TERRE DES HOMMES NETHERLANDS
Advocacy – A Basic Guide Report of Partner Workshops Nairobi 29 – 30 May and Lodwar 6 – 7 June, 2012
Julia Ekong 6/1/2012
List of Content 1. Background 2. Workshop Objectives 3. Nairobi Workshop 29 – 30 May, 2012 3.1 Participants and participation 3.2 Venue
Page 3 3 4 4
3.3 Workshop Sessions
4
3.4 Evaluation and Feedback
9
3.5 Adaption of the Workshop Programme 4. Lodwar Workshop 6 – 7 June, 2012
10 10
4.1. Participants and Participation
10
4.2 Venue
10
4.3 Workshop Sessions
11
4.4 Evaluation and Feedback
13
5
Recommendations
13
6
Workshop Programme
15
2
1 Background Based on a capacity assessment of partners in Kenya of Terre des Hommes, Netherlands (TdH) carried out in 2011 regarding their level of engagement in civil society, it was considered pertinent that partners strengthen their capacity to carry out advocacy initiatives. To this end, a basic guide to advocacy was designed to ‘demystify the concept of advocacy and provide TdH partners in Kenya an understanding of the key steps involved in designing an advocacy strategy as well as to familiarise them with some of the main tools and methodologies used in that design. Based on this guide two workshops with the partners were held in Nairobi and Lodwar end of May and early June, respectively. The feedback from these partner workshops have been used to revise and improve both the guide and the workshop design. The author is grateful to the active participation of the partners in both workshops that have informed revision of both the guide and the workshop programme. Whilst, TdH had hoped that partners would have formulated advocacy strategies for their organisations, it became clear that a two day training was insufficient to design in depth work plans. The policy issues identified during the training for the purpose of exercises were not necessarily the issues that organisations would take up in an advocacy initiative. The participants also did not have sufficient information available to them to analyse the policy environment comprehensively and to develop sound messages and delivery channels for these messages. The evaluation by participants at both workshops showed that participants found them to be informative and to a large extent relevant to their organisations. It became apparent, however, that it was not possible, nor necessarily desirable, for every single partner organisation to have their own advocacy strategy. It should be possible though in future for each organisation to link to advocacy initiatives and identify their niche in supporting these. Some partners could indeed take (or already are taking ) an active role in taking forward advocacy initiatives, further support for analysis and strategy design would however be called for. At both workshops, the training of advocacy was sandwiched between other learning agendas and participants were therefore faced with quite an overload of information and work exercises. A more leisurely pace conducive to learning should be considered for possible future workshops. It also became apparent that both the guide and the workshop programme should be enhanced with examples taken from the areas of engagement of the partners demonstrating advocacy initiatives at local and national level.
2.
Workshop Objectives In both workshops the following objectives were set
Demystifying the concept of advocacy
Understanding the steps in designing an advocacy strategy
Familiarisation with key tools and methodologies for advocacy strategy design
Suggestions for improvement of the guide and the workshop design from participants
Due to the short duration of the workshops and the diversity of partners attending it was not deemed feasible for organisations to actually develop their own advocacy strategies. Nor is it necessarily constructive to have a several independent strategies being followed by each individual partner. At the end of the workshop, partners were, however, asked to rate the relevance of the training for their organisation.
3
3.
