Chapter 31. Conducting Advocacy Research | Community Tool Box

Advocacy can address many different community issues. Your goal may be to raise awareness, improve access to services, protect community members from harm, change a policy or institutional practice, strengthen accountability, improve health or education, protect the environment, advance human rights, or improve the social and economic conditions of a community.

Whatever your advocacy effort seeks to accomplish, you will need reliable information.

You may need to know:

• How many people are affected by a problem
• How different populations experience the issue
• What policies or institutions contribute to current conditions
• Whether an existing program is effective
• What a proposed policy is likely to cost
• What evidence supports different possible solutions
• What community members identify as priorities

Research can help answer those questions.

Advocacy research may involve analyzing existing data, reviewing laws or policies, interviewing community members, examining public records, conducting surveys, reviewing academic studies, observing local conditions, or collecting new information through a carefully designed study.

Research should not simply gather evidence that supports a position already chosen.

Good research can confirm your assumptions, complicate them, or show that the problem or solution needs to be understood differently.

What do we mean by conducting research?

Research is a systematic effort to answer a question using appropriate information and methods.

The question may be relatively straightforward:

What percentage of people using a community health center have difficulty obtaining care elsewhere?

Or it may be more complex:

What combination of policies would most effectively improve health-care access for workers who lack adequate insurance coverage?

Different questions require different forms of evidence.

For example:

• If you need an established scientific fact, begin with current authoritative research, professional guidance, or qualified subject-matter expertise.
• If you want to understand whether a program works, review existing evaluations and research before deciding whether new data need to be collected.
• If you want to understand the size or characteristics of a population, government datasets or other reliable statistical sources may be useful.
• If you want to understand how a policy affects everyday life, interviews, listening sessions, surveys, or community-generated data may provide information that administrative data do not capture.
• If you are investigating possible violations of law, policy, or professional standards, public records, regulatory data, audits, documented observations, and qualified legal or technical assistance may be appropriate.

Choose the research method according to the question rather than starting with a preferred method and trying to make it fit.

Why do research?

Research can strengthen advocacy in several ways.

Research helps establish what is happening

Advocacy often begins because community members have observed a problem.

Research can help determine:

• How widespread the issue is
• Who is affected
• Whether conditions are changing over time
• What factors contribute to the problem
• What information is still missing

Research can challenge your assumptions

One of the most important purposes of research is to test what you think you know.

If credible evidence does not support your original explanation or proposed solution, reconsider it.

Advocacy research should increase understanding rather than simply produce material for winning an argument.

Research can help identify effective strategies

Research may show what other communities have tried, what outcomes followed, and under what conditions an approach appears to work.

When reviewing an intervention, ask:

• Who participated?
• Where was the intervention tested?
• What outcomes were measured?
• How strong was the study design?
• Are the findings relevant to your community?
• What limitations did the researchers identify?

Research can support cost and resource analysis

Advocacy decisions often involve costs as well as benefits.

Cost analysis may consider:

• Program costs
• Administrative costs
• Costs of maintaining current conditions
• Costs borne by families or community members
• Possible long-term savings
• Benefits that are difficult to express only in financial terms

Use current and locally relevant data whenever possible.

Avoid presenting a simplified calculation as though it captures every social or economic consequence.

Research can improve credibility

Accurate, transparent research can demonstrate that your organization has taken the time to understand an issue.

Credibility depends not only on having evidence, but also on:

• Explaining where information came from
• Acknowledging limitations
• Correcting mistakes
• Distinguishing facts from interpretation
• Being open about uncertainty

Research can help evaluate competing claims

People who disagree about a policy may rely on different evidence, assumptions, or values.

Research can help determine which factual claims are well supported.

Do not dismiss a claim simply because it comes from an organization that disagrees with you.

Evaluate the quality of the evidence itself.

Research can help your organization become a trusted resource

Your organization may develop substantial expertise through sustained work on an issue.

Avoid presenting yourself as the single authority when community members, researchers, professionals, public agencies, or other organizations also hold relevant knowledge.

Strong advocacy often combines several forms of expertise.

When should you do advocacy research?

Every advocacy effort requires some research, but it is especially important in situations such as the following.

When seeking legislation or policy change

Research can help demonstrate:

• The need for a policy
• Who would be affected
• Evidence supporting possible approaches
• Costs and implementation requirements
• Public or community priorities
• Possible unintended consequences

If you use surveys or polling to describe public support, make sure the sample and methods support the conclusion you are making.

When increasing community understanding of an issue

Local data can help people understand changes in their community.

Examples might include:

• Changes in housing instability
• Rates of students leaving school before graduation
• Access to health services
• Violence involving or affecting young people
• Environmental conditions
• Food or transportation access

Numbers require context.

A statistic can appear different depending on the timeframe, comparison group, denominator, geographic area, or definition used.

Whenever possible, explain:

• What was measured
• Over what period
• How the population was defined
• Whether the change is statistically or practically meaningful
• What the data cannot tell you

If the evidence contradicts your original claim, reconsider the claim.

Do not simply search for another statistic that appears more favorable.

When programs, services, or communities are being mischaracterized

Research can help evaluate claims about public programs or groups of people.

For example, public debates may include claims about:

• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation
• Energy-assistance programs
• Immigration and employment
• Housing assistance
• Public-health services

Avoid responding to stereotypes with different stereotypes.

Use evidence to describe the actual population, program, labor market, or economic conditions involved.

When investigating possible misconduct or misuse of public resources

Research may help identify whether public officials, institutions, businesses, or organizations have violated laws, policies, contracts, or professional standards.

Useful sources may include:

• Audits
• Budgets
• Public records
• Court records
• Regulatory filings
• Inspection reports
• Meeting minutes
• Investigative journalism

Do not assume wrongdoing before the evidence establishes it.

Describe allegations, findings, and confirmed facts accurately.

When public statements may be misleading or unsupported

Governments, businesses, advocacy groups, media organizations, and individuals can all make inaccurate or misleading claims.

Research can help compare those claims with:

• Original data
• Regulatory findings
• Peer-reviewed studies
• Public records
• Independent evaluations

Consider whether a source has financial, political, organizational, or other interests that may affect how it presents evidence.

When trying to prevent harm

Research may identify environmental, health, financial, safety, or other risks before they become more serious.

Depending on the issue, researchers may examine:

• Environmental monitoring data
• Public-health trends
• Inspection records
• Proposed policy impacts
• Consumer or financial risks
• Reports from people directly affected

When determining what the community needs

Advocacy groups sometimes begin research without a predetermined policy solution.

Community health advocates, for example, may first investigate:

• Where people obtain care
• What barriers they experience
• Which services are unavailable
• Which populations experience the greatest barriers
• What residents consider most important

Research can then inform what the advocacy effort should seek.

How do you do research?

No single research method works for every advocacy question.

The following principles apply broadly.

Ask for help

Advocacy research often benefits from collaboration.

Useful partners may include:

• Community organizations already working on the issue
• People with lived experience
• Researchers
• Subject-matter experts
• Librarians
• Data analysts
• Journalists
• Legal professionals
• Government or agency staff

Be clear about what kind of assistance you are requesting and how information may be used.

Protect people who provide sensitive information

Employees, residents, program participants, or others may sometimes have information about unsafe, illegal, unethical, or harmful practices.

Do not encourage people to violate laws, professional obligations, or legitimate confidentiality requirements.

Consider:

• Confidentiality
• Retaliation risk
• Whistleblower protections
• Legal advice
• Secure communication
• Whether identifying information is actually necessary

Find out what research already exists

Before collecting new information, review what is already available.

Existing sources may include:

• Peer-reviewed studies
• Government datasets
• Program evaluations
• Public records
• Community assessments
• Research conducted by advocacy or professional organizations
• Local reports

Existing research can save time and help identify unanswered questions.

Learn enough about the issue to evaluate what you find

Research is difficult to evaluate if you do not understand the basic terminology, laws, science, policy context, or professional standards involved.

If the issue is outside your expertise, seek qualified assistance.

Do not rely on a familiar person simply because they have an opinion on the subject.

Know why you are collecting the information

Before gathering data, identify how it will be used.

Research might be intended to:

• Describe a community problem
• Understand community priorities
• Evaluate a program
• Inform policy recommendations
• Assess public opinion
• Evaluate competing claims
• Identify possible harms
• Investigate possible misconduct

Collect only information that has a clear purpose.

This is especially important when information is sensitive or personally identifiable.

Do not gather evidence only to confirm what you already believe

Advocacy organizations can experience confirmation bias just like anyone else.

Before using a finding, ask:

• Would we consider this source credible if it reached the opposite conclusion?
• Are we giving more weight to evidence simply because it supports us?
• Have we examined credible evidence that challenges our position?
• Are we making a stronger claim than the data support?

Evaluate sources rather than relying on reputation alone

No source is automatically reliable simply because it is well known.

Evaluate:

• Who produced the information
• The original source of the data
• Methodology
• Publication date
• Relevant expertise
• Editorial or review processes
• Funding and conflicts of interest
• Whether other credible sources reach similar conclusions

News articles, search results, social-media posts, organizational summaries, and AI-generated summaries can be useful starting points, but important claims should be traced back to original or authoritative sources whenever possible.

Be persistent, but work ethically

Research can take time.

Public records may be difficult to locate, agencies may have long response times, and important information may be scattered across several sources.

Persistence is valuable, but researchers should still respect laws, privacy, safety, and ethical limits.

Types of research and some suggestions for each

Background and documentary research

This includes information already available through published research, public documents, datasets, archives, and other sources.

Useful sources may include:

• Public and university libraries
• Academic databases
• Government websites and data portals
• Public records
• Legislative and regulatory documents
• Court records
• News archives
• Organizational reports
• Historical archives

Libraries

Libraries remain important research resources.

Librarians can help locate:

• Books
• Journal articles
• Historical newspapers
• Government publications
• Specialized databases
• Local archives

Many resources that once required physical travel or microfilm are now available digitally, although some historical or specialized materials still require in-person access.

Public records

Government records may provide information about budgets, contracts, inspections, permits, enforcement, meetings, correspondence, and other public activities.

Federal Freedom of Information Act requests apply to records held by federal executive-branch agencies, subject to applicable exemptions.

States and local jurisdictions generally have their own public-records laws and procedures.

Before filing a request:

• Identify the agency likely to hold the record
• Determine which public-records law or process applies
• Describe the requested records as specifically as possible
• Check whether the information is already available online

Laws, exemptions, fees, and response procedures vary, so verify current requirements in the relevant jurisdiction.

Government data

Government agencies collect information on population, health, employment, education, housing, transportation, environment, budgets, and many other topics.

When using government data, check:

• Definitions
• Collection methods
• Dates
• Geographic coverage
• Included and excluded populations
• Revisions or updates

Online research

Digital research can provide rapid access to enormous amounts of information.

The main challenge is evaluating quality.

Search engines rank information according to their own systems; high placement does not necessarily indicate reliability.

When using online sources:

• Check the original publisher
• Look for the original report or dataset
• Check the publication or update date
• Review methodology where relevant
• Verify important claims independently
• Be cautious with content that lacks identifiable sourcing

Interviews and conversations

Interviews can help explain experiences, history, institutional practices, relationships, barriers, and community priorities.

Interview participants may include:

• People directly affected by the issue
• Community leaders
• Staff
• Professionals
• Public officials
• Organizational representatives
• Researchers

Referral or snowball sampling – asking participants who else you should speak with – can help identify additional contacts.

Avoid relying only on referrals from one network, which can reproduce existing gaps or exclusions.

Structured interviews

Structured or semi-structured interviews use a planned set of questions so that information can be compared across participants.

When developing interviews:

• Define what you need to learn
• Ask clear questions
• Use open-ended questions when you want detailed responses
• Ask appropriate follow-up questions
• Allow participants to raise issues you did not anticipate
• Avoid unnecessarily intrusive questions
• Explain how the information will be used
• Protect confidentiality when promised

A person's experience is valid evidence of what that person experienced.

Do not assume that one person's experience automatically describes an entire population.

When interviews include factual claims about events, policies, or other people, corroborate those claims when necessary before presenting them as established facts.

Surveys

Surveys can help gather information from larger groups.

They may be conducted through:

• Online forms
• Text messaging
• Telephone
• Mail
• Paper forms
• In-person outreach

No survey method reaches everyone equally.

Consider:

• Internet access
• Language
• Disability access
• Literacy
• Privacy
• Trust
• How respondents were selected

Keep surveys focused and avoid collecting information you do not need.

Translate surveys when needed and make formats accessible.

Sampling and representativeness

If you want to estimate what an entire population thinks or experiences, sampling matters.

A convenience sample – such as people who respond to an online link or attend one event – may provide useful information without representing the entire community.

Before making population-wide claims, consider:

• How respondents were selected
• Sample size
• Response rate
• Groups that may be underrepresented
• Weighting or statistical adjustments
• Margin of error where applicable

Describe the sample honestly.

Focus groups

Focus groups are facilitated discussions used to explore people's experiences, perceptions, reactions, or ideas.

They can help identify:

• Themes
• Different perspectives
• Reactions to a proposal
• Questions requiring further research

Focus groups are generally not designed to estimate how common an opinion is across an entire population.

Participants should understand the purpose of the discussion and how information will be used.

Do not conceal the true purpose of the research simply to obtain more candid answers.

Studies

A study is a systematic investigation designed to answer a research question.

Studies may be quantitative, qualitative, or use both approaches.

They may examine:

• Program effectiveness
• Community conditions
• Relationships among factors
• Differences among groups
• Possible causes and effects

If your organization plans to conduct a study:

• Define the research question clearly
• Determine whether you have the necessary expertise
• Use appropriate methods
• Protect participant privacy
• Obtain appropriate consent
• Consider whether formal ethics review is required
• Use statistical methods appropriately
• Report limitations

Correlation is not necessarily causation

Two things can occur together without one causing the other.

For example, a study might find that participants in one community program have better outcomes than nonparticipants.

That does not automatically prove that the program caused the difference.

Participants may differ in age, income, health, motivation, access to services, or other characteristics.

Good study design attempts to account for alternative explanations.

Direct observation and investigative research

Sometimes important information can be obtained by observing conditions directly.

For example, advocates studying housing conditions may document publicly observable accessibility barriers, building conditions, or neighborhood infrastructure.

Direct observation should respect:

• Privacy
• Property rights
• Safety
• Consent when entering private spaces
• Restrictions on photography or recording

Do not trespass or put researchers at unnecessary risk.

