o

f its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.8.

Fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

the

prog

ram

man

agem

ent s

ectio

n, c

oalit

ion

is de

fined

as a

gro

up w

hose

mem

bers

form

ally

com

mit

to a

n ag

reed

-on

purp

ose

and

shar

ed d

ecisi

on-m

akin

g to

influ

ence

an

exte

rnal

inst

itutio

n or

targ

et, w

hile

ea

ch m

embe

r org

aniz

atio

n m

aint

ains

its o

wn

auto

nom

y; th

e te

rm d

oes n

ot a

pply

to fo

rmal

um

brel

la o

r net

wor

k or

gani

zatio

ns. C

oalit

ions

can

be

shor

t-ter

m o

r per

man

ent.

The

term

coa

litio

n is

ofte

n us

ed in

terc

hang

eabl

y w

ith

othe

r lab

els f

or c

olle

ctiv

e ac

tion

such

as a

llian

ce, c

onso

rtiu

m, a

nd w

orki

ng g

roup

. It i

s im

port

ant t

o sh

are

this

defin

ition

with

par

ticip

ants

bef

ore

appl

ying

this

subs

ectio

n of

the

tool

and

to st

ress

—fo

r the

pur

pose

s of

this

tool

—th

at p

artic

ipat

ion

in c

oalit

ions

mus

t rel

ate

to fu

rthe

ring

thei

r adv

ocac

y ag

enda

and

doe

s not

rela

te to

net

wor

k or

coa

litio

n m

embe

rshi

p m

ore

gene

rally

.

51

CO

MM

UN

ITY

MO

BIL

IZA

TIO

N A

ND

EM

PO

WE

RM

EN

T

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

To

asse

ss w

heth

er y

our o

rgan

izat

ion’s

adv

ocac

y in

itiat

ives

resp

ond

to a

nd a

ddre

ss c

omm

unity

nee

ds b

y re

view

ing

how

you

invo

lve

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

in p

lann

ing,

dec

ision

-mak

ing,

and

impl

emen

tatio

n.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion,

and

/or m

obili

zatio

n pl

an; p

roje

ct a

ctiv

ity o

r afte

r-act

ion

repo

rts;

com

mun

ity m

obili

zatio

n or

mon

itorin

g to

ols;

com

mun

ity n

eeds

ass

essm

ent;

and

com

mun

ity a

ctio

n pl

ans.

Com

mun

ity M

obili

zatio

n an

d E

mpo

wer

men

t1

23

4 T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:N

ot a

ctiv

ely

solic

ited

pers

pect

ives

from

or

eng

aged

aff

ecte

d co

mm

uniti

es in

its

advo

cacy

pro

gram

s.

Con

duct

ed a

ctiv

ities

to ra

ise

com

mun

ities

’ kno

wle

dge

of th

eir r

ight

s an

d re

spon

sibili

ties.

Invo

lved

aff

ecte

d co

mm

uniti

es a

nd

lead

ers i

n its

adv

ocac

y st

rate

gy p

lann

ing

and

deci

sion-

mak

ing

and

inte

grat

ed

thei

r vie

ws i

nto

prog

ram

des

ign

and

activ

ities

.

Prov

ided

adv

ocac

y to

ols a

nd o

ngoi

ng

train

ing

to c

omm

unity

mem

bers

to

enab

le th

em to

mor

e co

nfide

ntly

and

ef

fect

ivel

y en

gage

with

dec

ision

-mak

ers.

Use

d to

ols a

nd o

rgan

ized

foru

ms

to c

aptu

re a

ffec

ted

com

mun

ities

’ pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

n he

alth

and

soci

al

serv

ices

.

Con

siste

ntly

supp

orte

d ad

voca

cy a

ctio

n pl

an d

evel

opm

ent a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

by a

ffec

ted

com

mun

ities

.

Eng

aged

aff

ecte

d co

mm

uniti

es

in m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g th

e ef

fect

iven

ess o

f ad

voca

cy st

rate

gies

, ac

tiviti

es, a

nd fo

rum

s, in

tegr

atin

g th

eir

view

s int

o pr

ogra

m re

visio

ns.

Inte

grat

ed c

omm

unity

-iden

tified

issu

es

with

in it

s adv

ocac

y ag

enda

. Re

gula

rly o

rgan

ized

foru

ms (

both

in

-per

son

and

virt

ual)

that

ena

ble

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs to

adv

ocat

e di

rect

ly to

targ

et d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s and

th

e m

edia

.