Nairobi Workshop 29 – 30 May, 2012 3.1
Participants and Participation
The Nairobi workshop was attended by 36 participants working in the diverse areas of Education, Health, Child Rights and Social and Economic Development. This large number meant that the break out working groups organised along thematic lines were relatively large (on average eight members) and more time was needed to come to a consensus during the working sessions. Due to the large number of participants, not all were able to contribute during the plenary sessions but participation in break-out groups was active and allowed for inclusion of all. Due to the fact that several participants joined each day from Nairobi, it was not possible to start with everyone present. In principle, it was possible to cover the material in the two days although more time for in-depth group work would have been appreciated. The final session on activity plan was dropped for lack of time and instead a plenary brainstorming session in buzz groups on types of activities was introduced. It was possible to end the sessions on time each afternoon so that concentration and absorption capacity was not overstretched. Given the amount of material to be covered each day, there was little time to build in energisers. Particularly in the afternoon session on day two, which was in plenary, this would have been advisable. 3.2 Venue The workshop venue was rather cramped given the large number of participants and meant that a front lecturing stance had to be taken by the facilitator. Ideally, the facilitator should move around the room to enable the involvement of all participants. As the working sessions build on each other and participants gain a clear understanding of advocacy in the course of the workshop, it is advisable to put up the flip charts from each session on the wall and allow participants to move and review the outcome of their work and how the sessions build on each other. 3.3 Workshop Sessions 3.3.1 Introduction, Workshop Objectives and Programme Consensus As the training in advocacy was part of a TdH partner meeting and sandwiched in between two days of other agendas, the training did not start with an icebreaker and introduction of participants. Participants were asked to show which thematic group their organisation primarily belonged to (Education, Health, Child Rights and Social and Economic Development). Given the constraint of the workshop venue this had to be done by a show of hands. Ideally forming groups in different parts of the room would have loosened up the atmosphere to the start of the workshop. Workshop objectives where shared with participants and they were asked if they had any additions or further suggestions. A session on expectations was not included in view of the limited time and the fact that it was a training to impart knowledge and skills.
4
3.3.2
Defining Advocacy
The first block of the workshop is an upfront ‘lecture’ to clarify the concept of what it is and what it is not and why organisations would engage in advocacy. Participants were asked at the beginning of the session to form small buzz groups to brain storm for ten minutes on what they associated with the term advocacy. Their ideas were written on meta-cards and displayed. After the presentation on defining advocacy the cards were revisited to see how far the participants had an understanding of advocacy. Although many cards related to awareness creation and mobilising communities, there was a strong understanding that it was taking up a cause on behalf or with affected groups. Different aspects of advocacy activities were highlighted but only one group mentioned the purpose of advocacy as being oriented to changing policy and only two highlighted that it was about positive change. Two also highlighted Process as being associated with advocacy. The session emphasises that advocacy is about changing power relations and the status quo through “organised efforts’’ to introduce, amend and implement relevant policies. It focuses particularly on advocacy for social justice and as a component of a rights’ based approach. To allow participants to digest a large amount of information and to share their own experiences with implementation of advocacy initiatives or aspects of it, participants broke into thematic groups and identified at least two initiatives per group to share in plenary. This also allowed the groups to bring the theory to the local reality, to demonstrate that advocacy does not always aim at high level (national or international) policy reform. This session was not originally foreseen in the workshop programme but proved useful in giving some indication of whether the concept had been clearly understood. The thematic groups on health and child abuse were able to identify clear advocacy initiatives (treatment of rape victims, availability of epilepsy drugs to all levels of health facilities and the long struggle to pass a law on child labour). The groups involved primarily in education and socio-economic development had more difficulties relating the theory to their practice and tended to emphasise their programmes and what they would want to see policy makers undertake to enhance these (e.g. recognition and certification of vocational training curriculum). The education group provided an example of local advocacy whereby a head teacher opposed to allowing children with disabilities to join the school was transferred by the authorities. As the initiative had concentrated more on the removal of the head teacher rather than the enforcement of a policy, participants debated if this could truly be considered advocacy. (Handout 1 ‘A Definition of Advocacy’; Handout 2 ‘What is Advocacy Not?’ and Handout 3 ‘Types of Advocacy’ were distributed before breaking into working groups). 3.3.3
Formulating a Vision of Change
Advocacy is all about bringing about change to make a just and decent society reality. Participants were therefore asked to formulate clearly their vision of change as a basis of identifying a policy issue to work on. From the larger vision, participants identified sub-sets of achievable and time bound objectives to narrow down on a particular policy issue to concentrate on during the rest of the workshop. As not all problems or issues can be tackled at once it is important to find a starting point for advocacy efforts. Normally this would emerge organically from the ongoing work of organisations that require a policy framework conducive to achieve scale and sustainability
5
of results. It is important to understand that advocacy is an ongoing process that needs to take advantage of opportunities or overcome sudden hurdles
3.3.4
Key Steps in Advocacy Strategy Design
The second part of the workshop concentrated on understanding key steps in the advocacy design and the sharing of tools and methodologies to be used. 3.3.5
Step 1 Analysing the policy environment and identifying the policy issue