Environmental sampling should generally be conducted using appropriate scientific methods and, when necessary, qualified personnel.

A casually collected water or soil sample may produce misleading results if collection, storage, chain of custody, or laboratory methods are inadequate.

Use public records and documentation carefully

Investigative advocacy may involve reviewing large amounts of documentation.

Useful materials might include:

• Permits
• Inspection records
• Environmental monitoring reports
• Contracts
• Budgets
• Emails or correspondence obtained through lawful public-records processes

Keep careful records of where evidence came from.

Distinguish what a document proves from what you infer from it.

Using personal stories ethically

Personal stories can help people understand how policies and community conditions affect real lives.

Stories should not be treated merely as persuasive material to make statistics more emotional.

People sharing their experiences should have meaningful control over whether and how their stories are used.

Before using a personal story publicly:

• Obtain informed and voluntary consent
• Explain where the story may appear
• Discuss whether the person's name or identifying details will be included
• Explain possible media or online exposure
• Allow the person to decline without affecting services or relationships
• Avoid unnecessary disclosure of health, immigration, legal, financial, or other sensitive information
• Let the person describe their experience in their own words

Avoid selecting people primarily because their story is dramatic, emotionally powerful, or likely to generate media attention.

One story can illustrate an issue, but it cannot establish how common an experience is across a population.

Community members as research partners

People directly affected by an issue can do more than answer researchers' questions.

They can help:

• Decide which questions are worth asking
• Design surveys or interviews
• Identify communities that may otherwise be overlooked
• Interpret findings
• Identify possible explanations
• Decide how findings should be communicated
• Develop advocacy recommendations

Community participation can improve both the relevance and credibility of the research.

Keep track of your evidence

Advocacy groups should maintain organized records of important sources.

For major claims, record:

• The original source
• Publication date
• Author or organization
• Relevant methodology
• Important limitations
• A link, file location, or citation

This helps prevent outdated figures, broken links, or unsupported claims from remaining in campaign materials.

In Summary

Effective advocacy depends on reliable research.

Research helps communities understand what is happening, who is affected, why the problem exists, what solutions have been tried, and what evidence supports different courses of action.

Research should not simply provide ammunition for a position that has already been chosen.

A strong advocacy organization is willing to change its understanding when credible evidence points in another direction.

Use multiple kinds of evidence. Government data, academic studies, public records, program evaluations, interviews, surveys, community-generated information, direct observation, and lived experience can each contribute different kinds of knowledge.

Evaluate sources according to their evidence, methodology, relevance, date, and limitations rather than relying only on reputation or whether the source agrees with you.

Digital information is abundant, but important claims should be traced to original or authoritative sources whenever possible.

Surveys, interviews, focus groups, and studies should be designed carefully. Be transparent about who participated and what the findings can and cannot support.

Protect privacy and obtain meaningful consent when collecting or publishing personal information.

Personal stories can help explain an issue, but people should not be treated as persuasive examples for a campaign. They should have control over whether and how their experiences are shared.

Investigative research also requires appropriate safety, legal, and technical safeguards. Do not encourage untrained participants to collect scientific samples, enter private property, or take unnecessary personal risks.

Finally, include people directly affected by the issue in deciding what should be researched and how findings should be interpreted.

The strongest advocacy research does more than make an argument stronger. It helps a community understand the issue more accurately and choose better actions because of what it has learned.

What do we mean by conducting research?

___You conduct your research by working, in whatever way necessary, to find the information you need to support or strengthen your advocacy

Why should you do advocacy research?

___It gives your advocacy substance

___It gives you new information to help make your case

___It can show you what's most likely to address your issue successfully

___It can provide you with anecdotes and examples to use

___It can confirm what you were already sure of

___It allows you to make cost-benefit arguments

___It gives you credibility

___It can short-circuit the opposition

___It sets you up as the expert on the issue

When should you do advocacy research?

___When you're trying to get legislation passed

___To help you make the community concerned about an issue that needs attention

___When programs, services, or groups of people are under attack

___When you want to expose corrupt officials

___When government or some other entity is lying to the public

___When it's necessary to prevent harm to individuals or the public

___To further the public interest

How do you conduct research?

___You ask for help

___You check to see if someone has already gathered the information you need

___You learn all the necessary basics about your issue, and know them cold

___You determine clearly what you'll use the information for

___You check all your facts carefully

___You're persistent

You know how to do the different kinds of research and how to choose which is appropriate for your circumstances:

___You do "academic" research

___You gain information from conversations and interviews

___You construct and administer surveys

___You design and conduct studies

___You do detective work

___You find people with personal anecdotes and stories to tell

Tool 1: Specific research tips

The first step in research is to find out what sources of information are available. The Internet has vastly increased the amount of information accessible to the average person, and libraries also use the power of computer networks for research. For each area of concern, there are many sources you can use.

Laws and regulations

If you think a law is being broken, it's obviously necessary to know exactly what that law is and what its provisions are. There are several possible places to find state and federal laws.

• Law libraries. Law libraries are generally located in or near county courthouses and in law schools. While many public libraries may have complete copies of the state law code, law librarians are generally more knowledgeable, and can more easily and quickly help you find what you're looking for.
• Sympathetic lawyers and politicians. You may be able to find an attorney willing to research a particular law or legal question for you because he's interested in the issue. By the same token, a simple call to a politician's office may obtain the same result. Your elected representative may ask an aide to help you find the appropriate material as a form of constituent service.

In either of these cases, you should have a well-defined idea of what you're looking for. You can't expect someone to go through all the state environmental laws, for instance: you have to be able to explain what type of law you think is being violated.

• The Internet. There are several websites with listings of or links to state and federal statutes. There are sites with links to all state law codes. One of the best is the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. It contains all state statutes, searchable by topic, as well as federal laws. Another site for federal laws is the US General Services Administration, searchable in a number of different ways.

Information about the past and current activities of government and corporations

Some of the most prominent websites that track government and corporate documents and activity are the Government Accountability Project, which tries to protect whistleblowers and make sure they're heard, the Congressional Accountability Project, concerned with Congressional ethics reform, the Corporate Accountability Project, keeping watch on multinational corporations, with links to Corporate Watch, a massive data base on corporate activity worldwide, and its sister organization, Corporate Watch USA. The latter three of these websites contain links to corporate filings, where you can find corporate annual reports and other documents.

In addition to these and similar websites, there are also newspaper archives, accessible through newspaper offices and - often - on the web. The New York Times, for instance, offers archived articles (at a small cost) going back five or more years. Newsweek also offers a fee-based archive. Many public and academic libraries subscribe to newspaper and magazine archive services, and you may be able to take advantage of that as a library card holder. State university libraries, particularly, many of which offer library membership to any state resident, have a broad range of research services.

General information

You may need information ranging from the chemical structure of a particular substance to the details of a five-year-old episode of community history. All the sources referred to above - libraries, the Internet, experts, newspaper archives - are useful for general as well as specific information. Your best sources depend on the information you're seeking. If you're looking for the results of scientific studies or the outcome of a high-profile lawsuit, printed sources may be your best bet. (Once again, libraries are good places to start.) If you're looking for evidence of current wrongdoing, it's probably not going to be in print.

Your most important source may be people. You may want to consult an expert to explain, as we've discussed, the ins and outs of a state law or the ecological implications of the use of a weedkiller. If you're looking for community history, you'll certainly want to talk to those who took part in it - probably to people with a variety of perspectives on what happened.

People as information sources have a huge advantage over libraries, printed material, and the Internet: they can answer questions. You can find out exactly what you want to know, although it's important to remember that you're getting the point of view of the person you're talking to. But even given that restriction, you still have an advantage. With many Internet sites, especially, it's difficult to judge the quality and accuracy of the information you're getting. With people, it's often easier to sort out whose information is most nearly accurate.

Another advantage of people as information sources is that they may come to you. A whistleblower, a witness, a friend of a friend who knows something or someone - any of them might come to you, once they hear you're looking for information.

Tool 2: Some sources to use if you have opponents

These sources can provide information about corporations, organizations, groups or individuals.

Corporate registrations

Contains information about the place of business, date of incorporation, nature of the business, and names of directors and officers, as well as some financial information. These are public records, and can be found in the records of the state of incorporation. For more information, see the links to corporate sites in Tool #1.

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

The Uniform Commerical Code records whether a company has borrowed against assets other than real estate. This is a great source for learning about creditor relationships. The UCC is federal legislation that is reflected in state laws, and the filings reside with state Secretaries of State. From the same source, the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, there are links to the specific state laws that reflect various sections of the UCC. You can also find information on the websites of, or by contacting the offices of, the Secretaries of State of individual states. The Texas Secretary of State's website includes a reasonably coherent explanation of where and what companies must file.

Real Estate Records

Real estate records list ownership information, property tax records, and zoning and building information. These records are maintained at the city or county level. From these records, you can find out if your opponent is being undertaxed, or has committed zoning or licensing violations.

Voting records

Registration records, which are public documents available in every community through the Town or City Clerk's office, may show a person's address, telephone number, employer, age, citizenship status, party enrollment, and elections in which the person voted. A local town census may also provide similar information.

Court records

Court records cover criminal and civil cases filed by or against individuals, groups, companies, or government organizations. You may be particularly interested in cases involving bankruptcies, complaints about a business by consumers, claims by one business against another, and government prosecutions of an individual or organization for illegal acts or practices. In addition to information about the specific case, you may glean other information from these documents, available through the appropriate court (state or federal district court, county court, probate court, appeals court, etc. Most of these are available on the Internet, and can easily be found through a web search.)

For example, does a certain person own land? What is it worth? Is it mortgaged, and to whom? (These are probate court issues, and may often be found in the Register of Deeds.) Has the person been sued, sued someone else, been arrested, or been the target of legal judgments?

U.S. agencies

If your opponent is a bank or other type of financial institution, it should be easy to gather information. Various government bodies keep track of these institutions, monitoring their assets and keeping track of whom they lend money to. Here are four U.S. agencies that may have information you can use:

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

This office collects information on nationally chartered banks, foreign banks with U.S. branches, and bank-holding companies. In order to obtain information from them, send a written request to:

Communications Section
Comptroller of the Currency
490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW
Washington, D.C. 20219

The Federal Reserve System

This regulates state banks in the federal reserve system, bank-holding companies, and international subsidiaries of U.S. banks.

Federal Reserve System
20th and C Streets, NW
Washington, D.C. 20551

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

The Community Reinvestment Act requires that banks maintain records on bank lending to low-income and minority borrowers. Check with your local financial institutions.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The FDIC monitors banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System. Among other data, they gather information on the bank's condition and income.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Data Request Section
550 17th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20429

• What do we mean by conducting studies of the issue?

• Why would you want to conduct studies of the issue?

• How do you conduct studies of the issue?

What do we mean by conducting studies of the issue?

A study is a systematic effort to gather and analyze information for a specific purpose.

You may already have completed broad research to understand the issue at the beginning of your advocacy effort. Additional study can help you examine the issue more closely, test assumptions, understand different perspectives, identify gaps in existing information, and decide which strategies are most appropriate.

Depending on your question, a study may involve:

• Reviewing existing research or administrative data
• Analyzing public records
• Conducting interviews or listening sessions
• Surveying community members
• Holding focus groups
• Collecting observational or program data
• Conducting a formal quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods study

The method should fit the question you are trying to answer.

Advocacy research should not simply look for information that supports a position already chosen. A useful study may strengthen your original understanding, complicate it, or show that your proposed solution needs to change.

Why would you want to conduct studies of the issue?

Additional research may help your group:

• Understand the issue more fully
• Identify possible strategies and policy options
• Understand areas of support, uncertainty, and resistance
• Involve community members in learning about the issue
• Improve the accuracy of public statements
• Strengthen credibility through transparent use of evidence
• Identify gaps in existing services, policies, or information
• Assess whether a proposed intervention is likely to help
• Establish a baseline for future evaluation

Research can also reveal that the issue is different from what the group initially believed.

If credible evidence challenges your assumptions, reconsider the assumptions rather than looking only for data that support them.

How do you conduct studies of the issue?

Two broad approaches are common:

• Use existing information. Review research, public data, reports, records, and other sources that already address the issue.
• Collect new information. Gather information that is not already available or that needs to be updated for your community.

Many advocacy efforts use both approaches.

Documenting the issue using existing information

Before collecting new data, find out what already exists.

Existing research may save time, reduce duplication, and help you identify unanswered questions.

Ask:

• Which public agencies collect information related to the issue?
• Which community organizations are already working on it?
• Which researchers or institutions study it?
• Which businesses, professional organizations, or worker organizations may have relevant information?
• Which residents or community groups have lived experience that may not appear in formal datasets?
• What previous studies have examined this community or a similar issue?

Learn from other communities

Other communities may already have addressed a similar problem.

For example, if your community is concerned about industrial wastewater entering a river, another community may have dealt with a similar situation.

Ask:

• What information did they collect?
• Which agencies or experts were useful?
• What advocacy strategies did they try?
• What worked?
• What did not work?
• What would they do differently?
• Were there unintended consequences?

Be cautious when transferring findings from one community to another. Differences in law, population, geography, infrastructure, institutions, or economic conditions may affect whether an approach applies locally.

Potential sources of existing information

• Government data and records: Census data, public-health data, education records, housing data, environmental monitoring, budgets, inspections, permits, and other administrative information.
• Academic research: Peer-reviewed articles, university reports, research centers, and program evaluations.
• Community organizations: Needs assessments, community-generated data, program reports, and lived-experience information.
• Professional and trade organizations: Reports and data related to particular industries or professions.
• Local and regional media: Reporting and archives that can help establish history and identify public statements or previous events.
• Organizational reports: Annual reports, audits, strategic plans, issue briefs, regulatory filings, and evaluation reports.
• Archival records: Historical documents, meeting minutes, correspondence, and other records that provide context.

No category of source should automatically be treated as accurate simply because it is official, academic, nonprofit, corporate, or media-based.

Evaluate the quality of the evidence itself.

Evaluate existing sources carefully

For each important source, ask:

• Who produced the information?
• Why was it collected?
• How was it collected?
• How old is it?
• How are important terms defined?
• Which populations were included or excluded?
• What limitations are reported?
• Does the organization have relevant financial, political, or institutional interests?
• Can important claims be confirmed through another credible source?

Generating new data

Existing sources may not answer every question.

You may need local or current information about community experiences, attitudes, barriers, needs, or program outcomes.