An

activ

e co

mm

unity

net

wor

k th

at it

is

able

to e

ffec

tivel

y m

obili

ze a

t key

ad

voca

cy m

omen

ts.

52

WO

ME

N, Y

OU

TH

, AN

D M

OS

T-A

T-R

ISK

PO

PU

LA

TIO

NS

Subs

ectio

n O

bjec

tive:

The

obj

ectiv

e of

this

sess

ion

is to

eva

luat

e yo

ur o

rgan

izat

ion’s

syst

ems f

or a

sses

sing

issue

s tha

t im

pact

vul

nera

ble

popu

latio

ns, i

nclu

ding

wom

en,

yout

h, a

nd m

ost-a

t-risk

pop

ulat

ions

(MA

RPs)

9 and

eff

ectiv

ely

inte

grat

ing

thes

e co

ncer

ns in

to y

our a

dvoc

acy

agen

da.

Res

ourc

es: A

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

, com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion,

and

/or m

obili

zatio

n pl

an; c

omm

unity

nee

ds a

sses

smen

ts; p

roje

ct a

ctiv

ity o

r afte

r-act

ion

repo

rts;

com

mun

ity

mob

iliza

tion

or m

onito

ring

tool

s; an

d po

licy

and

budg

et a

naly

ses.

Wom

en, Y

outh

, and

MA

RPs

12

34

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s:T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has:

Not

act

ivel

y so

licite

d pe

rspe

ctiv

es fr

om

or e

ngag

ed w

omen

, you

th, a

nd M

ARP

s in

its a

dvoc

acy

prog

ram

s.

Map

ped

vuln

erab

le g

roup

s, in

par

ticul

ar

MA

RPs,

with

in it

s pro

ject

are

as.

Invo

lved

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs

in a

dvoc

acy

stra

tegy

pla

nnin

g an

d de

cisio

n-m

akin

g an

d in

tegr

ated

thei

r vi

ews i

nto

prog

ram

des

ign

and

activ

ities

.

Ada

pted

adv

ocac

y to

ols a

nd tr

aini

ng to

en

able

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs t

o m

ore

confi

dent

ly a

nd e

ffec

tivel

y en

gage

w

ith d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s.C

ondu

cted

act

iviti

es to

raise

co

mm

uniti

es’ k

now

ledg

e of

the

uniq

ue

right

s and

resp

onsib

ilitie

s of

wom

en,

yout

h, a

nd M

ARP

s.

Fost

ered

the

voca

l rep

rese

ntat

ion

and

deci

sion-

mak

ing

pow

er o

f w

omen

, yo

uth,

and

MA

RPs i

n co

mm

unity

act

ion

plan

dev

elop

men

t and

impl

emen

tatio

n.

Eng

aged

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs i

n m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatin

g ef

fect

iven

ess

of a

dvoc

acy

stra

tegi

es, a

ctiv

ities

, and

fo

rum

s and

inte

grat

ed th

eir v

iew

s int

o pr

ogra

m re

visio

ns.

Ada

pted

tool

s and

foru

ms t

o sp

ecifi

cally

ca

ptur

e th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

es o

f w

omen

, yo

uth,

and

MA

RPs o

n he

alth

and

soci

al

serv

ices

.

Ens

ured

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs

have

visi

ble

and

voca

l rol

es in

th

e ad

voca

cy fo

rum

s tha

t brin

g co

mm

uniti

es a

nd d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s/m

edia

toge

ther

.

Org

aniz

ed sp

ecifi

c an

d re

gula

r for

ums

to su

ppor

t act

ion

plan

dev

elop

men

t and

im

plem

enta

tion

by w

omen

, you

th, a

nd

MA

RPs.

Inte

grat

ed is

sues

iden

tified

by

wom

en,

yout

h, a

nd M

ARP

s int

o its

adv

ocac

y ag

enda

.

Org

aniz

ed sp

ecifi

c an

d re

gula

r for

ums

(bot

h in

-per

son

and

virt

ual)

that

ena

ble

wom

en, y

outh

, and

MA

RPs t

o ad

voca

te

dire

ctly

to d

ecisi

on-m

aker

s/m

edia

. C

ondu

cted

spec

ific

polic

y an

d bu

dget

an

alys

is th

roug

h a

wom

en, y

outh

, and

M

ARP

s len

s. 9.

Re

lativ

e to

the

Adv

ocac

y fo

r Bet

ter H

ealth

Pro

ject

, thi

s inc

lude

s orp

hans

and

vul

nera

ble

child

ren,

com

mer

cial

sex

wor

kers

, and

fish

ing

com

mun

ities

.