The afternoon session on day one started with a brief introduction of key questions for analysis of the policy environment. ‘Force field analysis’ as a tool to assess whether a policy solution is realistic and achievable as well as identify which “forces against’’ may need to be addressed in achieving the advocacy objectives was shared with participants. Participants again broke into thematic groups for the rest of the afternoon on day one (approximately 90 minutes) to build on their vision of change by trying to analyse the policy environment, identify the policy issue to be addressed and initially list stakeholders and policy makers related to the issue. (Handout 4 “Worksheet – Understanding the Policy Environment”; Handout 5 “Worksheet
Identifying the Issues and analysing solutions” and Handout 6 “Force Field Analysis Worksheet” were distributed to participants as guidelines for their discussions) On the following morning in place of a recap, each group gave a brief presentation of their vision of change and the policy issue they had identified to work on. As each session in the training builds on knowledge required before and which had been discussed in depth in the working groups, it was necessary to recap on the learning points of the day before . The groups on health and child rights/abuse were able to build on issues they were already involved in (provision of epilepsy drugs and the passing of the child labour law, respectively). The groups on education and socio-economic development had more difficulty in narrowing down ‘quality of education’ and ‘safe and economic viable environment’ to more specific policy issues. After discussion of their presentation they were able to narrow down the issues. In the case of education, the repetition of classes by underperforming students required by many schools though against government stipulation was reviewed. The group on socio-economic development chose to look at the provision of water and sanitation services in an urban slum. Participants found the force field analysis useful in assessing their issue and possible opposition and challenges they might face in their advocacy efforts.
3.3.6
Step 2 Outlining the Strategy
This session of the workshop on the morning of day two concentrated on two key areas: formulating a compelling and concise message and mapping and analysing primary and secondary audiences. Formulating the Message(s) This session started with an exercise in plenary by which statements were read out and participants grouped themselves according to whether they were in agreement or not, or undecided. Participants from the two camps “agree” and “disagree” then tried to convince the undecided to join their side. The purpose of this exercise is to
6
show how deeply rooted our convictions are and how difficult it is to actually to persuade someone to see your point of view. With this experience in mind a brief introduction to formulating messages, reinforcing messages and channels for delivery was given. After this participants regrouped in their thematic groups to develop a ‘one minute message’. That is, they formulated a compelling advocacy message that covered ‘what is the issue, what is the evidence, what is the solution?’ The health group for instance noted that Kenya lacks national guidelines on epilepsy care so that patients find it difficult to access essential care. As a result drugs are not administered and expire on the shelves. The evidence is the lack of essential drugs for epilepsy at lower level health facilities and a WHO report on access to drugs generally in Africa. The solution is to formulate, disseminate and implement national policies and guidelines on epilepsy care in accordance with WHO guidelines. This message would have been more compelling if it had stated the number of people suffering from epilepsy in Kenya and what the consequences of lack of treatment are. Figures on the amount of drugs that expire from a reliable source and WHO estimates specific to epilepsy would enhance the evidence. The solution does not specify who should ensure that national policies are formulated, disseminated and implemented. It is important to note that messages will vary slightly according to the audience and delivery channel. Also they will be improved over time as actors gain more insight into how audiences react to the messages and also more evidence is gathered, and possibly public support is gained. How to simplify the message so as to avoid jargon and acronyms was a key learning from this exercise. (If time had allowed this exercise could have been augmented with a role play around a lobby visit to deliver the message). Mapping and Analysing Key Audiences This exercise was introduced through a presentation in plenary distinguishing primary and secondary audiences, both formal and informal, as well as the need to identify allies, champions, opponents and fence sitters. Allies and Champions are key to getting the message across to key audiences. Fence sitters are those that need to be won over through persuasion and compelling messages. Being aware of and prepared to counter the arguments brought by opponents is important so as not to be caught off guard and have advocacy efforts undermined. Participants again worked in thematic groups using a visualising tool of larger and smaller circles and connecting lines to map out primary audiences and secondary audiences that influenced these. They also tried to place their own organisation in relationship to these audiences in order to ascertain how they could gain access to them. Although participants had listed stakeholders in the policy analysis exercise, they found it taxing to identify who really makes policy decisions (formally and informally) and who holds sway over these decision makers. In particular, identifying actual individuals (or posts) rather than an institution generated much
7
debate. This exercise was therefore revealing on how to identify starting points for prioritising audiences. Mapping audiences is not a one off activity but must be continuously reviewed as more information is gained on the decision making process and the positions held by individuals. (Handout 7 “Worksheet: Evaluating Audiences was used for this exercise) 3.3.7 Step 3 Finalising the Strategy This session concentrated on assessing the internal capacity of organisations to carry out advocacy and to identify their specific niche in an advocacy initiative. Reference was made to the Five Capabilities Framework to assess capacity as each of the capabilities (to act and commit; to relate and attract; to adapt and self-renew; to achieve coherence and to deliver on development objectives) are all relevant to delivering an advocacy strategy. Most of the organisations represented at the workshop may be better placed to mobilise communities and beneficiaries, provide case studies and create awareness among the general public as opposed to policy analysis and political negotiation. In the Nairobi workshop this session was confined to a power point presentation on the following areas:
ACT-ON (Advantages, Challenges, Threats, Opportunities and Next Steps see Handout 8 ACT-ON) specifically looks at the advantages and challenges of an organisation and environment with regards to advocacy delivery.