Before collecting new data, define:

• What you need to know
• Why you need the information
• Who should be involved
• How the information will be used
• What privacy or consent issues may arise
• Whether you have the expertise to collect and analyze the information appropriately

Interviews with community members and leaders

Interviews can provide detailed information about experiences, history, institutional practices, barriers, priorities, and possible solutions.

Do not limit interviews to formal community leaders.

Depending on the issue, include:

• People directly affected
• Informal community leaders
• Youth
• Residents
• Service providers
• Educators
• Employers or worker representatives
• Public officials
• Advocates
• Researchers or other subject-matter experts

No single person should be assumed to speak for an entire neighborhood, racial or ethnic group, faith community, disability community, age group, or other population.

Community surveys

Surveys can help collect information from a larger number of people.

Surveys may be distributed through:

• Online forms
• Text messages
• Telephone
• Mail
• Paper forms
• In-person outreach

No method is automatically inexpensive, representative, or accessible.

Consider:

• Who can access the survey
• Language needs
• Disability access
• Literacy
• Internet and phone access
• Privacy
• Response rate
• Sampling method

If your sample is not representative, describe the results accurately rather than presenting them as the views of the entire community.

Personal or semi-structured interviews

Individual interviews can provide detailed information that structured surveys may not capture.

They are particularly useful for understanding:

• Why people hold particular views
• How policies affect everyday life
• Experiences with institutions or services
• Community history
• Possible explanations for patterns found in quantitative data

Interviews require time to conduct, document, and analyze.

Consider whether participants should be compensated for substantial time or specialized community expertise.

Focus groups

A focus group is a facilitated small-group discussion used to explore experiences, opinions, reactions, or ideas.

Focus groups can be useful for:

• Identifying themes
• Exploring reactions to a policy or program
• Understanding differences in experience
• Generating questions for additional research

Focus-group participants are not automatically representative of the entire community.

Focus groups generally provide qualitative insight rather than population-level estimates.

Consider confidentiality, power differences, accessibility, language, and whether people will feel comfortable discussing the topic in a group.

Guided discussions and listening sessions

Guided discussions can provide a less formal way to learn how community members understand an issue.

Use a set of broad questions to guide the discussion while allowing participants to raise concerns or ideas you did not anticipate.

Discussions may occur in person or remotely.

Select the format according to accessibility, participant preferences, privacy, and the purpose of the research rather than assuming face-to-face communication is always best.

Guidelines for collecting and using data

Use credible sources, not only official sources

Government and other official sources can be valuable, but official status does not automatically make information complete or correct.

Reliable evidence may also come from:

• Peer-reviewed research
• Universities
• Professional associations
• Community-based organizations
• Independent evaluators
• Tribal governments
• Public-interest research organizations
• Other credible sources

Use the strongest source available for the particular claim.

Verify important numbers and claims

Errors can damage credibility.

For major statistics:

• Check the original source
• Confirm the date
• Confirm the denominator
• Check definitions
• Review whether the statistic has been revised
• Make sure your interpretation matches what the source actually shows

Correct significant errors promptly if they are discovered.

Use qualified expertise when needed

Community organizations do not need to analyze every dataset themselves.

Statistical, legal, medical, engineering, environmental, or other technical questions may require specialized expertise.

If outside experts are involved, ask them to explain:

• The methods they used
• Important assumptions
• The limitations of the analysis
• What conclusions the evidence does and does not support

Your group should understand the findings well enough to communicate them accurately without pretending to have expertise it does not have.

Communicate data clearly without oversimplifying it

Charts, percentages, rates, and plain-language explanations can make findings easier to understand.

Simplicity is useful when it does not remove important context.

Do not avoid appropriate statistical detail merely because it is more complex.

Provide enough explanation for readers to understand what the numbers mean.

Show change over time when it is relevant

Trends can be more informative than a single point in time.

The appropriate timeframe depends on the issue.

Some conditions may change meaningfully month to month; others may require several years of data.

Avoid using a fixed rule such as requiring two points separated by five years.

Instead, use enough observations and an appropriate timeframe to show the pattern accurately.

Use current data when current conditions matter

Use the most recent reliable data available when the issue is changing over time.

Older data may still be appropriate for:

• Historical comparison
• Long-term trends
• Issues for which current data have not yet been released

Clearly identify the date and explain when newer information is unavailable.

Do not select data only because they motivate people

Evidence should be presented accurately even when the findings are discouraging, uncertain, or show that an intervention had limited effects.

Examples of successful efforts from other communities can be useful, but they should be presented with enough context to show whether the example is relevant locally.

Advocacy communication should not hide negative or mixed findings simply because positive findings may generate more enthusiasm.

Keep the scope realistic

A limited study conducted carefully is more useful than a broad study that cannot support its conclusions.

Before beginning, consider:

• Time
• Funding
• Staff capacity
• Research expertise
• Recruitment
• Data management
• Analysis
• Privacy and ethics

Get help with survey design and statistics

If your group intends to make population-level claims or conduct statistical analysis, involve someone with appropriate research or statistical expertise.

This might include a university researcher, evaluator, statistician, public-health professional, data analyst, or another qualified person.

Use graphs carefully

Charts and graphs can help people understand patterns.

Make sure:

• Axes are labeled clearly
• Scales are not misleading
• Units and denominators are clear
• Time periods are identified
• Important uncertainty or limitations are not hidden

Use personal stories ethically

Personal experiences can help explain what an issue means in everyday life.

Stories should not be treated as substitutes for data or as emotional tools to make an argument appear stronger.

Before sharing someone's story:

• Obtain meaningful and voluntary consent
• Explain where and how the story may be used
• Discuss whether identifying information will be included
• Protect sensitive information
• Allow the person to decline without affecting services or relationships

Avoid selecting a person primarily because their experience creates the most dramatic or persuasive public message.

Protect privacy and use data ethically

Advocacy research may involve information about health, housing, immigration, employment, disability, income, education, violence, or other sensitive circumstances.

Before collecting information, ask:

• Do we actually need this information?
• Do we need identifying information?
• Who will have access to it?
• How will it be stored?
• What risks could disclosure create?
• Do participants understand how the information may be used?

Organizations conducting formal research may also need to consider whether institutional review, legal requirements, or other research protections apply.

In Summary

Conducting studies can help an advocacy group understand an issue more accurately, identify possible strategies, establish a baseline, evaluate competing claims, and communicate with greater credibility.

Begin with existing information before collecting new data.

Government records, academic research, community organizations, professional associations, local media, organizational reports, archives, and lived experience can all provide useful information.

No source should be accepted automatically because it is official, academic, nonprofit, corporate, or media-based. Evaluate how the information was produced and what limitations it has.

When existing information is insufficient, use interviews, surveys, focus groups, guided discussions, or formal studies according to the question you need to answer.

Do not assume community leaders speak for everyone, surveys are representative simply because many people responded, or focus-group participants represent the larger community.

Verify important facts and statistics. Use current data when appropriate, but choose timeframes based on the issue rather than applying a fixed rule.

Report findings honestly, including mixed or negative results. Research should not be shaped mainly around what will generate enthusiasm for the advocacy effort.

Use qualified expertise for technical analysis and explain findings in language community members can understand without removing important context.

Personal experiences can add meaning to research, but people should have control over whether and how their stories are shared.

Finally, remember that the purpose of research is not simply to make your argument harder to challenge. It is to help your group and the wider community understand the issue accurately enough to make better decisions.

___You know what it means to conduct studies of the issue

___You know why you would want to conduct studies of the issue

___You know how to conduct studies of the issue

___You know how to document the issue using existing data

___You understand what other communities have done

___You know how to generate new data

___You know the guidelines for collecting data

Example: Interview with Catie Heaven

Catie Heaven is proficient in the art of conducting studies on issues. When she worked for the Work Group on Health Promotion and Community Development at the University of Kansas, she was involved in a project called "Girls to Women," during whichshe conducted interviews with dozens of seventh and eighth grade girls. Her new project is a child care analysis that includes a survey on about 600 students in a quantitative/qualitative forum. Here she comments on her experience conducting surveys.

"Do you know how hard it is to get a hold of thirty thirteen-year-old girls?" Catie asks, referring to her survey effort in the "Girls to Women" project. "Getting a hold of everyone was the most difficult thing. The time window wasn't very wide, so getting everything done on time was also difficult. But it all worked out. I think overall we found that the "Girls to Women" program was very successful. It's very good for the students. For me it was a great experience because it was the first time I interviewed a large number of people."

Catie thinks that conducting surveys is important because it provides an opportunity to select her goals. "A well-rounded study is well-researched," she says. "That's the first crucial issue: What you want to ask about? The next component is having carefully worded questions. The way you word a question dramatically impacts the outcome you receive when you ask that question. So, you bounce the questions off of a few people and make sure that they are asking what you want them to ask and that people perceive what you would like to know through the question. The third important component of a good survey is that it reflect different members of the community, so you can say with assurance that the results that you get don't reply only to one specific population, but to the community as a whole."

Catie said that she tries to make her sources as diverse as possible, but each source had its own advantages. "I think official sources are important if you want to generate community action from it. If you have official sources on the data, it lends credibility to your study and that's one component of a good study. Then the other component would be public opinion. We are increasingly relying on public opinion for our public policy, for community actions. And so it is important to have the survey of a lot of individuals in the community."

"Every study is difficult to conduct", Catie said, "because it is hard to get a large number of people willing to sit down and talk to you for 30 or 45 minutes about an issue. It may be even more of a problem if the issue is sensitive, such as dealing with teen pregnancy in schools. "Sometimes doing a survey or study on that is difficult because of all the issues that surround it, like the religious issues, political issues. You might have the students in class saying what they think you want to hear when you interview them and then parents denying things that they know about their children because they don't want you to think poorly of their parenting skills on either end. So, I think the more controversial the issue, the more difficult it is to study."

Once the study is ready, presentation becomes the most important issue. Catie believes that it's hard to present results well using simply one format. "I know that a lot of academics use journal article in order to present their findings and that is very useful when it comes to the global community and getting your outcomes well known. But I think that a combination of a published article and giving speeches on the subject, specifically to the people that you have worked with, is very effective. When you do a survey or a study, everyone gets involved with it and they want to know what are the results going to be. It's good to present to the people that you worked with and also to have a written format for everyone to access.

"I think gathering data for your organization is a great idea because it helps you in two ways," Catie suggests. "In one way, it helps you get the information out. In other words, every time you survey a person, they find out about your organization and about what you are doing, so it's a great way to advertise what you are doing. And on the other hand, you also get a feel for what the community is doing. A lot of the times we have programs that fail, not because they weren't good ideas, but because they were misplaced. In other words, people didn't exactly need what the organization was offering. It is a good thing to do resource match-ups. The only pitfall probably would be when people focus too much for community organizing."

"Whenever you do survey the best thing to do is to start off with is what information is available in the community and in the library already." Catie suggests the one should ask around to find out what's going on in the community, what are the issues. From there one can decide what questions need to be asked to further the knowledge of that particular study. "Just don't sit and wait", Catie said. "Sometimes, just getting yourself out there and doing the best you can with the survey is a good thing to do, and you can increase your data and expertise each time that you do a study."

• What does it mean to gather data on public opinion?

• Why do you want to know what people think?

• What kind of information are you looking for?

• Whose opinions are you trying to measure?

• What are you going to do with the information?

• How do you gather data on public opinion?

What does it mean to gather data on public opinion?

Gathering data on public opinion means systematically learning what a defined group of people thinks, believes, prefers, knows, or has experienced regarding a particular issue, program, policy, organization, or community condition.

Public-opinion data can help community organizations understand:

• Whether people are aware of an issue
• What concerns or priorities they have
• How they view a proposed policy or program
• Whether opinions differ across groups or geographic areas
• What experiences may be influencing those views
• How views change over time

Public opinion can be important in democratic decision-making and community planning, but it is only one form of information.

Public opinion does not by itself determine whether a factual claim is true, whether a program is effective, whether a right should be protected, or whether a policy is ethical.

Decisions may also require research evidence, professional expertise, legal requirements, lived experience, community values, resource considerations, and attention to people who may be affected even when they are not part of the majority.

Gathering information on public opinion means learning where a defined population stands on an issue using methods appropriate to the question and population.

Before collecting information, ask:

• Why do we want to know what people think?
• What exactly do we want to learn?
• Whose opinions are relevant?
• How will we use the information?
• What method can provide useful and credible information?
• What limitations, accessibility needs, or ethical concerns should we anticipate?

Why do you want to know what people think?

Begin by defining the purpose of the research.

Community organizations may gather opinion data to:

• Understand community priorities
• Assess awareness of an issue
• Learn how people experience a program or service
• Identify concerns about a proposed policy
• Improve a program
• Assess support for a community initiative
• Understand barriers to participation
• Inform advocacy strategy
• Evaluate whether community needs or preferences are changing
• Meet evaluation or funding requirements

Public-opinion research should not be designed simply to discover which message will persuade people to support a predetermined position.

It can certainly inform communication, but it should also help the organization listen.

If community members raise concerns that challenge your assumptions or preferred strategy, take those concerns seriously.

Example: A neighborhood recreation project

Suppose a neighborhood organization believes a new soccer field or recreation space would benefit local young people.

Before asking local government for funding, the organization might want to know:

• Whether young people and families actually want a soccer field
• Whether another recreation need is considered more important
• Who currently lacks access to recreation
• What transportation or accessibility barriers exist
• Whether nearby residents have concerns about location, noise, traffic, or maintenance
• Whether similar proposals have been considered before

The goal is not simply to prove that the original idea has support. It is to determine whether it reflects community priorities and how it might be improved.

What kind of information are you looking for?

Be specific about what you want to learn.

Public-opinion research may examine:

• Awareness
• Knowledge
• Beliefs
• Attitudes
• Preferences
• Priorities
• Satisfaction
• Intentions
• Experiences
• Support or opposition

These are different questions and should not be treated as interchangeable.

For example, someone may:

• Know little about a proposed program but still express an initial opinion
• Support the goal but disagree with the strategy
• Believe an issue is important but rank another issue as a higher priority
• Support a policy in general but have concerns about how it would be implemented

Whenever possible, design questions that allow these differences to appear.

Avoid treating opinion as fact

If you are asking what people know about an issue, separate factual knowledge from attitudes.

For example, if community members express concern about HIV transmission, public-health evidence should be used to determine actual transmission risk. A survey can tell you what people believe; it cannot establish the medical facts.

Similarly, public opinion about education, environmental hazards, public health, or other technical issues should be considered alongside relevant evidence and expertise.

