This site uses cookies to collect activity data and personalize content. By continuing to navigate this site, you agree to allow us to collect information using cookies. Learn more about how we care for your data in our privacy notice .
Case studies
Related program: Advocacy and policy
Advocacy is one of the many powerful tools that PATH uses to achieve its mission. By influencing the priorities and actions of decision-makers at all levels of the government, in countries around the world, PATH works to create a policy environment that supports global health. The following case studies illustrate how PATH uses a 10-part approach to advocacy to achieve lasting policy change.
- Market Advocacy to Reduce Newborn Infections and Deaths in Bangladesh
- Applying a market lens to advocacy for increased misoprostol access in Nigeria
- Policies and actions for more effective malaria in pregnancy efforts
- Tracking Effective Vaccine Management Indicators for Continuous Improvement of the Immunization Supply Chain in Uganda
- Making human milk banking a priority in South Africa
- Ensuring workplace HIV/AIDS policies for Kenya’s non-military uniformed service personnel
- Influencing policies to reduce deaths from diarrhea in Cambodia and Vietnam
- Ensuring government accountability for expanded access to female condoms in South Africa
- Prioritizing the newborn agenda through policy change in Zambia
Considerations for Strategic Policy Advocacy
- First Online: 02 August 2020
Cite this chapter
- Sheldon Gen 3 &
- Amy Conley Wright 4
550 Accesses
The book concludes by summarizing key points and offering considerations for evaluating advocacy efforts. There is a brief recapitulation of the six strategies and discussion of the use of different strategies depending on the organization’s size, scope, issue area, and targeted level of government. A discussion of the challenges of policy advocacy acknowledges that a policy “win” may take significant time, with success or failure often due to forces outside the advocates’ control. These challenges make evaluating advocacy difficult and require a flexible approach. Developing a logic model can assist with strategic planning as well as monitoring and evaluation of an advocacy effort. Methods used in advocacy evaluation often draw on key stakeholder perspectives to identify if and how advocacy campaigns contributed to outcomes. Popular methods in advocacy evaluation are reviewed, including systems mapping, bellwether methodology, policy maker ratings, intense period debriefs, contribution analysis, and process tracing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Compact, lightweight edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Acosta, R. (2012). Advocacy networks through a multidisciplinary lens: Implications for research agendas. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , 23 (1), 156–181.
Google Scholar
Alliance for Justice. (2005). Build Your Advocacy Grant Making: Advocacy Evaluation Tool . Washington, DC: Alliance for Justice.
Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 (1), 11–35.
Article Google Scholar
Andrews, K., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the US political pro-cess. Annual Review of Sociology, 30 (1), 479–506.
Arensman, B. (2019). Advocacy outcomes are not self-evident: The quest for outcome identification. American Journal of Evaluation , 1–18.
Befani, B., & Mayne, J. (2014). Process tracing and contribution analysis: A combined approach to generative causal inference for impact evaluation. IDS Bulletin, 45 (6), 17–36.
Brousselle, A., & Champagne, F. (2011). Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34 (1), 69–78.
Carr, M., & Holley, M. (2013). A new approach to evaluating public policy advocacy: Creating evidence of cause and effect. In 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, New Orleans .
Casey, J. (2011). Understanding Advocacy: A Primer on the Policy-Making Role of Nonprofit Organizations . New York: Center for Nonprofit Strategy, Baruch College, City University of New York.
Chapman, J., & Wameyo, A. (2001). Monitoring and Evaluating Advocacy: A Scoping Study . ActionAid. Retrieved from http://www.eldis.org/vle/upload/1/document/0708/DOC21800.pdf .
Coe, J., & Majot, J. (2013). Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning in NGO Advocacy: Findings from Comparative Policy Advocacy MEL Review Project . Washington, DC: Oxfam America. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/mel-in-ngo-advocacy-full-report.pdf .
Coffman, J., & Beer, T. (2015). The Advocacy Strategy Framework: A Tool for Articulating an Advocacy Theory of Change . Center for Evaluation Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.evaluationinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Adocacy-Strategy-Framework.pdf .
Coffman, J., & Reed, E. (2009). Unique Methods in Advocacy Evaluation . Washington, DC: Center for Evaluation Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.pointk.org/resources/files/Unique_Methods_Brief.pdf .
Collier, D. (2011). Understanding process tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics , 44 (4), 823–830.
DeVita, C. J., Montilla, M., Reid, B., & Fatiregun, O. (2004). Organizational Factors Influencing Advocacy for Children . Washington, DC: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute.
Devlin-Foltz, D., & Molinaro, L. (2010). Champions and “Championness”: Measuring Efforts to Create Champions for Policy Change . Center for Evaluation Innovation. Retrieved from https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/Champions_and_Championness_Aug2010.pdf .
Earl, S., Carden, F., & Smutylo, T. (2001). Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs . Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre.
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34 (1), 56–87.
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The Limits of Nonprofit Impact: A Contingency Framework for Measuring Social Performance (No. 10-099). Harvard Business School.
Fagen, M. C., Reed, E., Kaye, J. W., & Jack, L., Jr. (2009). Advocacy evaluation: What it is and where to find out more about it. Health Promotion Practice, 10 (4), 482–484.
Gardner, A., & Brindis, C. (2017). Advocacy and Policy Change Evaluation: Theory and Practice . Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Glasrud, B. (2001). The muddle of outcome measurement. Nonprofit World, 19 (6), 35–37.
Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2014). Tweeting social change: How social media are changing nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43 (1), 57–79.