Credibility Assessment (Handout 9 Credibility Checklist) needs to cover not only individual staff and board members but also governance structures and transparency within the organisation.
Risk assessment was shared as a further point to be taken into consideration and the need for a back-up plan and decision on whether the potential risk is worthwhile.
Building Relationships with others –The advantage of building coalitions was discussed with regards strength in numbers and diversity; sharing of tasks and resources as well as the presentation of a model of the just society that is being sought.
Although discussion was generated in plenary around these points, in retrospect a group exercise on using the ACT-ON method would have been useful and have clarified how it differs from a SWOT analysis. This would also have broken up a heavy afternoon session with a huge amount of information to absorb. 3.3.8
Step 4 Framing a Work Plan
Originally, the workshop had envisaged that participants would draw up a work plan to implement an advocacy strategy for their organisation (on the basis of Handout 10 Worksheet: Designing an Action Plan). It became clear, however that the issues identified were artificial for the sake of the training and did not necessarily represent the issues organisations would organise advocacy issues around. In addition, it was evident that not all organisations would be in a position or willing to take an advocacy issue forward but might join an initiative if spearheaded by other organisations. Hence a fully fledged strategy was not required. The session continued in plenary and focussed on:
8
Setting SMART-WHO Objectives: Advocacy objectives go beyond the specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound to include the ‘who’ is expected to actually make the changes. Participants discussed that time frames for advocacy objectives were often difficult to set as so many factors and opportunities could influence the speed at which breakthroughs could be achieved. The example of the passing of a child labour law which has been in the making for the last sixteen years was quoted. The introduction of the new constitution now means that the advocacy process to have this law passed is now gaining momentum. It was suggested that ‘T’ might stand for timely (grabbing the opportunity) rather than time bound. Identifying Activities: Participants broke into small buzz groups to brainstorm on the types of actions that would plan for. These included:
Lobby visits Public hearings Hunger strikes Use of the media (printed and radio) Petitions Peaceful demonstrations Publicity events Letters to policy makers Social media Videos
It was important to note that each of these must have a follow-up to be effective. Thus if members of the public sign a petition, they should be kept inform of what happened to their voice and to solicit their support at a later date. Similarly, sending letters to policy makers needs to be followed up with lobby visits to see that the message has been fully understood. Monitoring and Evaluation: Two tools were shared with participants to enable monitoring and evaluation.
Tracking progress using a time line covering on the one hand adaptations of the strategy and on the other breakthroughs and major events. A worksheet to evaluate an advocacy initiative (Handout 11)
The intervals at which activities will be reviewed and evaluated will depend very much on the speed at which breakthroughs are achieved or setbacks experienced. The ongoing tracking of progress via a timeline helps is pinpointing when evaluation is called for. The final Handout number 12 gives selected further reading and relevant websites. 3.4
Evaluation and Feedback
Evaluation of the workshop was carried out in two ways, by means of visualising in how far participants had gained clarity on the concept of advocacy and its design stages and through written feedback. A chart with four columns with the headings “Concept of Advocacy”; “Steps in Advocacy Design”; “” Tools and Methodologies” and “Relevance to your Organisation” was presented. Participants were requested to tick whether they now had complete clarity or were fairly clear about these headings or whether they still had many questions or were still totally confused. The majority of ticks fell in the categories ‘full clarity’ or ‘fairly clear’. Only when
9
it came to relevance for the organisation did two participants state that they still had questions. The written responses to the questions “What worked well?”, “What did not work well?” and “What would you change?” were overwhelmingly positive. Key changes suggested were:
3.5
Longer training extending over more than two days, More time devoted to group exercises, Follow-up, intensiver training to be offered, Prior notification of participants in order for them to prepare well, Need for improved time management by participants, More energisers, Mixed working groups rather than thematic groups, Incorporation of relevant examples (possibly a video), more participation conducive seating arrangements, Presentation of certificates.