Whose opinions are you trying to measure?

Define the population carefully.

The relevant population might be:

• All residents of a city
• Residents of a particular neighborhood
• Young people
• Parents and caregivers
• Program participants
• Workers
• Students
• Voters
• People directly affected by a policy
• Service providers
• Decision-makers

Different populations may need to be studied separately.

For example, if a city is considering a new park, you may want information from:

• Residents who live nearby
• Families with children
• Older adults
• People with disabilities
• Young people
• Local businesses
• Parks staff
• Elected officials

Their perspectives answer different questions.

Avoid overly broad demographic categories

Do not assume that an entire racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, age, disability, gender, or socioeconomic group shares one opinion.

If demographic differences are relevant to the research question, collect and report them carefully.

Use specific and current terminology rather than categories such as minorities or the average person.

Ask the population directly when possible

Avoid relying solely on other people to tell you what a community thinks.

For example, if you are considering an English-language learning program for Spanish-speaking residents, talk directly with potential participants about:

• Whether they want the program
• Scheduling
• Location
• Childcare
• Transportation
• Program goals
• Preferred learning formats

Do not assume that community leaders or service providers can substitute for participants' own perspectives.

What are you going to do with the information?

Decide in advance how the information may influence decisions.

Public-opinion findings might be used to:

• Revise a program
• Set priorities
• Decide whether to proceed with an initiative
• Identify communication needs
• Improve accessibility
• Inform policymakers
• Identify areas requiring further research
• Evaluate change over time

Be cautious about using opinion data merely to strengthen supporters and weaken people who disagree with you.

Research should help clarify what the community thinks, not manufacture the appearance of consensus.

Decide what would cause you to change course

Before collecting data, ask:

• What would we do if support is strong?
• What would we do if opinions are divided?
• What would we do if most participants oppose the proposal?
• What would we do if people identify a different priority?

If no possible result would change your decisions, reconsider whether collecting opinion data is necessary or whether you are using research only to legitimize a decision that has already been made.

Majority opinion is not the only consideration

A majority preference may be important without being decisive.

For example, majority opinion should not determine whether a person receives legally required disability access, protection from discrimination, or another established right.

Community decisions may also need to consider:

• Effects on smaller or historically excluded populations
• Legal requirements
• Health and safety evidence
• Professional standards
• Available resources

How do you gather data on public opinion?

Begin by looking for existing information before collecting new data.

Existing sources

Useful sources may include:

• Previous community surveys
• Government datasets
• University research
• Community assessments
• Polling organizations
• Program evaluations
• Public meeting records
• Reports from community organizations

When using existing opinion data, check:

• When the data were collected
• Who was surveyed
• How participants were selected
• Sample size
• Question wording
• Survey mode
• Response rate
• Weighting or adjustments
• Who sponsored the research

Do not use media coverage as a substitute for public-opinion research

News reporting can help you understand public debate, history, and arguments being made about an issue.

However, the tone of news stories, editorials, social-media comments, letters to the editor, or people quoted in an article should not automatically be treated as representative of public opinion.

People who comment publicly are often a self-selected group.

Surveys

Surveys can estimate attitudes, awareness, preferences, or experiences when they are designed and sampled appropriately.

Surveys may be conducted through:

• Online forms
• Telephone
• Text messaging
• Mail
• Paper questionnaires
• In-person outreach

Each mode reaches people differently.

Consider:

• Internet access
• Stable phone access
• Literacy
• Language
• Disability access
• Privacy
• Trust
• Cost

Sampling matters

A large number of responses does not automatically make a survey representative.

For example, an online poll shared through your organization's social-media accounts may collect thousands of responses but still mostly reflect people who already follow or support the organization.

If you want to estimate opinion across a larger population, seek appropriate survey or statistical expertise.

When reporting results, describe:

• Who participated
• How they were recruited
• How many people responded
• Important demographic or geographic limitations
• Whether the findings can reasonably be generalized

Question wording matters

Questions can influence responses.

Avoid wording that:

• Suggests a preferred answer
• Uses emotionally loaded language unnecessarily
• Combines two questions into one
• Assumes knowledge participants may not have
• Presents incomplete information

When possible, pilot-test questions with people similar to the intended participants.

Interviews

Interviews can help explain why people hold particular views.

They can explore:

• Experiences
• Priorities
• Concerns
• Reasons for supporting or opposing a proposal
• Ideas for improvement

Interviews provide depth but generally should not be treated as statistically representative unless they are part of a sampling design intended for that purpose.

Focus groups and listening sessions

Focus groups and listening sessions can help explore the range of perspectives on an issue.

They are useful for understanding:

• How people talk about the issue
• Questions or concerns that survey designers may have overlooked
• Reasons behind different opinions
• Reactions to possible programs or policies

A focus group does not show how common a particular opinion is across the whole community.

Public meetings

Public meetings can provide opportunities for residents to express views and hear one another.

They are useful for participation but generally should not be treated as representative public-opinion polls.

People who attend may differ substantially from those who do not.

Digital and social-media information

Social media can provide information about public conversations, emerging concerns, and the language people use to discuss an issue.

It should be interpreted cautiously.

Online activity may be affected by:

• Self-selection
• Platform demographics
• Algorithmic amplification
• Organized campaigns
• Automated accounts
• Duplicate participation

A trending topic, comment section, or online poll does not necessarily represent the broader community.

What roles do community leaders and specialists play?

Community leaders and specialists can provide valuable information, but their views answer different questions from those of the general public.

Community leaders

Elected officials, organizers, faith leaders, neighborhood leaders, business leaders, youth leaders, and other community figures may understand institutions, networks, history, or emerging concerns.

Do not assume that influential leaders speak for everyone in a population.

Compare leadership perspectives with information gathered directly from community members.

Specialists

Specialists can help establish what current evidence shows about technical questions.

For example, public-health agencies, clinicians, or researchers may help explain current evidence regarding HIV prevention, infectious disease, environmental hazards, or another health issue.

Expertise should be evaluated according to relevant qualifications, evidence, and methods.

Public opinion and factual evidence are different

It can be useful to compare what people believe with what research or professional evidence shows.

Differences may indicate:

• A need for clearer public information
• Distrust of institutions
• Different experiences among populations
• Values that are not captured by technical evidence alone
• Uncertainty in the evidence itself

Avoid describing community members as uninformed simply because they disagree with experts.

At the same time, public concern should not be presented as scientific evidence.

Good community decision-making often requires both technical evidence and an understanding of what residents value and experience.

Gathering opinions from children and young people

Young people's views may be essential when programs or policies directly affect them.

Research involving minors requires additional care.

Consider:

• Age-appropriate language
• Privacy
• Consent or assent requirements
• School or organizational policies
• Whether questions involve sensitive information
• Whether participation could affect relationships with teachers, caregivers, or service providers

Do not assume that parents or caregivers can fully substitute for young people's own views when young people are capable of expressing their perspectives.

Use opinion data ethically

People who participate in opinion research should understand, as appropriate:

• Who is collecting the information
• Why it is being collected
• How it may be used
• Whether responses are anonymous or confidential
• Whether participation is voluntary

Avoid collecting sensitive demographic or personal information unless it serves a clear research purpose.

Protect identifying information and consider the risks that disclosure could create.

Anticipate common obstacles

Public-opinion research may encounter:

• Low response rates
• Difficulty reaching particular populations
• Language barriers
• Accessibility barriers
• Distrust
• Limited time or funding
• Biased or unclear questions
• Samples that do not reflect the population
• Rapidly changing opinions

Plan for these limitations and report them honestly.

A study does not need to be perfect to be useful, but readers should be able to understand what the findings do and do not support.

In Summary

Gathering data on public opinion can help organizations understand what people know, believe, prefer, experience, and prioritize.

Begin by deciding why you need the information, what exactly you want to learn, whose opinions matter, and how the findings could affect your decisions.

Public opinion is important, but it is not the same thing as factual evidence, professional expertise, legal requirements, or ethical standards.

Define the population carefully. Avoid assuming that influential leaders, people who attend a public meeting, social-media users, or members of one demographic group represent an entire community.

Use existing research when appropriate, and collect new information through surveys, interviews, focus groups, listening sessions, or other methods when needed.

Sampling and question wording matter. A large number of responses does not automatically mean that a survey represents the wider population.

Media coverage, online comments, social-media activity, and public meetings can reveal aspects of community discussion but should not automatically be treated as measures of public opinion.

Compare community views with relevant evidence while respecting the fact that residents may contribute experience, values, and priorities that technical research alone cannot provide.

Protect privacy, obtain appropriate consent, and be especially careful when research involves children, young people, or sensitive information.

Finally, use public-opinion research as a tool for listening as well as advocacy.

The goal should not simply be to learn how to persuade people. It should be to understand the community well enough to make better, more responsive decisions.

___You know what gathering information on opinion is

___You know why you want to know what people think

___You know what kind of information you are looking for

___You know whose opinions you are trying to measure

___You know what you are going to do with the information, once you get it

___You know how do you gather information on opinions

___You now you may encounter some obstacles, and you know how to get around them

Example 1: What you should ask yourself

George took on the challenge of doing a citizen satisfaction survey so he could see how well his new division at city hall was doing. He asked himself some important questions:

Why do I want to know what people think?

George thought long and hard. Finally he just realized that it was important for him and the rest of his new division to see how well they were doing. Were the citizens of the city happy about the services the new division provided?

What kind of information am I looking for?

This made George really think. Of course he wanted to see how people felt, but what kind of information was he really looking for? Good information may be a cause for celebration, but somewhat negative information may point out some potential areas in the division that require some improvement.

Whose opinions am I trying to measure?

This question was easy. George knew that he wanted to know the opinion of every citizen in the city that used the services of his division-and that was everybody. George knew that there would be a few difficulties in getting what he wanted. Since his city was very diverse, with a population speaking several languages, George knew that he had to either have translation services available or miss out on gathering information from non-English speaking members of the community. This was especially important because he hadn't yet figured out how to implement the survey yet. There was no set budget allocated for the survey yet.

He hadn't yet chosen a method. Face-to-face interviews would be expensive and time -consuming and would require a lot of people power. Mailed questionnaires would cost as much as the stamps involved and the paper.

George knew he couldn't forget about translation services. Face-to-face or telephone surveys would require having several volunteers or paid staff that could speak the diverse languages of many members of the community. A mailed survey would require the initial translation services as well as translation services in the analysis phase of the survey project. Also, George knew that translating the survey into 7 languages would drive up the costs of the paper and the postage. And he knew mailed surveys should be sent more than once, with a reminder post card or phone call.

By now George was feeling a little overwhelmed, but he just thought of all the good that knowing how the people really felt would do his department. He knew that the survey was the best way to find out what his division really needed to do to improve things. He was determined to find out what people thought.

What am I going to do with the information, once I get it?

George knew the answer to this question. His proposal to do a citizen satisfaction survey was not merely lip service. George was dedicated to the idea of actually improving things for the people of his city. The main goal of this survey was to find out where his division needed to improve. After finding out, he intended on working to improve it.

How do I gather information on opinions?

After mulling it over and speaking with his bosses, George decided that a mailed survey would be the best route to take. He figured that he would have the best chances of getting a representative sample of people in the city if all the surveys were mailed out to everyone in 7 languages.

He knew the answers would be anonymous, which was important for many of the refugees living in the city who came from countries in which giving their opinions to government officials was not a good idea.

Also, George's staff and budget was small and he only had a few volunteers to work with him. They would be able to mail out all the surveys with little effort.

Also another benefit of mailing out questionnaires was that the closed questions could be statistically analyzed with little effort.

What are some obstacles I may encounter? And how do I get around them?

George's biggest worry other than getting the approval of his boss to actually do the survey was the response rate. He had spoken to a city official in another city that had done a citizen survey and had received only a 12 percent return rate. Also, that city official was happy and damn proud of it.

George hoped that a representative sample would return his survey to him, but most importantly he hoped to get some good information about the good things his division was doing and a feel for what needs improvement.

Example 2: Report of an opinion poll

This is a sample report from an opinion poll, taken from public opinion surveys on child passenger safety legislation.

Citizen Opinion Report on Child Safety Legislation

The issue of the safety of child passengers in automobiles has been growing in recent years. Prior action toward the issue has been weak, providing for only oral warnings and/or information about child passenger safety.

A survey of the attitudes of Kansas citizens about child safety restraints and the Child Passenger Safety Act was conducted by random telephone survey

The results indicated overall:

• 73% of respondents support a law requiring proper use of safety restraints for all children under age five

This can be further broken down into:

• 25% were very willing to support the proposed law
• 48% were willing to support the proposed law
• 12% were neither willing nor unwilling to support the proposed law
• 9% were unwilling to support the proposed law
• 4% were very unwilling to support the proposed law
• 2% did not know

Of the 27% who opposed the proposed legislation:

• 68% felt there was already too much government interference in their lives
• 55% felt the law was impractical
• 45% felt the law unfairly burdens poor families and those with too many children

Tool: Opinion Poll

Here's a general poll about local issues in a community that you can use when gathering information on opinions.

Instructions: Please complete the following survey and return in the enclosed postage -paid envelope. All answers will be kept confidential and will be used for statistical purpose only.

1. Generally speaking, what do you think is the most important problem facing our state today?

___Economy (go to 2)

___Agriculture (go to 4)

___Environment (go to 4)

___Don't know (go to 4)

___Other - specify __________(go to 4)

2. If your answer was ECONOMY for the above question, then what part of the economy do you think is the biggest part of the for us now?

___Unemployment

___Interest rates

___Taxation

___Budget deficit

___Inflation

___Other - specify__________

___Don't know

3. In general, how good a job would you say the local legislature is doing in solving your economic problems?

___Excellent

___Good

___Fair

___Poor

4. How do you feel about an income tax break for school tuition? This would be a tax break for parents who send their children to private or parochial schools must pay tuition.

___Favor (go to 5)

___Oppose (go to 6)

___Don't know (go to 6)

5. Would you favor an income tax break for tuition even if it reduced the money available for public schools?

___Yes

___No

___Don't know

6. Some people think current environmental policy hinders the community's economic growth. Others do not think so. Do you think current environmental policy hinders economic growth?

___Hinders growth a great deal

___Somewhat hinders growth

___Has no effect

___Helps growth somewhat

___Helps growth a great deal

___Don't know

7. One issue of current concern is the new wastewater disposal policy under consideration by the Legislature. How concerned about this issue are you?

