What Makes an Effective Advocacy Organization?

1 JANUARY2009 Fundedbyandpreparedfor:A FrameworkforDeterminingAdvocacyCapacityW hatMakesan EffectiveAdvocacyOr ganization?JA NUARY2009 Res earched and wr ittenby:JaredRaynor,Peter YorkandShao-CheeSimTCCG roupFor ewordby :Barbara Master s, Public Poli cy DirectorAs tr id Hendricks,Directorof EvaluationTheCaliforniaEndowment1 FOR EW ORDF orewordfromTheCaliforniaEndowmentEvaluat ingad vo cacyan d policych an geeffortspresents uniquech alleng es extern al pl ay er s anddynamics,complexity,lengthyti meframe, an d theneedto shiftst rategies,tonamea ,evaluationis criticallyimportant, both fo r the foundationan d ti es , overthelastseveralyears,TheCaliforniaEnd owment,alongwithse veralotherfoundations an d consultants, havesoughtto developframeworksandmethodologiesto beable to meaningful ly evaluatepolicychangeefforts. Thisgrowingfieldofpolicyandadvocacyevalu ationis pr edicatedona prospectiveevaluationapproachth atis intendedto informbothth efoundationandthegranteeabouttheadvocacy strategyduring partof thatendeav or , TheEndowmentrecognized that ge ne ralsupportgrants fo r advocacyorganizationspr esentedadditionalch all en ges, ,bydefinition,donothavesp ecificobject ivesorgoalsattachedtothem,howshoulda fo undationassesswhethera granteeis agood candidateforsucha grantorwhetherprovidinggeneralsupporttot hatgranteeis therightstrategy?

2 As a recentreportbyGrantmakersforEffectiveOrg anizationspointsout,generalsupportis animportantgra ntmakingstr at egy,pa rt icularly foradv oc acy; yet,fo unda tions ne ,TheCalif orniaEndowmentaskedTCCG rouptoconductanevaluationofa cohortofadvocacyor ganizations who werereceivinggeneralsupportfromth e muchdeeperunderstandingofthecharacterist icsofeffectiveadvocacyor thnational experts,itspastresearchonnonprofitorgani zationaleffectiveness,an d evaluationsofThe Endowment sandotheradvocacyprojects,TCCG roupidentifieddistinctivech aracterist icsthatarecriticaltohi gh-performingadvocacyor ,TCCG roupoutlin esa modelforevaluatingorganizationalcapacity foradvocacyorganizations anddescribesindetail th e capacitiesthatarecriticaltoadvocacyandho wtheyin believethatthisanalysis an d frameworkcanbeusefultoanykindoforganizat ioninterestedinincreasing it s effectivenessrelatedtoadvocacy regardlessofwhetherit is dedicatedtoadvocacyornot,hasa bigbudgetorsmall, orworksonmanyiss al sohopethispaperwillbeofbenefittofoundati onswhowanttoexpandandimprovetheirgr antmakingto ad vocacyorganizations.

3 Butfeltlimitedbytheirabilitytounderstand howtoassesspotentialgranteesortheir ,wehopethispaperwill providenewinsights cerely,Barbara Mast ersAstrid Hendricks, EdDPublicPolic y Dire ctorDirectorof Evaluation2WH AT MA KES AN EFFECTIV E Advocacy ORGANIZAT IO N? T hi san alysisand frame work can beuse fu lto any kind of org ani zati onint er est ed in inc re asi ng itseffective ne ssre lat ed toadvo Table ofContents3 TAB LE OF CON TENTSPa rt I: Ba ckgr ound & Ove rvie w4In tr oduction4 Whyis Advocacy OrganizationalAnalysisCriticalNow?5 The His toric ContextforUnderstanding AdvocacyWork6 WhataretheDisti nctiveCharacterist icsofAdvocacyGroups?8 Adapting theCoreCapacityFrameworkforAdvocacyOrgan izations10Pa rt II : Cri ti ca l Ca pac ities for Advocacy Orga nizations12 Leadersh ip Capacity forAdvocacy12 MotivationandPer suasion14 Authentic Commit ment14 Relateto Constit uents15St rongExter nal Relationsh ips15 BoardLeadership16 StrategicVision17 SharingLeadershi p18 AdaptiveCapacityforAdvocacy19 Bui ldingSt rategi c Partnerships19 StrategicPosit ionin g20 PreservingResourceFl exibility21 Monit oringan d Measuring Progress22 Man agementCapacityforAdvocacy23 Non-St affResourceManagement23 StaffCoordination24 Ext ernalRelationshi p Management25 HumanResources26Fi nancialManagement26 TechnicalCapacityforAdvocacy27 StrategicCommunicationSkill s27 Pol icyIss uesan d Pr ocesses27 InterpersonalSkills28Fi nanceandFundrai si ngProficiency28 LegalKnowledge29 FacilitiesandEquipment29Pa rt II I: Conclusi on & Ac knowle dg em ents30 Appe ndix.