Adaptation to the Workshop Programme On the basis of the experience gained at the Nairobi workshop the workshop programme was slightly change. As with the Nairobi workshop the programme was kept fairly flexible so as to adapt to the working pace of participants. Major changes were: A session on group exchange on advocacy initiatives undertaken by participants was included The repetition of the overview of each stage in the Advocacy Strategy Design before going into each relevant session; The session on identifying audiences was introduced before the session on formulating messages, so that the interactive exercise on agreeing/disagreeing on statements came when concentration was beginning to flag; Instead of a session around creating an action plan, a session on internal capacity assessment using the ACT-ON method was introduced; Thematic working groups were maintained as it was deemed easier for participants to identify an issue and analyse the policy environment if they dealt with areas they were familiar with;
4
Lodwar Workshop 6 – 7 June, 2012 The workshop methodology remained primarily the same taking into consideration the above mentioned adaptations. The report of the Lodwar workshop confines itself to the outcome of the various sessions.
4.1. Participants and Participation The group in Lodwar was smaller than the Nairobi group (13 – 16 participants depending on who was present at any one time). They represented Community Based Organisations working in Health, Education and Child Rights in the Turkana District. The challenge for participants and the facilitator was to make the sessions, tools and methodologies relevant to the local context.
10
As in Nairobi, many participants came from Lodwar town which meant that some of them often came late or left in between times to attend to office matters. This often left a core group of nine participants during sessions. 4.2
Venue
The workshop venue was spacious allow for individual tables with groups of four to five participants. Given the local climate, it was also thankfully, well ventilated. The only drawback was that there was very little wall space to display the outcome of the working groups. An improvised wall of raised chairs was not an adequate solution so that participants could view the progress of their work.
4.3 Workshop Sessions 4.3.1 Introduction, Workshop Objectives and Programme Consensus Similar to the Nairobi workshop, participants were asked to group themselves according to the sector their organisations are primarily involved in. Three thematic areas, Health, Education and Child Rights were represented. 4.3.2
Defining Advocacy
The initial exercise in buzz groups on what participants considered advocacy was thin and participants seemed to be vague on what advocacy entailed. Words such as ‘defend’, ‘fight’ as well as awareness creation were produced. No card mentioned the connection to policy or bringing about positive change. Answers to the question as to ‘why do advocacy’ did not emphasise, social impact, scalability or sustainability of achievements. A slower pace of the workshop programme was adopted to ensure that participants grasped the focus of advocacy on policy formulation, revision or implementation. The group exercise to share on present experience with advocacy initiatives focused more on group mobilisation and awareness creation rather than on addressing policy issues. 4.3.3
Formulating a Vision of Change
Whilst the three thematic groups came up with large overarching visions of change “All children with disabilities to have access to health care and education”; “Holistic and Integrated education for all” and “To ensure that every child’s rights are respected” (the last vision being formulated more an objective than an ideal state of a just society), participants did not find it easy to break the vision down into sub-sets that could lead to the identification of a policy issue. Instead groups identified activities to achieve this vision (for instance child to child lobby groups or creating awareness through radio programmes). Making the move from thinking in terms of project activities to addressing policy issues was not immediately possible for participants. More time would have been necessary to give detailed feedback or to work with each group individually, breaking the vision down into policy related sub-sets. 4.3.4 4.3.5
Key Steps in Advocacy Strategy Design Step 1 Analysing the policy environment and identify the policy issue
11
In the working group sessions the thematic group on Health and on Child Rights identified a key policy issue with local relevance. The Health group concentrating on the need for government health services to establish outreach clinics to increase immunisation, whilst the Child Rights group took up the need for free P3 forms to be filled in free of charge by health service officials to report on the sexual abuse of a minor. Similar to the Nairobi workshop, the education group, which had chosen the provision of quality education as its overall goal had difficulties in really pinpointing the policy issue to be addressed. Indeed the group changed the policy issue at each exercise, from access to materials, to ratio of pupils to teacher to the issue of drop outs. Concentrating on the larger issue of quality made it difficult to identify a policy issue that could be addressed at local level and where they could influence decision makers. 4.3.6