___Greatly concerned

___Moderately concerned

___Slightly concerned

___Not concerned at all

___Don't know

8. Regardless of how you may vote in the upcoming election, do you generally consider yourself to be a Democrat, Republican or Independent?

___Independent (go to 9)

___Democrat (go to 10)

___Republican (go to 10)

___Don't know (go to 10)

9. Do you generally consider yourself to be closer to the Democratic or Republican parties?

___Democratic

___Republican

___Neither

___Still don't know

10. When it comes to receiving information on local current events, which information source do you rely the most? (choose only ONE)

___Television

___Newspaper

___Radio

___Other - specify __________

11. What is the highest level of education you have completed?

___Some high school

___High school diploma or GED

___Some college

___Bachelor's Degree

___Other - specify __________

12. What year were you born? __________

13. What was your reported income year, before taxes?

___Under $25,000

___Between $25,000 and $40,000

___Over $40,000

• What does it mean to understand opposition and resistance?

• What can you learn from studying opposition?

• When should you study opposition?

• How should you study opposition?

• What ethical and legal boundaries should guide your research?

What does it mean to understand opposition and resistance?

Many advocacy campaigns encounter disagreement, resistance, or organized opposition.

Understanding that opposition can help your group make better decisions about strategy, communication, negotiation, public engagement, and risk.

Not every person or organization that disagrees with you should automatically be treated as an opponent.

Some may:

• Support the overall goal but disagree with the proposed strategy
• Have concerns about cost, timing, implementation, or unintended effects
• Have legal, institutional, or professional responsibilities that limit what they can support
• Be uncertain because they lack information
• Strongly oppose the goal itself

It is therefore useful to think in terms of a spectrum that may include support, uncertainty, specific concerns, and organized opposition.

In some advocacy efforts, opposition may be minimal. In others, the proposed change may affect institutions, businesses, public agencies, organizations, or constituencies with significant interests in the outcome.

The purpose of studying opposition is to understand the advocacy environment accurately – not to collect personal information for intimidation, embarrassment, or retaliation.

Who may oppose or resist your proposal?

Sometimes organized opposition is easy to identify.

In other situations, an organization that appears opposed may actually support some aspects of your proposal or may be open to negotiation.

Ask:

• What position has this person or organization taken publicly?
• What part of the proposal do they support or oppose?
• What interests or responsibilities may influence their position?
• What authority do they have?
• What evidence or values do they cite?
• Has their position changed over time?
• Are there areas of shared interest?

Avoid assuming that an entire organization has one position. Staff, leadership, members, departments, or affiliated groups may disagree internally.

What can you learn from studying opposition?

Careful research can help your group:

• Understand current public positions
• Identify the reasons behind disagreement
• Understand past strategies and responses
• Identify relevant decision-makers
• Assess the organization's resources and influence
• Anticipate likely questions or criticism
• Recognize your own campaign's weaknesses
• Improve your evidence, arguments, and communication
• Identify possible areas for negotiation or collaboration

This analysis should focus on information that is relevant to the issue.

The goal is not to search for embarrassing personal facts or unrelated weaknesses.

Look for shared interests

Research may reveal that your group and an organization resisting your proposal share some objectives.

For example, two groups may both want safer neighborhoods while disagreeing about the policy most likely to produce that result.

Shared interests may create opportunities for:

• Negotiation
• Joint research
• Pilot projects
• Agreement on a narrower policy
• Collaboration on related goals

Common ground is useful when it is genuine. It should not require advocates to minimize violations of rights, ongoing harm, or serious conflicts of interest.

When should you study opposition?

Begin early enough that your understanding of likely resistance can inform campaign planning.

Continue updating that information as the campaign develops.

Positions may change because of:

• New evidence
• Leadership changes
• New laws or policies
• Budget conditions
• Public pressure
• Negotiations
• Changes in community priorities

Opposition analysis is therefore an ongoing part of advocacy planning rather than a one-time activity.

How should you study opposition?

Start with publicly available, issue-relevant information.

Useful questions include:

• What has the organization said publicly about the issue?
• What policies, proposals, or campaigns has it supported in the past?
• Who has formal authority to make decisions?
• What legal, financial, political, or operational interests may be involved?
• What organizations or constituencies does it work with?
• What arguments or evidence does it rely on?
• What constraints affect its choices?
• What commitments has it made publicly?

Public and organizational information

Useful sources may include:

• Official websites
• Annual reports
• Budgets
• Public statements
• Meeting minutes
• Regulatory filings
• Court records
• Legislative testimony
• Campaign-finance records where legally public and relevant
• News archives
• Research reports
• Public agency records

Evaluate each source for accuracy, relevance, date, methodology, and context.

Conversations with knowledgeable people

People who have worked with or interacted with an organization may provide useful context.

Ask about:

• Publicly observable decision-making patterns
• Past negotiations
• Organizational priorities
• Implementation concerns
• Relevant history

Avoid soliciting confidential, private, or improperly obtained information.

Do not pressure employees or former employees to disclose information they are legally or ethically required to protect.

Study institutions, not private lives

Opposition research should generally focus on a person's public role rather than private life.

Information such as a person's home address, banking relationships, family circumstances, private associations, or other personal details usually has no legitimate place in an advocacy campaign unless it is directly relevant to a lawful and documented conflict of interest or other issue of genuine public concern.

Even when information is publicly accessible, ask whether collecting or publishing it is necessary, proportionate, and connected to the advocacy issue.

Formal research into institutions or public conduct

Some campaigns may need a more systematic investigation of an institution's public conduct, regulatory history, finances, policies, or legal obligations.

This can be appropriate when the issue involves:

• Possible regulatory violations
• Misuse of public funds
• Conflicts of interest
• Failure to meet legal obligations
• Misleading public statements
• Environmental or public-health concerns
• Discrimination or other violations of rights

The purpose should be to establish relevant facts, not to search broadly for material that might embarrass or discredit a person.

Develop a research plan

A structured plan can help keep the investigation focused.

Ask:

• What question are we trying to answer?
• What information would answer it?
• What sources are appropriate?
• What legal or ethical limits apply?
• Who will collect and review the information?
• What is the timeline?
• How will findings be verified?

Example research worksheet

Question	Information needed	Possible sources	Timeline
Determine whether an environmental agency has consistently enforced a particular regulation	Enforcement records Inspection reports Relevant regulations Public statements	Agency records Public-records requests Court or administrative records Audits	By August

Notice that the objective is to answer a defined question rather than to “discredit” a particular person.

Public records and transparency laws

Public-records laws can provide access to information held by government agencies.

Federal Freedom of Information Act requests apply to federal executive-branch agencies, while states and local jurisdictions generally have their own public-records laws and procedures.

Before making a request:

• Identify the agency likely to hold the record
• Determine which law or procedure applies
• Check whether the information is already available online
• Describe the requested records as specifically as possible
• Be aware that some information may be withheld or redacted for privacy, legal, security, or other reasons

Use information obtained through public-records laws for legitimate advocacy, research, oversight, or accountability purposes.

Business and organizational records

Businesses, nonprofit organizations, public institutions, and regulated entities may produce records that help explain their public activities.

Depending on the issue, relevant information might include:

• Corporate registrations
• Regulatory filings
• Financial reports
• Property and zoning records
• Permits
• Inspection records
• Contracts
• Court cases
• Enforcement actions

Focus on information that is relevant to the organization's public responsibilities, the advocacy issue, or a documented conflict of interest.

Avoid collecting personal data simply because a public database makes it accessible.

Understand interests, constraints, and likely responses

Once you have gathered relevant information, try to understand the situation from the other organization's perspective.

Ask:

• What outcome are they seeking?
• What responsibilities do they have?
• What risks do they perceive?
• What financial or institutional interests are involved?
• What legal constraints apply?
• What evidence would they consider persuasive?
• Which strategies have they used before?

This does not mean agreeing with their position.

It means understanding it accurately enough to anticipate likely responses and choose an effective strategy.

Use the information responsibly

Opposition research should improve the quality of your advocacy.

It can help you:

• Prepare stronger evidence
• Anticipate questions
• Identify areas of negotiation
• Recognize possible implementation concerns
• Respond to inaccurate public claims
• Identify documented legal or regulatory concerns

Focus public criticism on conduct and evidence

If an organization acts inconsistently with its public commitments, violates regulations, misrepresents evidence, or fails to meet documented obligations, advocates may reasonably bring that information to public attention.

Make sure the claim is:

• Relevant
• Verified
• Accurately described
• Supported by appropriate documentation

Avoid threatening exposure merely to pressure someone into compliance.

Accountability should focus on the issue rather than personal humiliation.

If you uncover possible illegal conduct

If your research identifies credible evidence of possible illegal conduct, consider consulting qualified legal counsel or reporting the matter to the appropriate regulatory, oversight, law-enforcement, or other authority.

Distinguish clearly between:

• Allegations
• Evidence
• Official findings
• Your organization's interpretation

Do not publicly describe someone as having committed a crime or violation unless the evidence supports that statement.

Ethical and legal boundaries

Advocacy does not justify unlimited investigation.

Do not:

• Misrepresent your identity to obtain private information
• Plant people inside another organization to secretly gather information
• Obtain private records through deception
• Harass individuals or their families
• Publish home addresses or other sensitive personal information simply to increase pressure
• Encourage unlawful access to records or computer systems
• Spread unverified allegations

These tactics can harm individuals, undermine public trust, create legal liability, and distract from the issue itself.

Ethical standards do not depend on whether you believe the other side is good or bad

The original disagreement may involve people acting in good faith, organizations defending financial interests, institutions accused of serious misconduct, or ideological conflicts.

The seriousness of an issue may justify stronger lawful advocacy – such as litigation, regulatory complaints, investigations, organizing, public demonstrations, or investigative journalism.

It does not automatically justify deception, invasion of privacy, harassment, or other unethical tactics.

Apply the same basic standards of accuracy, proportionality, legality, and respect regardless of how strongly you disagree with another person or organization.

Avoid stereotyping ideological or religious disagreement

Strong religious, political, or ideological convictions do not by themselves mean that people are irrational, incapable of considering evidence, or likely to engage in violence.

Evaluate individuals and organizations according to their actual conduct.

If a group has engaged in threats, violence, harassment, or other unlawful conduct, address those behaviors directly rather than attributing them broadly to religion, ideology, or belief.

Keep people directly affected at the center

Opposition research can easily become focused on institutional conflict rather than the people the advocacy effort is supposed to benefit.

Periodically ask:

• Does this research help us understand or address the community problem?
• Are we spending more energy studying another organization than listening to people affected?
• Is the information relevant to the desired change?
• Could publishing it harm people who are not responsible for the issue?

Research should serve the campaign's community goals rather than become an end in itself.

In Summary

Advocacy campaigns sometimes encounter organized opposition, and understanding that opposition can improve strategy.

Begin by determining what another person or organization actually supports or opposes rather than assuming every disagreement is permanent or absolute.

Study public positions, institutional interests, decision-making authority, past actions, legal responsibilities, resources, and relevant relationships.

Focus on information connected to the issue.

Do not treat people's private lives, home addresses, banking relationships, families, or unrelated personal history as legitimate advocacy material simply because the information may be available.

More formal investigation may be appropriate when there are credible questions involving regulation, public funds, conflicts of interest, public statements, environmental conditions, discrimination, or other matters of legitimate public concern.

Define the research question before gathering information. The purpose should be to establish facts, not to search broadly for material that can be used to embarrass or discredit someone.

Public records, regulatory filings, court records, organizational reports, public statements, audits, and news archives can provide useful information when evaluated carefully and used in context.

Understanding another organization's interests and constraints can help advocates anticipate likely responses and identify possibilities for negotiation without requiring agreement.

Use findings responsibly. Public criticism should focus on documented conduct, relevant evidence, and accountability.

Advocacy does not justify deception, spying, harassment, invasion of privacy, or publication of sensitive personal information.

Stronger advocacy may be appropriate when the stakes are high, but ethical standards should not disappear simply because advocates believe the opposing organization is acting badly.

Finally, remember that studying opposition is a means to a larger purpose.

The goal is not to gain “every edge” or exploit another organization's vulnerabilities. It is to understand the advocacy environment well enough to choose effective, lawful, ethical strategies that move the community closer to the change it is seeking.

Studying your opponents:

___Gives you up-to-date knowledge of the opponent's positions on the issue

___Tells you why the opponent is taking those positions

___Tells you what strategies and tactics the opponent has used in the past

Knowledge about opponents is useful to:

___Identify potential problems earlier on, and sort them out before they become bigger problems

___Help you find ways to negotiate

___Help you develop successful strategies and tactics

With regard to the timing of research:

___Studying the opponent should be an ongoing process

___Your opponents’ position may change over time; your response may need to change as well

Studying can be either informal or formal. Informal methods may include:

___Keeping your eyes and ears open

___Looking at your opponent's previous activities and campaigns

___Reading their in-house publications and annual reports

___Talking to organizations and individuals who have dealt with your opponents in the past

Studying individuals may involve:

___Finding out where they live and work

___Finding out how and where they manage financial transactions

___Identifying their advisors

Studying agencies, companies or organizations may involve:

___Finding out their past records and tactics

___Finding out about their resources, strengths, and weaknesses

___Identifying their principle decision makers

___Finding out how much power they have, and why they are opposing you

A formal, tactical investigation may be necessary:

___If the opponent is powerful

___If the opponent may be willing to act forcefully

A formal investigation may involve the following steps:

___Develop an investigation plan

___Gather the information

___Think like your opponent

___Use the information

Information can be gathered:

___Through informants with an interest in the issue

___Through "freedom of information" laws

___Through published sources of information

Among published sources of information are:

___Business and trade publications

___Clipping files

___Reference works

___Government files on businesses

___Voting records

___Court records

Gathering information about an opponent may involve some ethically questionable tactics. Groups should balance the benefits of these tactics against:

___Their own sense of what is ethically permissible

___The risk of getting caught

___The risk that the opponent would also adopt hardball tactics

Thinking like the opponent will help a group:

___Predict what that opponent will do next

___Predict how the opponent would react to specific tactics

Studying their opponent can help advocacy groups:

___Plan actions that will be most effective

___Publicize the opponent's weaknesses

___Perhaps act as whistle-blower, and seek legal redress

Example: Investigation worksheet

In order to:	We need:	Where to look?	When?
Disprove the city engineer's accusations on over-budgeted construction	Written proof of the transactions (receipts, bills) Witnesses	City archives Construction company's records	By the end of the fiscal year
Prove that the bank is withholding information on whom it lent money to	Documented proof of loans	Governmental archives	End of the month
Show that the mayoral candidate has been sued for not paying taxes on land	Copy of the law suit Witnesses The person who sued the candidate	Court records Phone directory	By next week
Prove that the state representative is using public funds for private use	Find records of his sources of income Receipts of the representative's purchases	Goverment files Find corporate registrations	Before elections

 

Tool: Investigation Worksheet

In order to:	We need:	Where to look?	When?