4 Evalua ti ng Advoc acy Org anizationalCapacityand Det ai led Capa city Logi c Mode l32 AdvocacyCCAT34 Advocacyasa stra tegyforthenonprof itsec to r hasbec ome increasingly wi desp e lo oking tofundmore ofthi s typeofwork;nonprofits ar e learninghowto harnes s its powerto achievetheirmis sion; andboth ar e tryi ngto betterunderstandhowtoevaluate , th e focushasheretoforepr imar il y beenonhowtouseadvocacystrategiesastoolsf oref fectingspecificch anges, andonbuilding th e basic skillsnecessar y foremployingadvocacytools( , adcampaigns, meetingswi thpolicy-makers). Creatingeff ectiveadvocateshasbeenthepr in ciple objectiveoftheseef forts. Yetlit tle examin ationoran al ysisha s been done to developanorganizationalfra meworkfo r eva luatingandbuildingtheint er nalcapacity of nonprofit advocacyor ganizations. Mostan alysis hasfocusedal most exclusively onst affskills toca rryoutthewor k,asopposedtobr oaderconceptsthatdefin e th e criticallynecessar y leadership,managementan doperations thatmakeforanef fectivead vocacy org aniz ati is our contentionth atnonprof it advocacygroupshavede vel op ed to thepo inttha t it is time foramore co mpre hensive purpose ofth is paper, drawing ona variet y ofsources, is to lookatth econtextforpolicyan d advocacy1workan d the di sti nct ivech ar acteristicsofsuchwork,outlin ing a modelforevaluatingorganizational capacity an d describi nghowthis is adaptedforadvocacyorganizations.

5 In the nonprof it advocacyworld,an alysis ofth es e capacitiesmaybeofuseto man y typesofor ganizations,rangi ng fromadvocatesonth e groundtofoundations thatfund oupstosmal l ones, nationaltointernat ional ..fromthose th atuseadvocacyexclus ively to address a problemtothos e thatof fera variet y ofstrategies,among whichadvocacyis only onecomponen t ..fromthosefocusingona4WH AT MA KES AN EFFECTIV E Advocacy ORGANIZAT IO N?PartI: Background&Ove rview1 Fortherest ofthispa per,theterm Advocacy will beusedasall-encompassingofpolic y often understoodasonepartofbroaderadvocacy,sot hesinglewordis usedhere toeli minate theconsta ntrepetitionof policy andadvocacy . Thisis notmeantbyanymeanstodiminishtheimportanc eofpolicy -s pecif ic tr oduc tionsingle-iss uetothosetacklinga varietyofdi ff erentis perbeginswithanoverviewofch angesin thead vocacyenvironmentthatar e changingthewayth atadvocacyworkis carriedoutbynonprofitor ganizations.

6 Thisis followedbyabr iefde script ionof advocacyworkanddi stinctivecharacterist icsofadvocacyor ganizationsthatmakea conversationonadvocacyor ganiz at ionalcapacitybothti melyandrelevant. PartI ofthepaperconc lud eswithan orga nizationa lfra meworkforexamin ing ganizationalcapacityth atworkincoordinationforeffectiveorganiza tions:Leadership,Adaptive,Managementan d Model,PartII ofthepaper examin escriti calor ganizationalcapaciti esofhi gh-performing organizationsdoing ,examini ngdi screteas pectsofeachofthefourcapacitiesal lowsforspecificanalysis an d di agnosiswithin a cohesiveframework(seethelogicmodelonpage 7 fora pi ctureoftheoverall modelwith specific capaciti es).Theex ist enceofa concreteframeworkan d specificreviewwithanadvocacylenswi ll allowadvocatesorfundersto carefully examinehowadvocacyor ganizationsdotheirworkin orderto in crease , evaluatin g or ganiz at ionalca pac ity the n beco mesa toolforenhancingperformanceandas sessin g likelih ood y is Advocac yOrga nizat iona lAn al ysis Cri tic al Now?

