Evaluating the Strength of the Advocacy Field A prospective look at the Missouri health advocacy ecosystem Tanya Beer Center for Evaluation Innovation

Evaluating the Strength of the Advocacy FieldA prospective look at the Missouri health advocacy ecosystem

Tanya BeerCenter for Evaluation Innovation & Innovation Network

Ryan BarkerMissouri Foundation for Health

Policy Target

Approach

Advocacy Niche

Approach

Field Building

Approach

Grantmaking and auxiliary activities are designed to build the capacity and influence of the field of advocacy organizations to shape and respond to a shifting policy environment

Grantmaking and auxiliary activities are designed to advance a specific policy goal

Grantmaking and auxiliary activities are designed to strengthen the presence or influence of a particular strategic function (e.g., policy analysis and research, grassroots organizing, media advocacy) within the advocacy and policy arena

Three Approaches to Advocacy Grantmaking

Individuals and organizations working intentionally to influence a particular policy domain.

What’s an Advocacy

Field?

Advocacy Field Building Approach

Through its field building work, the Missouri Foundation for Health aims to build the influence of consumer health advocates working at all levels of health policy in Missouri.

Our Case:

Strategies to Date:

General operating support to a wide range of advocacy organizations Regular convenings to build relationships and shared analysis among

a large number of advocates Development and support of a “big umbrella” coalition Technical assistance and training on advocacy skills and strategies Support with policy analysis/policy content knowledge

Dimensions of an Advocacy Field

Field Frame

Field Skills & Resources

Connectivity

Composition/Voice

Adaptive Capacity

A common frame of reference through which organizations identify themselves as a field and part of a common enterprise.

Field Frame

• To what extent to advocates consider themselves part of a common enterprise?

• How does the field frame affect who is within the advocates’ “field of vision”?

• Would other frames help a wider array of advocates begin to align their efforts?

Evaluation Questions

The array of advocacy skills, resources and knowledge that are the building blocks for making progress on a wide variety of policy issues throughout all stages of the policy process.

Field Skills and Resources

• To what extent to does the field of advocates as a whole include the array of skills and policy content knowledge that are important in the Missouri policy landscape?

• Are there chronic “skill gaps” that plague advocacy efforts repeatedly over time?

• Are skills concentrated in certain kinds of organizations, and how does that affect policy progress and power dynamics between advocates?

• How does the Foundation’s grantmaking affect the array and dispersion of skills, resources and content knowledge?


The capacity of advocates to communicate and cooperate in a way that allows resources to be marshaled in increasingly productive ways over time.

Connectivity

• What kinds of connections exist between which advocates, and how does that affect their ability to capitalize on one another’s strengths?

• How do gaps in connectivity affect the kinds of policy solutions that emerge or the kinds of strategies advocates deploy?

• How does the Foundation’s grantmaking motivate (or discourage) productive connections and among whom?


The variety and relative power of voices that can participate meaningfully and have influence in the policy process.

Composition and Voice

• What constituencies have access to and influence on the policy process and within the field of advocates?

• How does the composition of the field affect the quality of policy solutions that emerge or the likelihood of successful implementation?

• How does the Foundation’s grantmaking affect relative power or voice among advocacy organizations?


The ability of advocates to conduct sound political analysis, select the tactics that are best suited for a particular situation, and to adapt to the shifting moves of the opposition, allies, and potential allies.

Adaptive Capacity

• What are the barriers and facilitators of adaptive capacity?

• To what extent do clusters of advocates conduct shared political analysis, and does it affect their ability to act strategically as a group?

• How does the Foundation’s grantmaking support or impede the ability of advocates to adapt their strategies in a timely and effective way?


Evaluation methods

Bellwether & Stakeholder interviews

1 Participatory Assessment

Advocate Survey & Database

2

3

Field Scoring Rubric4

Adaptive Capacity

1 Participatory Assessment 2 Interviews 4 Field Rubric

Example: H-Form Method Focus Groups at an annual advocacy retreat with 50+ advocacy organizations

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Reasons to Disagree

Reasons to AgreeSTATEMENT

1 Participatory Assessment of Adaptive CapacityH-Form Method for Focus Groups

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Reasons to Disagree

Reasons to Agree

“We respond to the moves of the opposition in a timey way.”

My organization


1

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Reasons to Disagree

Reasons to Agree

“We respond to the moves of the opposition in a timey way.”

My organization

The field of consumer health advocates


Findings are being triangulated with data from interviews and the advocate survey.

8 questions selected by advocates to explore adaptive capacity, such as…

• We regularly commit time to analyzing the environment and deciding how to respond.

• We have the right balance of being proactive and reactive.

• We have decisionmaking processes that help us decide and respond quickly to changes in the political landscape.

• We have the financial flexibility to change direction when needed.



2 Interviews 3 Advocates Survey

Advocacy Capacity Building

Coalition Building

Communications and Messaging

Community Mobilization

Community Organizing

Demonstration Programs

Influencer Education

Leadership Development

LitigationLobbying

Media Advocacy

Model Legislation

Policy Analysis/Research

Policymaker Education

Political Will Campaigns

Public Education

Public Education Campaign

Public Forums

Public Polling

Regulatory Feedback

Voter Outreach

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS

DECISION MAKERSPUBLIC INFLUENCERS

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Advocates' Retreat Attendees: Advocacy Skills/Strate-gies/Tactics

(n = 49 organizations)



2 Interviews 3 Advocates Survey

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Policy focus: Medicaid (blue) (n = 34 organizations)

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Policy focus: Medicaid (blue) & Nutrition (red)(n = 34 organizations)


Coalition Building




Demonstration Programs



Litigation

Lobbying

Media Advocacy

Model Legislation




Public Education


Public Forums

Public Polling

Regulatory Feedback

Voter Outreach

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Policy focus: Medicaid (blue) & Nutrition (red)(n = 34 organizations)


Coalition Building






LitigationLobbying

Media Advocacy

Model Legislation




Public Education


Public Forums

Voter Outreach

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Statewide Advocates(n = 27 organizations)

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Statewide advocates (pink)

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Statewide advocates (pink), Regional advocates (green)

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Statewide advocates (pink), Regional advocates (green)County advocates (blue)

Audiences

Out

com

es

ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


ACTI

ON

WIL

LAW

AREN

ESS


Statewide advocates (pink), Regional advocates (green)County advocates (blue), City advocates (red)

Evaluation methods

Bellwether & Stakeholder interviews


Advocate Survey & Database

2

3

Field Scoring Rubric4

Our aim is to help MFH answer questions like…

• Are there significant skill or knowledge gaps we need to address among certain types of advocates?

• Where should we build skills within organizations vs. linking advocates with different skill sets together?

• Between what kinds of advocates is there a connectivity problem and why? And with what kinds of policy issues will this trip us up?

• Do “missing constituencies” in the policy arena warrant supporting new organizations or building the capacity of existing organizations who represent them?

• Where and among whom do we need to support increased time for shared political analysis?

• What other constraints to adaptive capacity can be addressed via grantmaking or auxiliary supports?

Paired Discussion

Field Frame

Field Skills & Resources

Connectivity

Composition/Voice

Adaptive Capacity

1. How would you characterize your field along these dimensions?

2. Which 1-2 dimensions are you most concerned about in your own context and why?

3. What other ideas do you have for assessing the state of the field in one or more of these dimensions?

Documents

Evaluating the Strength of the Advocacy Field A prospective look at the Missouri health advocacy ecosystem Tanya Beer Center for Evaluation Innovation