 

 

• What is accountability?

• Why might you seek accountability?

• When might you seek accountability?

• Who is accountable, and to whom?

• How do you seek accountability?

Institutions, governments, public agencies, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and other entities can significantly affect people's lives.

When those entities are not transparent, do not meet their responsibilities, or cause harm without meaningful consequences, community members may need ways to seek accountability.

Accountability can involve access to information, oversight, corrective action, enforcement, repair, changes in policy or practice, and consequences when laws or standards are violated.

This section discusses how community members can identify appropriate forms of accountability and use research, advocacy, oversight, regulatory processes, and other tools to pursue them.

What is accountability?

Accountability means that an individual, organization, institution, or government body can be expected to explain and take responsibility for actions, decisions, use of resources, and performance.

Accountability usually includes several elements:

• Transparency: Relevant information about decisions, policies, finances, performance, or conduct is available to the people entitled to receive it.
• Clear responsibilities: People understand what an individual or organization is expected to do.
• Standards: Laws, policies, contracts, professional requirements, ethical expectations, or community commitments provide a basis for evaluating conduct.
• Review: There is a meaningful way to determine whether responsibilities and standards were met.
• Correction or consequences: Problems can lead to repair, policy change, restitution, discipline, enforcement, or other appropriate responses.

Accountability does not mean that every mistake requires punishment.

Depending on the circumstances, accountability may involve:

• Correcting inaccurate information
• Improving a process
• Repairing harm
• Changing policy
• Providing compensation
• Strengthening oversight
• Enforcing existing rules
• Imposing proportionate disciplinary, regulatory, civil, or criminal consequences

Accountability and transparency are related but different

Transparency provides information.

Accountability goes further by connecting information with responsibility, evaluation, and appropriate action.

An organization can publish large amounts of information and still lack meaningful accountability if no one can determine whether commitments were met or respond when serious problems occur.

Who may be accountable?

Accountability can apply to many individuals and institutions.

Examples include:

• Governments and public agencies
• Elected and appointed officials
• Regulatory bodies
• Law-enforcement and justice institutions
• Government contractors
• Businesses and corporations
• Nonprofit organizations
• Schools and universities
• Health-care organizations
• Employers
• Professionals in positions of responsibility
• Organizations that receive public or charitable funds

Accountability should be connected to actual responsibility.

Ask:

• What authority does this person or organization have?
• What responsibilities apply?
• What standards govern the conduct?
• What outcome was reasonably within their control?

Avoid holding an organization responsible for outcomes it could not reasonably control.

To whom are organizations and individuals accountable?

Accountability may be owed to different groups depending on the role involved.

For example:

• Public officials are accountable to the public, the law, and relevant oversight bodies.
• Public agencies are accountable for their use of public funds, performance of statutory responsibilities, compliance with law, and treatment of the people they serve.
• Nonprofit organizations may be accountable to participants, communities, donors, funders, regulators, staff, and governing boards.
• Employers are accountable to workers for compliance with labor, safety, civil-rights, and other applicable requirements.
• Businesses are accountable to consumers, workers, regulators, owners, and the public for relevant legal and ethical obligations.
• Professionals may be accountable to clients or patients, employers, licensing bodies, professional standards, and the law.

Different obligations may sometimes conflict. Accountability processes should make those responsibilities explicit rather than assuming that one constituency's interests always take priority.

Why might you seek accountability?

Seeking accountability can require substantial time and effort, so it helps to identify clearly what problem needs to be addressed.

To make sure essential responsibilities are being met

Accountability may be appropriate when a public agency, organization, or institution is failing to carry out responsibilities that affect community well-being.

Examples might include:

• Inadequate access to essential services
• Failure to maintain safe infrastructure
• Failure to address documented environmental hazards
• Failure to enforce required accessibility protections
• Failure to provide contracted services

To protect people from harm

Accountability mechanisms can help prevent or address:

• Unsafe products
• Environmental contamination
• Workplace hazards
• Discrimination
• Harassment
• Financial fraud
• Abuse of authority

Strong accountability may involve prevention, monitoring, reporting requirements, enforcement, repair, or consequences.

To protect the public's right to information

People often need access to information in order to participate meaningfully in public life.

Depending on the issue, this may include information about:

• Government budgets
• Public contracts
• Environmental risks
• Product safety
• Public meetings
• Regulatory decisions
• Campaign finance
• Agency performance

Access to information should also be balanced with legitimate privacy, security, confidentiality, and legal protections.

To protect people who report wrongdoing

Employees or others with direct knowledge may report fraud, corruption, safety violations, discrimination, misuse of funds, or other misconduct.

Whistleblower protections can help reduce retaliation and make it more likely that serious problems come to light.

Organizations seeking accountability should understand the legal protections and reporting processes that apply in the relevant jurisdiction.

To obtain repair or compensation

When unlawful, negligent, or harmful conduct causes injury or loss, accountability may include:

• Restitution
• Compensation
• Repair of damaged property
• Remediation of environmental harm
• Restoration of services
• Corrective action

To protect public funds

Public and charitable resources should be used for their intended purposes.

Accountability may be needed when there are credible concerns involving:

• Fraud
• Waste
• Conflicts of interest
• Mismanagement
• Contract violations
• Failure to deliver funded services

To protect consumers

Consumers should receive accurate information about products and services and have access to appropriate remedies when businesses violate applicable standards.

Accountability may involve:

• Product labeling
• Safety requirements
• Advertising standards
• Consumer-protection laws
• Refund, repair, or replacement requirements

To address unethical or abusive conduct

Conduct can sometimes be harmful even when it is not clearly illegal.

Organizations may need internal ethics rules, professional standards, complaint procedures, independent review, or stronger policies.

To support fairness and justice

Accountability can help ensure that people and institutions with power are subject to meaningful standards rather than being able to cause harm without explanation or consequence.

The goal should not be for one side to “win.”

The goal is to establish facts, uphold appropriate standards, repair harm where possible, and reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

When might you seek accountability?

Accountability may be especially important when:

• Serious needs are being ignored
• Harm is occurring or likely to occur
• Public funds may be misused
• Laws, regulations, contracts, or policies may not be followed
• People are being discriminated against or denied rights
• Public information is being withheld improperly
• Whistleblowers face retaliation
• A powerful institution may be influencing public policy improperly
• A business or development proposal may have significant community effects
• An elected or appointed official may have violated legal or ethical obligations

Accountability should be based on evidence rather than suspicion alone.

Accountability in public decision-making

Government officials and agencies have responsibilities established through constitutions, laws, regulations, budgets, policies, professional standards, and public commitments.

Useful accountability questions include:

• Was the decision lawful?
• Was required public input obtained?
• Were conflicts of interest disclosed?
• Were funds used as authorized?
• Were decisions supported by evidence?
• Were similarly situated people treated consistently?
• Are there meaningful appeal or review mechanisms?

Law enforcement and justice institutions

Law-enforcement agencies, courts, prosecutors, correctional institutions, and other justice-system organizations exercise substantial public authority.

Accountability may involve:

• Compliance with constitutional and legal standards
• Use-of-force policies and reporting
• Complaint and disciplinary processes
• Independent or civilian oversight
• Data on stops, searches, arrests, discipline, and outcomes
• Protections against discrimination
• Transparency consistent with privacy and due-process requirements

Avoid framing inequity only in terms of individual prejudice. Accountability may also require examining policies, patterns, training, supervision, incentives, and institutional practices.

Government contractors

Contractors should be accountable for complying with the terms, standards, budgets, timelines, and reporting requirements of their contracts.

Evaluation should take context into account.

A provider should not be blamed for factors beyond its reasonable control, such as major changes in supply costs, unforeseen emergencies, or community conditions that substantially affect service delivery.

Accountability should distinguish between:

• Poor performance
• Mismanagement
• Fraud
• Unavoidable changes in conditions
• Reasonable implementation challenges

Nonprofit organizations

Nonprofits may be accountable to several groups at once, including:

• Program participants
• Community members
• Staff
• Volunteers
• Donors
• Funders
• Regulators
• Governing boards

Financial accountability should not be reduced to one administrative-overhead percentage.

Consider:

• Whether funds are used consistently with stated purposes
• Whether compensation and expenses are reasonable and transparent
• Whether required reports are accurate
• Whether programs produce meaningful results
• Whether services are accessible and responsive

Businesses and corporations

Depending on the industry and jurisdiction, businesses may have responsibilities involving:

• Product safety
• Consumer protection
• Worker safety
• Labor standards
• Environmental requirements
• Financial reporting
• Taxes
• Anti-discrimination law
• Contractual obligations

Appropriate accountability questions include:

• Is the organization complying with applicable law?
• Are public claims accurate?
• Are workers treated consistently with applicable standards?
• Are safety risks disclosed appropriately?
• Are environmental requirements being met?
• Are financial reports accurate?
• Are conflicts of interest disclosed?

People who influence public policy

Lobbyists, major political donors, organizations, advocacy groups, businesses, labor organizations, and community groups may all seek to influence government decisions.

Advocacy itself is legitimate.

Accountability becomes particularly important when there are concerns about:

• Undisclosed financial relationships
• Illegal gifts or payments
• Conflicts of interest
• Violations of campaign-finance or lobbying laws
• Misrepresentation of financial or organizational interests

Individuals in positions of authority

People with supervisory, financial, professional, or organizational authority may be accountable for:

• Following applicable law and policy
• Treating people fairly
• Protecting confidential information
• Managing funds appropriately
• Preventing harassment or discrimination
• Avoiding conflicts of interest
• Meeting professional or ethical obligations

How do you seek accountability?

Do the necessary research

Start with facts.

Before making serious public allegations or demanding consequences, understand:

• What happened
• Which laws, rules, contracts, or standards apply
• Who had responsibility
• What evidence is available
• What is still uncertain

Useful sources may include:

• Laws and regulations
• Government data
• Public records
• Audits
• Contracts
• Inspection reports
• Court or administrative records
• Organizational policies
• Interviews
• Community-generated information
• Relevant technical or professional expertise

Verify important claims and distinguish allegations from established findings.

Seek qualified help when needed

Accountability issues may involve legal, financial, technical, medical, environmental, statistical, or other specialized questions.

Seek appropriate expertise rather than assuming a community organization can evaluate every issue independently.

Protect sensitive information

Accountability research may involve confidential or sensitive information.

Consider:

• Privacy
• Whistleblower protections
• Retaliation risks
• Data security
• Legal restrictions on disclosure
• Whether identifying information is necessary

Decide what kind of accountability you want

Before choosing a tactic, define what would actually address the problem.

Possible forms of accountability include:

Greater transparency

An organization may need to make information easier for the public, participants, employees, regulators, or other appropriate groups to access.

Examples include:

• Publishing reports
• Providing clearer financial information
• Making policies publicly available
• Providing a contact person for questions or complaints

Changes in internal policy or practice

Sometimes the problem can be addressed by changing or enforcing organizational policy.

For example, a public-assistance agency may need clearer standards for respectful treatment, language access, disability access, complaint handling, or application processing.

Regular reporting

Reporting may be appropriate when ongoing oversight is needed.

A reporting requirement should specify:

• What information must be reported
• How often
• To whom
• Whether reports are public
• Who verifies accuracy

Regulatory or independent oversight

Some accountability requires ongoing oversight by:

• Regulatory agencies
• Inspectors general
• Auditors
• Licensing bodies
• Courts
• Independent monitors

Community oversight

Community oversight may be useful when public trust, lived experience, or local conditions need to be incorporated into accountability systems.

Examples may include civilian oversight bodies, advisory boards, participatory monitoring, or community review processes.

Community oversight should have clearly defined authority, transparent procedures, appropriate training, and meaningful access to relevant information.

Stronger enforcement

Existing rules may be adequate on paper but ineffective if they are rarely enforced or if consequences are too weak to change behavior.

Accountability may therefore require:

• More consistent enforcement
• Clearer penalties
• Better monitoring
• Improved complaint systems
• Stronger authority for oversight bodies

New laws, regulations, or policies

New rules may be appropriate when existing standards do not address the problem.

Before seeking a new law or policy, ask:

• What gap exists?
• Why are current tools insufficient?
• Who would enforce the new requirement?
• What resources would implementation require?
• What unintended effects should be considered?

Repair or compensation

Accountability may also require action to address harm already done.

This could include:

• Restitution
• Compensation
• Reinstatement
• Restoration of benefits
• Environmental cleanup
• Corrective services

Start with the appropriate process

Not every accountability issue needs the same level of escalation.

Depending on the circumstances, an appropriate starting point may be:

• An internal complaint
• A direct meeting
• A public-records request
• An ombudsperson
• An inspector general
• A regulator
• A licensing board
• An administrative appeal
• A union grievance
• A civil-rights complaint
• Another formal review process

However, organizations should not assume that every informal option must be exhausted before stronger action is appropriate.

Serious harm, retaliation risk, rights violations, urgent safety concerns, or previous unsuccessful attempts may justify faster escalation.

Appeal directly to the organization

Direct communication can sometimes resolve an accountability problem.

A written request or meeting may:

• Clarify what happened
• Correct inaccurate information
• Produce documents
• Resolve a complaint
• Lead to policy change

State clearly:

• What concern you are raising
• What evidence supports it
• What response you are requesting
• What timeframe is reasonable

Avoid using the threat of media exposure or regulatory action primarily as leverage when a straightforward request is sufficient.

Use regulatory or oversight processes

If the issue falls under a regulatory agency, licensing body, inspector general, civil-rights office, auditor, or other oversight organization, that process may offer a formal route to accountability.

Submit accurate documentation and follow the requirements of the process.

Strong evidence is useful, but community members should not assume that they must independently prove every element of wrongdoing before making a good-faith report to an appropriate authority.

Communicate publicly when appropriate

Public communication can be appropriate when an accountability issue affects the community or when formal processes are inadequate.

Public communication may involve:

• Reports
• Public meetings
• News media
• Community organizations
• Digital communications

Make sure public claims are:

• Accurate
• Relevant
• Supported by evidence
• Clear about what is known and what remains alleged

The goal should be accountability, not personal humiliation.