Guthrie, K., Louie, J., David, T., & Foster, C. C. (2005). The Challenge of Assessing Policy and Advocacy Activities: Strategies for a Prospective Evaluation Approach . Los Angeles: The California Endowment.
Harvard Family Research Project. (2007). Advocacy and policy change. The Evaluation Exchange, XIII (1), 2–4.
Holley, M. J., Carr, M. J., & King, M. H. (2014). Spring: Advocacy isn’t “soft”. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 12 (2), 59–60.
Jun, K. N., & Shiau, E. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41 (4), 632–655.
Kane, R., Levine, C., Orians, C., & Reinelt, C. (2017). Contribution Analysis in Policy Work: Assessing Advocacy’s Influence . Center for Evaluation Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.evaluationinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Contribution .
Kingdon, J. W., & Thurber, J. A. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Vol. 45, pp. 165–169). Boston: Little, Brown.
Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2012). The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results . Los Angeles: Sage.
LeRoux, K., & Wright, N. S. (2010). Does performance measurement improve strategic decision making? Findings from a national survey of nonprofit social service agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39 (4), 571–587.
Mandeville, J. (2007). Public policy grant making: Building organizational capacity among nonprofit grantees. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (2), 282–298.
Mayne, J. (2012). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18 (3), 270–280.
Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6 (3), 257–272.
Mosley, J. E. (2011). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What tactical choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40 (3), 435–457.
Naeve, K., Fischer-Mackey, J., Puri, J., Bhatia, R., & Yegbemey, R. (2017). Evaluating Advocacy: An Exploration of Evidence and Tools to Understand What Works and Why (3ie Working Paper 29). New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.
Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15 (3), 311–319.
Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use . New York: Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q., McKegg, K., & Wehipeihana, N. (Eds.). (2015). Developmental Evaluation Exemplars: Principles in Practice . New York: Guilford Publications.
Reid, E. J. (2006). Advocacy and the challenges it presents for nonprofits. In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and Government: Collaboration and Conflict (2nd ed., pp. 343–371). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 117–166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Salamon, L. M. (2002). Explaining Nonprofit Advocacy: An Exploratory Analysis (Center for Civil Society Studies Working Paper Series, 21).
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization . New York City: Broadway Business.
Stanford Innovation Network. (2008). Speaking for Themselves: Advocates’ Perspectives on Evaluation . Innovation Network. Retrieved from http://www.innonet.org/client_docs/File/advocacy/speaking_for_themselves_web_basic.pdf .
Teles, S., & Schmitt, M. (2016). The Elusive Craft of Evaluating Advocacy . Menlo Park: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved from https://hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Elusive_Craft.pdf .
Varone, F., Ingold, K., Jourdain, C., & Schneider, V. (2017). Studying policy advocacy through social network analysis. European Political Science, 16, 322–336.
Wilson-Grau, R., & Britt, H. (2012). Outcome Harvesting . Cairo: Ford Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.managingforimpact.org/sites/default/files/resource/outome_harvesting_brief_final_2012-05-2-1.pdf .
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Public Administration Program, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA
Sheldon Gen
Sydney School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Amy Conley Wright
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Sheldon Gen .
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Gen, S., Wright, A.C. (2020). Considerations for Strategic Policy Advocacy. In: Nonprofits in Policy Advocacy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43696-4_9
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43696-4_9
Published : 02 August 2020
Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-030-43695-7
Online ISBN : 978-3-030-43696-4
eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
In the pages that follow, we share 10 case studies of diverse community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships around the United States that have in common a commitment to foster healthy public policy. The 10 partnerships examined—in areas as diverse as South Los Angeles, California; New Castle, Indiana; Harlem, New York; and
Evidence-based policy-making assists in making decisions about projects and programmes at every stage by using evidence to inform the policy process, rather than directly targeting the objectives of the policy.
The following case studies illustrate how PATH uses a 10-part approach to advocacy to achieve lasting policy change. Advocacy is one of the many powerful tools that PATH uses to achieve its mission.
Lobbying and Advocacy: Theory and Practice. We are pleased to offer course materials designed to help students understand how lobbying and advocacy impact the making of public policy.
Advocacy involves a range of activities, including educating and mobilizing the public, researching the problem at stake, agenda setting, suggesting solutions to those in power, and undertaking policy monitoring and feedback (Boris and Mosher-Williams, 1998; Fagen et al., 2009; Reid, 2000).
We wanted to describe where and how public health students and practitioners can develop and utilize potent advocacy skills to translate public health knowledge and science into appropriate health-protective public policy.
This textbook for graduate students and practitioners combines empirically and theoretically grounded strategies for nonprofit policy advocacy with real case studies. Includes a nationally representative survey of U.S. nonprofit organizations with Q-methodology and interviews of policy directors.
We provide insight and describe the process of advancing state legislation, coalition building, and managing opposition. Senate Bill 1095 would become law in 2016, requiring California to screen for 2 new rare diseases by August 2018: mucopolysaccharidosis type I and Pompe disease.
This case study demonstrates that many public health professionals are interested to learn how to integrate advocacy into their mainstream duties and, when offered the opportunity, are enabled to forge local partnerships, coalitions and projects to progress locally relevant advocacy.
The Alliance for Justice Advocacy Capacity Tool for Organizational Assessment assesses an organization’s readiness to engage in four areas of advocacy: (1) advocacy goals and strategies; (2) conducting advocacy; (3) advocacy avenues or targets of influence; and (4) organizational operations to sustain advocacy.