Step 2 Outlining the Strategy
On the basis of experience with the Nairobi workshop, this session started with Mapping and Analysing key Audiences Despite claiming to be confused, the Health group presented a very clear and interconnected map of key individuals that constituted primary, secondary audiences placing themselves and other CBOs in relation to these. Their analysis demonstrated a growing understanding of advocacy an approach. Similarly, the group on Child Rights was also comprehensive in its analysis identifying groups they would not normally work with such as the Islamic Centre. More often than not they identified organisations and institutions and not the specific individual (or position) they needed to target. The education group was also quite comprehensive in identifying different audiences and ranking them as to whether they were strong supporters, fence sitters, pressure makers or opponents. The fact that neither of the latter two groups produced a visual map of the interconnections of different actors is an indication that more time needed to be devoted to the exercise and possibly more support given during the analysis process. Visualising the interrelationship of different audiences is a powerful tool for organisations to identify where to concentrate their advocacy and lobby tactics. Formulating the Message In contrast to the Nairobi workshop this was a very quick exercise possibly due to the fact that the policy issues identified were more concise and locally situated. The groups outlined the basic content of a message that would need more refinement to be compelling and powerful. Consider for instance the One-Minute –Message developed by the Health group, which already offers a good start: “Due to the vastness of the Turkana county and the nomadic life style of the majority of its people coupled with limited resources and poor infrastructure, immunisation programmes reach an estimated 65% of children under five, according to a UNICEF survey in 2011 and the Ministry of Health. In order to achieve the government target of 95% coverage of immunisation, an integrated immunisation outreach services policy needs to be established and implemented.� A more compelling message should state the number/percentage of under fives who die or develop disabilities each year due to the fact that they are not immunised. Stating who needs to establish the outreach services policy would also enhance the statement.
12
The group on child abuse identified the issue of sexual abuse of children jumping then to the need to advocate for the P3 form. Evidence is the number of sexual abuse reported each month and the fact that half of those pay between 500 – 3000 for the P3 form to be filled at the Lodwar district hospital. The message further says that parents compromise with the perpetrators and that there are high rates of school drop outs of girl child due to pregnancy. This message is actually several in one and therefore confusing for the audience. It insinuates that school dropouts are due to pregnancy on the account of sexual abuse. Is there any evidence for such a statemen? The message could be simplified to read “Many cases of sexual abuse against children cannot be pursued and taken to court simply because the Lodwar district hospital demands a fee of between 500 – 3,000 Kenya Shillings to fill in the P3 form (here the group needs to explain for the lay person what exactly the P3 form is). On account of poverty many parents cannot pay this fee and so cases are not taken to court. The issuing of P3 forms for victims of sexual abuse without charge should be enforced by ? (here the group has not identified who is the decision maker).” This session required more time to support the groups in refining their messages. 4.3.7
Step 3 Finalising the Strategy
During this session participants broke into thematic groups to analyse their capacity using the Act-On method. It assisted the participants to assess their particular niche in an advocacy initiative. 4.3.8
Step 4 Framing a Work Plan
Similar to the Nairobi workshop, participants broke into buzz groups to brainstorm on possible actions. Some additional points not covered in Nairobi were:
Child rights groups in school for awareness raising Establishing a follow-up group to monitor implementation of policy Using traditional forms of meetings, barazas, to highlight the issues
The group on child rights even intended to use an upcoming meeting of the child protection network to push for an advocacy initiative around the P3 forms. 4.4
