Aidsmap

The attitude to HIV/AIDS in a community: if it is not visible, partners may not believe that it exists. If it is visible, they may want to cover it up.

Maintaining confidentiality: there may be a need to explain to partners who may want to know or tell others about the HIV status of particular people that this is breaching confidentiality unless they have permission.

Language and jargon: partners may not be familiar with specialised words used to describe HIV/AIDS work.

Scandals and scare stories: partners may not believe an NGO’s accurate information about HIV/AIDS.

Competing priorities: partners might be more interested in addressing other social issues, or responding to a recent crisis.

Subject fatigue: partners might not want to hear any more about HIV/AIDS.

Reference: Adapted from Pathways to Partnerships toolkit, International HIV/AIDS Alliance.

Handout 6: How to choose appropriate advocacy methods
There are no simple rules for choosing the best advocacy methods.
Your choice will depend on many factors:
a) the target person/group/institution;
b) the advocacy issue;
c) your advocacy objective;
d) the evidence to support your objective;
e) the skills and resources of your coalition; and
f) timing – for example, external political events, when a law is still in draft form, immediately before a budgeting process, time of year, stage of advocacy process.

Below is an example of the strengths and weaknesses of some methods for a particular advocacy objective and targets. Remember that every case is different.

Advocacy objective: To persuade managers of the 10 largest companies in the Andhra Pradesh state to end compulsory testing of workers and dismissal of HIV+ workers.

Direct targets: General managers of companies.

Indirect targets: Labour unions, boards of directors, personnel managers.

Method // Strengths // Weaknesses

Analysing and influencing legislation and policies or their implementation // If analysis shows that a company’s current practices are costing them money, this can be powerful evidence Beneficiaries can provide expertise // Criticism of policies could anger managers Not useful for managers who dislike formal policies

Position paper or briefing note // Suitable for presenting to senior directors and managers Useful background briefing for journalists Ensures that public statements by allies always agree // Can easily be lost among other paperwork Some managers do not like reading papers Difficult to involve beneficiaries

Working from inside // Some managers will listen more closely to people they know Many opportunities within labour unions // Limited opportunities in companies – all policy is made by managers and directors

Lobbying or face-to-face meetings // Opportunity to present ‘human face’ of the issue and to build a personal relationship Beneficiaries can explain their case directly // Managers often too busy to attend Board members not interested in the issue, and afraid of HIV+ people

Presentation // Opportunity to present the issue in a controlled way, direct to decision-makers Beneficiaries can speak directly // Managers often too busy Difficult to gain permission for presentation to board of directors

Drama // Emotional appeal works with some managers Suitable for mass meetings of labour unions Beneficiaries can advise on story, or perform // Some decision-makers will feel that drama is only for the illiterate Difficult to find opportunity to perform to managers or directors

Press release // Useful for organisations needing public support Useful to launch a campaign or for quick reaction to opposition or new developments Inexpensive // No use for companies who do not need/want public support Difficult to involve beneficiaries

Media interview // Same as for press release Useful at times when advocacy issue needs ‘a human face’ Inexpensive // Can have negative impact if the interviewee is not prepared or does not deliver message well Can be manipulated by journalists

Press conference // Same as for press release Good for presenting evidence, esp. case studies/examples Useful to launch a major campaign or for reaction to serious opposition or major new developments Easy to involve beneficiaries and allies, and give them public recognition // As for press release Requires high level of organisation Expensive

Handout 7: Methods of monitoring and evaluating advocacy work
Monitoring is the measurement of progress towards achievement of objectives, and noting which activities are going well and which are not.

Evaluation is about making judgements about quality and impact. Evaluation asks why some activities went well and others did not. It also looks at the impact of activities, on the people affected by the problem or issue, on the organisation and anyone else.

There are numerous ways of monitoring and evaluating our advocacy work. The same methods can be used in advocacy as in monitoring and evaluating other activities. Methods can be:

qualitative (for example, case studies, stories, opinions, feelings)

quantitative (for example, statistics, numbers).

When monitoring and evaluating, we need to agree on our definitions of success, i.e., agree on the signs that will show us whether the situation is improving or not – these signs are impact indicators. Well-written aims and SMART objectives often make it obvious what kinds of evidence (indicators) are needed. For example:

Advocacy objective: To stop police harassment of sex workers (SWs) in Ulaan Baator by November 2003

Quantitative indicators: Reduction in violence, extortion and arrests

Qualitative indicators: SWs do not fear police, police attitudes more positive.

People affected by the problem or issue are often the best people to choose indicators of success and monitoring and evaluation methods, and undertake the monitoring and evaluation.

Monitoring methods can be simple or complex, depending on indicators and resources. For example, they may include:

keeping records of anecdotes and conversations with target audiences

tracking when others have used your arguments or wording in their literature or presentations

keeping significant letters and e-mails that have been received

documenting and filing the messages that you have put out, number of meetings held, and invitations to contribute to the issue from key external parties

carrying out surveys and interviews to determine the impact that your actions have made

monitoring the media for mentions of your work.

Whatever methods you choose, try to only collect information that will be useful in relation to your indicators.

Evaluating your work does not need to be a complex process. It can be simply analysing, discussing and making judgements from your monitoring information.

Here are some examples of questions that may be useful:

Have you achieved your aim and objectives?

Is the situation better than before? By how much? If not, do you need to change your aim and objectives?

If you did not achieve what you set out to do, why not? What will you do differently next time?

Are the people involved in the advocacy work happy with the results? With the process?

Source: Advocacy in Action
This is an extract from Advocacy in Action: a toolkit to support NGOs and CBOs responding to HIV/AIDS, developed in collaboration with the International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO) and published by the International HIV/AIDS
Alliance in June 2002.

To view the whole report follow this link.

To download this section, complete with graphics, in pdf format (which requires Adobe Acrobat software to read it) follow this link (file size 977 Kbytes)

subscribe to aidsmap email bulletins

hiv worldwide