7 Several changesin th e en vi ronmen t inwhich nonprof it s operate ha ve pr ec ip it atedthegr owth ofnonprof it advocacyan dfocusedgr eaterattentiononthis area:Fu ndi ng Opport un iti es .Many fundershaveturnedto supporti ng advocacywork asa toolforac hi eving their ownmiss ions, th erebyincreasing fundi ngopportuniti esforadvocacygr funders haveevenen couragedmore traditi onalnonprof its , suchashumanserviceor ganizations, toin corporateadvocacyinto thei rprogramsan d providedth emfundingandtrainin g nghasen abledadvocacy-only or ganizat ionsto sign if icantl y raisethei r pr of ilesandhaspermit tedmany mul ti-servi ceorganiz ations to in corporat e advocacyasanadditi onalstr at egytoachievetheirmis creas ed Vis ibi of it advocacyorganiz ations ar e in cr easingly vi sible,dueto th e explosioninthe availabilityofelectronic media,whichhasal lowednonprofit s toreachmor e people with lesseff ortan d expense.

8 Nonpr of it advocateshavenowjoinedgover nmen t of fici alsandbusiness executivesaspr imary sourcesofin formationforjournal ist s. Additional ly,5 PART 1: BAC KG RO UND ANDOVERV IEW2 Kingdon,J. W.(1995).Agendas, alternatives,and publicpolicies(2nded.). rrisandMic hael Mintrom, FoundationsandPublicPolicymaking:AConcep tualFramework. Rese ar chReport 10,TheCenteronPhilanthropyan d PublicPolicy,UniversityofSouthernCalifor nia(May2002)3 Fora brief overview oflogicmodels,see LearningasWeGo:MakingEvaluationWorkforEv eryone prof ile adv ocacy organizati ons suchasFocusonth e Fa mily an d theACLU haveamplifiedthevi si bi lit y ofth e sectorasa ut ion of Govern men generaltren d toward devolutionoffunding andres po ns ib ili tiesfordomesti c pro gramsfr omfe deraltost ateandlocal le vels ha sinevitablyincreasedth e numberofar enasandchallenges fornonprofits:50 st atehousesandhundredsofcounti esan d ci ti eshavebecome importantbattl egroundsforadvocacyactivi ti es, ashasthe publicatlargethr oughmeasuressuchasballotin it iat ives.

9 While localdecision-makingvenueshavelong beena targetofsavvyadvocates , the scopeofpotentialavenuesforadvocacyint er venti onhasneverbeenso vastfornonprof it ma nd forAc countabil generalhasfound its elfundergr eaterscr utinyan d demandforperformanceaccountability . And no partofthe sectorhasbeenscrutini zedmor eheavily thanits advocacyranks, thanks,inpart, to their visibilit y. Beyond federalaccountabili ty( , IRSoversight) ,advocacyor ganiza tions ar e increasinglybeing as kedbydonor s to provideevaluationofth eiref forts andtoachievespecific results .More Com pet ition .Thenumberofnonpr ofit or ganiz ati onsutiliz in g advocacyhasneverbeengr eaterandtherangeofissuestheycover e fundersmayhavein cr easedtheirsupport ofadvocacy,the increasedlevelhasnotkeptpacewi th perceivedadvocacyneeds, leadingtointense competiti onforres of es si on al izat ion of Advocac thefor egoing factor s havecombinedtodrive nonprofits toincre aseth e training,sophisti cation,an d pr of es si onali smofth ei r advocacyef for ts.

10 Nonpr of itadvocacyeff or ts havebecomein cr easin gl y or ganizedan d mor e favorable en vi ronmen t fornonpr of it advocacywor k hasinevitablyin cr easedth e needan d ur gencytoexamine the or ganizational fr ameworkswi thin whichnonpr ofit advocacyor ganizations Hist oric Con textfor Underst an din gAdvocacyWorkThere ar e se ve ra l use fu l mode ls inexistencefo r e theories descr ibethepr ocessesbywhichpolici esar e developed,in fluenced,es tablis hed,implemented,an d models pr ovidea valuable contextforunderst an dingadvocacyprocessesoroutcomesandth e strategiesto illus trat e the basicsofthese variousth eories ,Fi gu re 1shows a logic model3whichTCCG rouphasdevisedtodepictthe advocacypr ocess, incl udingst rategies , ou tcomes,an d ure 1demonstrates th atadvoc acyst rategies, suc hasissuean al ys is, grassrootsor ganizi ng,6WH AT MA KE S AN EFFE CTIVEADV OC ACY ORGANIZA TI ON ?7 PART 1: BAC KG RO UND ANDOVERV IEWF igure1:LogicModel:AdvocacyInitiativesOrg anizationalResources(Capacities)ProjectI nputs/ResourcesExternalEnvironment:Facto rsaffectingavailability,accessibilityand qualityof organizationalresourcesAdaptabilityLeade rshipManagementTechnicalCapacityAdvocacy Staff: Time,experienceandexpertise(administrati ve,legislative,election-relatedandlegal) Coreskills(analytical,communication,rese arch,etc.)