Evaluation and Feedback
Evaluation at the end of the workshop was visualised in a chart and written feedback was also given. Most participants had gained clarity or were fairly clear on the concept of advocacy, stages in advocacy strategy design, tools and methodologies and relevance to their organisation. However four participants out of twelve who filled in the chart still had many questions regarding tools and methodologies. This reflects well the feeling gained from the group work that more time was actually needed to practice the use of tools and methods. The written feedback from participants highlighted:
Need for more time for exercises and understanding Provision of reading materials More examples relevant to the work of the participating organisations The use of a video to exemplify an advocacy initiative Follow-up with further training
5. Recommendations
13
The workshops gave participants a flavour of what is involved in developing an advocacy strategy. Development of a strategy per organisation would, as with any strategic planning, is a process over a longer period and would require support over a longer period. The workshop and the guide would benefit from the inclusion of cases from partners. The Nairobi workshop provided three very interesting cases which should be considered for inclusion in the guide - the long struggle to have the Child Labour Law passed in parliament, recognition of the rights of rape victims and provision of epilepsy medication to all levels of health services. Inviting one of the partners with experience in advocacy to narrate their case would be a way of enlivening the workshop which suffered from an attempt to cover a lot of new ground in a short space of time. Not all partners have the capacity to take on advocacy initiatives. Nor is it necessarily desirable that each single partner organisation is trying to instigate advocacy initiatives. Advocacy is by default a collaborative effort led by a few credible organisations that can muster the support and input of others. TdH might want to strengthen the capacity of those organisations with the potential to spearhead advocacy initiatives and coordinate the cooption of other partners to support such efforts.
14
6
Workshop Programme (A detailed programme including learning objectives and group exercises in contained in the Advocacy Guide)
Workshop objectives Demystifying the concept of advocacy Understanding the steps to design an advocacy strategy Provision of tools and methodologies for advocacy strategy design Suggestions for improvement of the guide and the workshop DAY 1 Morning Session Time Session 8:30 – 9.00 Introduction of participants and Facilitator Presentation of Workshop Objectives and Consensus on Programme 9:00 – 10:00 What is Advocacy? Buzz groups to assess participants understanding Presentation”: What is Advocacy, What is it not, Why engage in Advocacy Advocacy and a Rights Based Approach Types of Advocacy What is Lobbying? Review of cards Question and Answer session 10:00 - 10:30 Sharing of advocacy experience - group work in thematic groups 10:30 -11:00 11:00 -11:45 11:45 -12:30 12:30 – 13:00 13:00 –14:00
BREAK Presentation of two advocacy initiatives per group Developing a Vision of Change Group work – Formulating a Vision of Change Identification of sub-sets related to the policy environment Presentations in plenary of vision of change and emerging policy issues Lunch
Day 1 Afternoon Session 14:00 -14:30 Steps in Advocacy Strategy Design Step 1 – Understanding the Policy Environment Identifying the Policy Issue 14:30 – 16:00 Understanding the Policy Environment Analysing issues and identifying solutions Group work in thematic groups 16:00 – 16:30 Break 16:30 – 17:00 Group Work continued
Day 2 Morning Session 8:30 – 9:00 Presentation of Policy environment and policy issue identified 9:00 – 10:30 Step 2 Mapping and analysing audiences Group Work 10:30 – 11:00 Break 11:00 – 11:30 Presentation in plenary of audience mapping exercise 11:30 – 12:15 Step 2 Formulating Messages Persuasion Game Points to consider 12:15 – 13:00 Creating the One Minute Message – Group Work 13:00 – 14:00 LUNCH Day 2 Afternoon Session 14:00 – 14:30 Sharing of Messages 14:30 – 15:00 Step 3 Assessment of Internal Capacity ACT-ON Credibility Assessment Risk Assessment Collaborating with others – Coalition building 15:00 – 15:30 ACT-ON analysis in groups 15:30 – 16:00 Presentation to Plenary 16:00 – 16:30 Break 16:30 – 17:00 Step 4 Framing a Work Plan Buzz groups on possible actions Evaluation Tools 17:00 – 17:30 Workshop Evaluation and Wrap up
16
Annex 1. Examples of working groups Nairobi: What do we associate with advocacy?
17
Nairobi: A vision of Change
18
Nairobi: Identifying the policy issue, assessing possible solutions
19
Turkana: Audience Mapping Health Group
20
Turkana: Advocacy Objectives
Nairobi: Actions
21
22
Nairobi: Final Evaluation
23