Use nonviolent direct action when appropriate

Demonstrations, rallies, boycotts, public testimony, and other forms of lawful nonviolent action may be appropriate when ordinary processes have failed or when public attention is necessary.

Consider:

• Participant safety
• Accessibility
• Legal risks
• Community support
• Whether the tactic advances the specific accountability goal

Advocate for changes in law or policy

If the problem reflects a gap in existing law or policy, legislative or administrative advocacy may be necessary.

Useful steps include:

• Define the accountability problem clearly
• Identify the decision-makers with relevant authority
• Develop evidence-informed policy options
• Build relationships with policymakers and staff
• Involve people affected by the issue
• Build support among relevant organizations
• Explain implementation and enforcement needs
• Monitor what happens after a policy is adopted

Accountability does not end when a law or policy is adopted. Implementation, enforcement, funding, and evaluation matter as well.

Consider legal action

Litigation can sometimes provide accountability, compensation, injunctions, disclosure, or interpretation of legal rights.

It can also be expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain.

Whether litigation is appropriate depends on:

• The legal merits
• Available remedies
• Deadlines
• Costs
• Risks
• Alternatives

A lawsuit should not automatically be described as the last possible option. In some cases, urgent court action may be necessary to prevent harm or preserve legal rights.

Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate.

Make accountability proportional

Effective accountability should fit the seriousness of the problem.

Ask:

• How serious was the harm?
• Was it intentional, negligent, systemic, or accidental?
• Is the problem ongoing?
• Was responsibility acknowledged?
• Has repair occurred?
• What is needed to prevent recurrence?

Accountability is weakened when every problem is treated as equally severe.

It is also weakened when serious misconduct produces no meaningful response.

Include the people affected

Accountability systems are stronger when people affected by the institution or conduct have meaningful opportunities to participate.

They may help:

• Define what the problem is
• Identify appropriate remedies
• Evaluate whether changes are working
• Identify unintended consequences

Participation should not mean that responsibility for correcting institutional failures is shifted onto the people who experienced them.

Monitor follow-through

Accountability does not end when an organization promises change.

Follow-up may include:

• Implementation timelines
• Public reporting
• Performance measures
• Independent audits or evaluation
• Community oversight
• Complaint data
• Review dates

Evaluate whether changes actually occurred and whether they addressed the original problem.

In Summary

Accountability helps communities ensure that governments, institutions, businesses, organizations, and individuals with authority meet their responsibilities and can be called to account when they do not.

Meaningful accountability generally involves transparency, clear responsibilities, appropriate standards, review, and the possibility of corrective action or consequences.

Accountability should be proportional to the conduct involved. Not every mistake requires punishment, and not every poor outcome proves misconduct.

At the same time, serious harm, violations of rights, fraud, corruption, discrimination, abuse of authority, or repeated failure to meet responsibilities may require strong consequences and institutional change.

Begin with evidence. Understand what happened, which standards apply, who had responsibility, what remains uncertain, and what remedy would address the problem.

Possible accountability mechanisms include transparency, policy changes, reporting requirements, regulation, community oversight, enforcement, compensation, new laws, public advocacy, direct action, and litigation.

Choose the mechanism according to the issue rather than following a rigid escalation ladder.

People affected by the issue should have meaningful opportunities to help define the problem and evaluate whether the response is adequate.

Public communication should distinguish documented facts, allegations, official findings, and interpretation.

Accountability also requires follow-through. A promise to change is not the same as demonstrated change.

Finally, the purpose of accountability is not simply to punish an organization or make one side win. It is to make responsibilities visible, address harm, enforce appropriate standards, improve institutions, and reduce the likelihood that the same problems will happen again.

What is accountability?

___You hold entities (and individuals) accountable for the openness of their actions, practices and policies

___You advocate for laws, regulations, and policies that provide strong enough sanctions to assure that entities (and individuals) are accountable for the legality, ethics, and effectiveness of their actions, practices, and policies

Why might you seek accountability?

___Ensure that citizens get what they need

___Protect the public from harm

___Protect the public's right to know

___Protect the rights and information of whistleblowers

___Ensure that people harmed by the intentional wrongdoing of entities are compensated

___Guard against the misuse of public money

___Ensure that consumers get what they pay for

___Assure the ethical behavior of governments, corporations, organizations, and institutions

___Procure simple justice

When might you seek accountability?

___Members of the community are in need and nothing is being done

___An entity is about to, or continues to, do something harmful

___Economic damage to either the public at large or individuals is being, or about to be, done

___A business wants to locate in a community

___An elected official or someone running for office has violated the public trust, has misrepresented his positions or background, or is otherwise unfit for public office

___Some individual or interest has unfairly or illegally influenced official policy or the votes of elected officials

___A blatant injustice is about to be done

Who might be held accountable?

___Elected and appointed government officials

___Law enforcement

___Government agencies

___Government contractors

___Nonprofits that seek money directly from the public

___Corporations and businesses

___Individuals and entities seeking to influence public policy

___Individuals whose positions within an organization give them power

How do you request accountability?

___You do the necessary research

___You decide what kind of accountability you want

___You appeal directly to the entity

___You go to the appropriate regulatory agency

___You go public

___You institute direct action

___You engage in legislative advocacy

___You initiate a lawsuit

Community decisions often involve economic consequences as well as social, environmental, health, and quality-of-life effects.

Advocates may need to show how a proposed policy, program, development, or other action could affect public spending, household costs, employment, local businesses, community resources, or long-term economic stability.

Economic analysis can help people understand tradeoffs, but it should not replace other important considerations such as fairness, rights, health, safety, environmental protection, or community priorities.

What do we mean by economic benefit and harm?

Economic benefit or harm refers to the financial and economic effects of a circumstance, action, program, or policy on individuals, households, organizations, businesses, government, or the wider community.

These effects may include:

• Household income and expenses
• Employment and wages
• Business activity
• Public revenues and expenditures
• Housing costs and property values
• Health-care costs
• Transportation costs
• Education and workforce development
• Environmental effects with economic consequences
• Long-term community stability

Not every important economic effect can be expressed easily in dollars.

Health, environmental quality, time, stress, access to recreation, neighborhood stability, cultural resources, and other aspects of quality of life may have both economic and non-economic value.

Community economic benefit or harm

Communities need resources to provide public services and maintain infrastructure.

Depending on the jurisdiction, those resources may come from:

• Property, sales, income, or other taxes
• Fees
• State or federal funding
• Grants
• Other public revenue

Community economic health can be influenced by:

• Employment opportunities
• Wages and job quality
• Housing affordability
• Health and health-care access
• Education and workforce development
• Transportation
• Public infrastructure
• Environmental quality
• Cultural and recreational opportunities
• Business activity
• Public revenues

A strong economy should not be defined only by the size of the tax base or the number of businesses in a community.

Consider whether economic opportunities are stable, accessible, fairly distributed, and consistent with community health and well-being.

Employment and workforce opportunities

Jobs can provide economic benefit when they offer stable employment, appropriate compensation, safe working conditions, and opportunities for advancement.

When evaluating employment effects, ask:

• How many jobs may be created or lost?
• Are the jobs full-time, part-time, temporary, or permanent?
• What wages and benefits are offered?
• Are local residents likely to qualify for or have access to the jobs?
• What training may be needed?
• What working conditions are involved?

Health and environmental conditions

Health and environmental conditions can have significant economic consequences.

Poor air or water quality, unsafe housing, occupational hazards, or lack of access to health care can increase:

• Medical expenses
• Lost work or school time
• Disability-related costs
• Public expenditures
• Household financial strain

Environmental protection can also support businesses and industries that depend on clean air, water, land, recreation, or tourism.

Quality of life

Economic analysis can include factors that influence whether people are able and willing to live, work, invest, or remain in a community.

These may include:

• Housing
• Schools
• Transportation
• Safety
• Environmental quality
• Health services
• Recreation
• Cultural resources
• Childcare
• Community relationships

Commercial economic benefit or harm

Businesses may be affected by:

• Taxes and fees
• Regulation
• Workforce availability
• Transportation
• Energy and utility costs
• Customer demand
• Infrastructure
• Housing availability
• Environmental conditions
• Access to suppliers and markets

A policy that creates costs for a business is not automatically economically harmful to the community as a whole.

Some costs may be necessary to protect workers, consumers, public health, the environment, or other community interests.

Economic analysis should therefore consider both private costs and broader public effects.

Why demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

Economic information can help community members and decision-makers understand the practical consequences of different choices.

It can be especially useful when a proposal involves:

• Public spending
• Taxes or fees
• Employment
• Business activity
• Infrastructure
• Health-care costs
• Housing
• Education
• Environmental protection

Economic evidence should be one part of the argument rather than a substitute for fairness, rights, community values, or evidence about health and safety.

Different audiences may weigh these considerations differently.

When should you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

Economic analysis may be particularly useful:

• When advocating for legislation or policy change
• When evaluating proposed legislation or policy
• When considering a public investment
• When evaluating a development proposal
• When comparing prevention with later intervention
• When examining environmental or public-health policies
• When evaluating community services
• When planning for long-term community development

Prevention and early intervention

Some preventive programs can reduce later public and private costs.

For example, effective programs related to:

• Preventive health
• Education
• Housing stability
• Workforce development
• Substance use prevention and treatment
• Violence prevention

may reduce more expensive needs later.

Do not assume that prevention always saves money.

Use evidence specific to the intervention, population, and setting, and distinguish between:

• Programs that save money overall
• Programs that produce benefits greater than their costs
• Programs that improve important outcomes even if they increase overall spending

How do you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

A useful process includes:

• Researching the issue
• Identifying possible short- and long-term consequences
• Estimating costs and benefits
• Identifying who bears those costs and who receives the benefits
• Considering uncertainty and unintended consequences
• Communicating the findings clearly

Do the research

Economic advocacy should be based on credible and current information.

Depending on the question, useful sources may include:

• Government data
• Academic research
• Program evaluations
• Public budgets
• Economic-impact studies
• Administrative records
• Community assessments
• Interviews with people affected
• Business and labor information
• Relevant technical expertise

Look for evidence that challenges as well as supports your original position.

Avoid using outdated figures or transferring cost estimates from another state, program, or population without checking whether they apply locally.

Learn from other communities

Experience elsewhere can provide useful information about possible outcomes.

Ask:

• What happened compared with what was predicted?
• Who benefited?
• Who experienced costs or harm?
• Were there unexpected consequences?
• Did effects differ across populations?
• What would participants do differently?

Differences in law, population, geography, cost of living, labor markets, and local institutions may limit how directly another community's experience applies to yours.

Determine short- and long-term consequences

Economic effects may unfold over very different timeframes.

A transportation project may require substantial costs immediately but produce effects over decades. A workforce program may show some results within months while other outcomes take years.

Define what short- and long-term mean for the issue you are studying rather than using a fixed timeframe.

Consider unintended consequences

Policies can have effects that were not part of the original plan.

For example, a workforce-training program may be less effective if participants also face barriers involving:

• Foundational education or digital skills
• Childcare
• Transportation
• Disability access
• Language access
• Housing instability

Rather than assuming participants failed because they were not capable of training, examine whether the program design addressed the conditions necessary for participation and success.

Analyze who benefits and who bears the costs

Economic effects are rarely distributed equally.

Ask:

• Who receives the short-term benefits?
• Who receives the long-term benefits?
• Who pays the costs?
• Are costs concentrated among particular neighborhoods or populations?
• Are some benefits private while some costs are public?
• Could a policy widen or reduce existing economic disparities?
• Are people directly affected involved in evaluating the tradeoffs?

Consider distribution, not only totals

A policy can produce a net economic gain while still imposing serious costs on a particular population.

For example, a development may increase total tax revenue while displacing residents or increasing housing costs.

A complete analysis should therefore consider:

• Total economic effect
• Distribution of benefits
• Distribution of costs
• Effects on people with fewer resources or less decision-making power
• Whether mitigation or compensation is possible

Make the economic connections

Several areas may help reveal economic consequences.

Public revenue

Consider whether a proposal may affect:

• Property-tax revenue
• Sales-tax revenue
• Income-tax revenue
• Fees
• State or federal funding

Include both possible increases and possible reductions in public revenue.

Public expenditures

Consider:

• Initial implementation costs
• Ongoing operating costs
• Administrative costs
• Enforcement or oversight costs
• Possible savings
• Costs that may shift from one agency or level of government to another

Employment

Look beyond the number of jobs.

Consider:

• Job quality
• Wages
• Benefits
• Stability
• Worker safety
• Advancement opportunities
• Accessibility

Effects on businesses

Consider whether a proposal may:

• Create new business opportunities
• Increase operating costs
• Change customer traffic
• Affect supply chains
• Affect workforce availability
• Change demand for particular goods or services

Household effects

Economic analysis should also consider how policies affect household finances through:

• Housing costs
• Transportation
• Childcare
• Health care
• Utilities
• Taxes and fees
• Income

Quality of life and community assets

Some outcomes may not have a simple market price.

Examples include:

• Clean air and water
• Parks and open space
• Community relationships
• Cultural resources
• Safety
• Time
• Health

Avoid treating these effects as important only because they may attract businesses or raise property values.

They may have value to community members in their own right.

Evaluate uncertainty

Economic forecasts are estimates, not guarantees.

Predictions may depend on assumptions about:

• Inflation
• Population growth
• Employment
• Consumer behavior
• Interest rates
• Participation rates
• Program effectiveness

State those assumptions clearly.

When possible, provide a range or several scenarios instead of one precise number.

For example:

• A lower-impact estimate
• A middle estimate
• A higher-impact estimate

Be careful with return-on-investment claims

Claims that a program saves several dollars for every dollar spent can be useful when supported by strong evidence.

Before repeating such a figure, check:

• Who conducted the analysis
• Which costs were included
• Which benefits were counted
• Over what period
• Whether projected or actual outcomes were used
• Whether the population and setting are similar to your own

Do not present an old or advocacy-generated estimate as a universal return for an entire category of programs.

Economic analysis and fairness

Economic efficiency is not the only standard for community decision-making.

A proposal may produce a larger total economic benefit while placing disproportionate costs on a smaller population.

Consider:

• Who has decision-making power
• Who receives the benefits
• Who bears the costs
• Whether rights are affected
• Whether existing inequities may increase
• Whether harm can be prevented, reduced, or compensated

Economic benefit does not automatically justify serious harm to another group.

Identify the audiences that need the information

Different audiences may need different levels of detail.

Depending on the issue, audiences may include:

• Community members
• People directly affected
• Elected officials
• Public agencies
• Businesses
• Worker organizations
• Funders
• Neighborhood organizations
• Researchers
• Journalists

Avoid thinking of audiences simply as people to persuade.

They may also identify weaknesses in your assumptions or raise legitimate costs that your analysis has not yet included.

Communicate economic findings clearly

Use language that is understandable without oversimplifying the analysis.

Helpful practices include:

• Define technical terms
• Explain assumptions
• Use charts or tables where useful
• Distinguish estimates from observed results
• Identify the source and date of important figures
• Explain uncertainty
• Translate information when needed
• Make materials accessible to people with disabilities

Use relevant communication channels

Depending on the audience, communication may occur through:

• Community meetings
• Reports
• Briefing documents
• Local media
• Email
• Websites
• Social media
• Community organizations
• Multilingual media

Use channels that actually reach the people who need the information.

Use trusted messengers appropriately

Community members, researchers, professionals, organizational leaders, workers, or people directly affected may help explain the findings.

Do not select people merely because their identity will make the campaign appear more credible.

Messengers should understand the evidence and participate voluntarily.

In Summary

Economic consequences are an important part of many community decisions.

Advocates can help communities understand how policies, programs, developments, and other actions may affect households, employment, businesses, public budgets, health, the environment, and quality of life.

Economic analysis should not be limited to whether a proposal makes or saves money.

Consider short- and long-term effects, who receives the benefits, who bears the costs, and whether those effects are distributed fairly.

Begin with credible research. Use current and locally relevant evidence where possible, and avoid repeating old cost estimates or return-on-investment claims without checking their source and applicability.

Consider experience from other communities, but do not assume that the same results will occur under different economic, demographic, legal, or institutional conditions.

Look for unintended consequences and conditions that may affect whether a program succeeds.

Economic forecasts contain uncertainty. State assumptions clearly and use ranges or scenarios where appropriate rather than presenting estimates as guaranteed outcomes.

Economic evidence should also be considered alongside fairness, rights, health, safety, environmental protection, and community priorities.

Finally, communicate findings clearly and transparently.

The goal is not simply to find an economic argument that will persuade people. It is to help communities understand the real tradeoffs involved and make better-informed decisions.

What do we mean by economic benefit and harm?

___You divide economic consequences into community economic consequences and commercial economic consequences

___In looking at community economic consequences, you consider both money issues, such as the community's ability to attract business, and other issues, such as:

• Job opportunities
• Health issues
• Quality of life
• Opportunities for children
• Cultural life
• Expenses
• The civic climate

In looking at commercial economic consequences, you consider both money issues, such as tax breaks for new businesses, and other issues, such as:

• Good schools
• Job training or skills training programs
• Environmental preservation
• Pollution

Why should you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

___Economic arguments are the most powerful for most people and organizations

___Economic issues affect everyone in the community

___Economic arguments are usually straightforward and realtively easy to understand

When should you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

___You are advocating for a new law or change of policy

___You are opposing a new law or change of policy

___You are advocating for an action or policy that has clear economic benefits

___You are opposing an action or policy that has clear economic drawbacks

___Your advocacy involves controversial issues

___You are trying to alert the public to the importance of an issue

___You are engaged in community planning

How do you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

___You do the research

___You determine the short- and long-term economic consequences of the action or policy in question

___You analyze those consequences

___You make the economic connections

___You define your audience

___You frame and deliver your advocacy message with the audience in mind

 

• What is documenting a complaint?

• Why should you document a complaint?

• Who should document complaints?

• When should you document a complaint?

• How do you document a complaint?

Imagine that a prospective homebuyer believes real estate professionals are treating them differently because of race.

The person notices a pattern: homes described as available by phone are suddenly unavailable when they appear in person, while they are repeatedly directed toward another neighborhood.

The person begins keeping records of:

• Dates and times of calls and meetings
• Properties discussed
• What each person said
• Emails, listings, or other written communication
• Changes in what was represented as available

They then contact an appropriate fair-housing organization or enforcement agency to learn what additional documentation may be useful and how to file a complaint.

Careful documentation may help an agency determine whether further investigation is appropriate.

Complaints can concern many issues, including discrimination, environmental conditions, consumer protection, workplace practices, public services, professional conduct, or treatment by a community organization.

In each case, preserving accurate information can make it easier to understand what happened and determine what response is appropriate.

What is documenting a complaint?

Documenting a complaint means creating and preserving an accurate record of the events, conditions, policies, communications, and effects related to the complaint.

Documentation may include:

• Notes
• Emails or letters
• Photographs
• Public records
• Receipts or invoices
• Policies or contracts
• Witness accounts
• Reports
• Relevant data
• Other lawfully obtained records

The amount and type of documentation needed will depend on the complaint and the organization or process reviewing it.

Filing a complaint does not always require you to prove the entire case yourself. Regulators, courts, employers, schools, professional bodies, and other organizations may have their own authority to investigate.

Your responsibility is generally to provide the most accurate and relevant information you reasonably can and to follow the applicable complaint process.

What might you need to document?

Depending on the issue, useful documentation may help establish:

• That the action, condition, event, or policy occurred
• What the people or organizations involved knew or reasonably could have known, when that is relevant
• Which individual, organization, department, or institution had responsibility
• What conversations, communications, or interactions occurred
• Whether people experienced harm, loss, exclusion, delay, or another negative effect
• The physical, social, economic, health, psychological, environmental, or other effects involved
• The qualifications or relevant experience of experts whose analysis you rely on

Not every complaint requires proof of intent.

Some laws, policies, or complaint processes focus on what happened or what effect a practice had, while others may require evidence about knowledge, intent, negligence, or another legal standard.

Determine what is relevant to the particular complaint rather than assuming the same elements apply in every case.

Why should you document a complaint?

Careful documentation can help the person or organization reviewing a complaint understand what happened.

It can also help distinguish:

• Facts from assumptions
• Individual incidents from patterns
• Direct observations from secondhand information
• Confirmed effects from possible effects

Documentation may help establish credibility

Consistent, detailed records can show that you paid attention to the circumstances and preserved information close to the time events occurred.

Documentation does not automatically prove that one person is truthful and another is not, but it can make the facts easier to evaluate.

Documentation may determine whether a complaint can be investigated

Some agencies or organizations require specific information before they can act.

This may include:

• The date of the incident
• The identity of the organization involved
• A description of what happened
• Supporting records
• Information showing that the complaint falls within the organization's authority

Requirements vary, so check the current procedure that applies to your complaint.

Documentation may affect how a complaint is resolved

Accurate records can help determine:

• Whether a policy or law may have been violated
• Whether the issue appears isolated or repeated
• How serious the effects were
• Whether corrective action has already occurred
• What remedy may be appropriate

Documentation may reduce risks when communicating publicly

Public accusations can create legal and reputational risks.

Before making serious public claims:

• Verify the facts
• Distinguish allegations from established findings
• Avoid exaggeration
• Preserve the sources supporting the statement
• Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate

Defamation law varies by jurisdiction and circumstance, so this section should not be treated as legal advice about whether a particular public statement is protected.

Who should document complaints?

Anyone directly involved in a complaint can preserve information that may later be useful.

Different people may contribute different types of documentation.

People directly affected

People who experienced the conduct or condition can document what they personally observed or experienced.

Their accounts should not be treated as less credible merely because they are directly affected.

Witnesses

Other people who observed relevant events may be able to confirm details or provide additional context.

Subject-matter experts

Technical complaints may benefit from qualified expertise.

For example, environmental, medical, engineering, financial, statistical, or legal questions may require professional analysis.

Experts should be used for questions within their expertise, and their qualifications and possible conflicts of interest should be clear.

Employees and others with direct organizational knowledge

Employees, former employees, contractors, or others with direct knowledge may sometimes have information relevant to a complaint.

Protect confidentiality and retaliation concerns.

Do not encourage anyone to unlawfully access records, disclose legally protected information, or violate legitimate professional obligations.

When whistleblower protections may apply, seek appropriate guidance about reporting channels and confidentiality.

Community members and organizations

Community organizations or respected community members may help identify patterns or provide context.

Their status alone should not make their evidence more important than information from people directly affected.

When should you document complaints?

When possible, begin documenting as soon as you recognize that an incident or pattern may become important.

Memories fade, websites change, records can be deleted under ordinary retention schedules, and physical conditions may change.

Early documentation can help preserve details.

When considering a formal complaint

If you may submit information to a regulator, employer, school, licensing body, court, union, or other formal process, determine the documentation requirements as early as possible.

Complaint and filing deadlines may apply.

When advocating for policy change

Documentation can help show whether a community concern is based on isolated events or reflects a broader pattern.

Historical evidence of discrimination, exclusion, unsafe conditions, or unequal treatment has often played an important role in policy and civil-rights reform.

When seeking organizational change

For example, if people receiving public assistance repeatedly report disrespectful treatment, long delays, inaccessible procedures, or other problems, records of specific experiences may help administrators identify what needs to change.

When alleging misconduct or poor performance

Serious allegations should be based on the strongest evidence reasonably available.

One incident may be sufficient when the incident itself is serious or violates a clear rule.

Other complaints may depend on establishing a repeated pattern.

When you suspect consumer fraud

Consumer fraud may affect people of any age, although some scams are deliberately designed to target older adults or other populations perceived as vulnerable.

Useful documentation may include:

• Emails or text messages
• Advertisements
• Contracts
• Receipts
• Account statements
• Caller information
• Screenshots
• Written notes of conversations

When another complaint or allegation may arise from the same conflict

If a dispute becomes complicated, preserve records of your own conduct and communications as well as the information supporting your complaint.

The purpose is to create an accurate record, not to prove another person's “true colors.”

How do you document complaints?

Start by identifying:

• Where the complaint will be submitted
• What authority that organization has
• What information it requires
• What deadlines apply
• What forms or procedures must be followed

Complaining to an official body

Regulatory agencies, employers, schools, unions, professional boards, government agencies, and other institutions may have formal complaint or grievance procedures.

Review the current instructions carefully.

• Submit the complaint to the organization or office that has authority over the issue.
• Pay attention to filing deadlines and other time limits.
• Use the required form or submission process when one exists.
• Provide the documentation the process requests and any other relevant information the process allows.
• Keep confirmation that the complaint was submitted.

If instructions are unclear, contact the appropriate office and ask what is required.

Keep records of:

• The date submitted
• Confirmation or case number
• Contact information for the office
• Any follow-up deadlines

Complaining directly to the organization involved

In some situations, contacting the organization directly may resolve the issue.

Present the concern clearly and provide enough documentation to explain:

• What happened
• When it happened
• Who or what was involved
• What effect it had
• What response or correction you are requesting

A cooperative approach may be useful when the organization appears willing and able to correct the problem.

Stronger advocacy, regulatory action, or another process may be appropriate when serious harm is occurring, rights are being violated, retaliation is possible, or previous attempts have failed.

Communicating with news organizations

Journalists may ask for documentation before reporting on a complaint, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

Three useful principles are:

• Clarity: Be able to explain what happened and why it matters.
• Consequences: Explain the effects on the people or community involved without suggesting that an individual complaint matters only if large numbers of people are affected.
• Confirmation: Be prepared to identify documents, witnesses, public records, or other sources that can help a journalist independently verify important facts.

Never exaggerate or invent details to make a story more compelling.

A journalist's responsibility is to report accurately, not to act as an advocate for your position.

Provide evidence and allow the journalist to evaluate it independently.

Making a complaint public yourself

Advocacy organizations may also communicate complaints through:

• Public meetings
• Reports
• Websites
• Social media
• Public testimony
• Demonstrations
• Community forums

Before publishing allegations:

• Verify important facts
• Protect private or confidential information
• Distinguish what you observed from what you infer
• Distinguish allegations from official findings
• Consider whether public identification of individuals is necessary
• Seek legal guidance when significant legal risk exists

Collect the actual documentation

Record information as soon as practical

Contemporary notes – records made close to the time an event occurred – can be especially useful.

Include:

• Date
• Time
• Location
• People involved
• What you personally observed
• What someone else told you
• Actions taken afterward

Distinguish clearly between direct observation, memory, interpretation, and information received from another source.

Do the background research you need

Learn enough about the issue to understand what information is relevant.

Depending on the complaint, this may include:

• Laws
• Regulations
• Contracts
• Professional standards
• Organizational policies
• Scientific or technical information
• Historical context

Seek qualified help when specialized interpretation is necessary.

Get the basic facts

Record details that may help identify and verify the incident.

These may include:

• Date and time
• Location
• People, organizations, departments, or agencies involved
• Relevant professional or organizational contact information
• Number of incidents or duration of an ongoing problem

Collect personal contact information only when it is genuinely relevant.

Avoid unnecessarily collecting or circulating home addresses, personal phone numbers, or other sensitive personal information.

Describe clearly what the complaint is about

Explain:

• What happened
• Why it is a concern
• Which policy, law, contract, standard, or expectation may apply
• What outcome you are seeking

Avoid stating that a law was violated unless you have a reasonable basis for that conclusion.

When uncertain, describe the facts and identify the rule you believe may apply.

Document what happened

Record each incident as accurately as possible.

Useful details may include:

• Sequence of events
• People present
• Documents exchanged
• Statements made
• Actions taken
• Follow-up communication

If your memory is uncertain about a detail, say so rather than filling in the gap.

Document conversations

After an important conversation, make a written record that includes:

• Date and time
• Participants
• Main points discussed
• Commitments made
• Any follow-up steps

A follow-up email summarizing an important conversation can sometimes create a useful written record and allow others to correct misunderstandings.

Audio or video recording laws vary by jurisdiction, and organizational rules may also apply.

Before recording a conversation, determine what consent or notice is required.

Document the effects

A complaint may involve one incident, repeated incidents, or an ongoing policy or condition.

Possible effects may include:

• Physical harm
• Mental or emotional effects
• Financial loss
• Housing instability
• Loss of services
• Employment consequences
• Educational consequences
• Public-health effects
• Environmental effects
• Loss of access or participation

Be careful about causation.

The fact that an effect occurred after an incident does not by itself prove that the incident caused it.

Medical, environmental, economic, or other technical claims may require additional evidence or qualified analysis.

Human and psychological effects

Policies or treatment by institutions can affect stress, dignity, financial stability, housing, health, or participation.

When documenting these effects, describe what people actually experienced rather than making clinical or causal claims that the evidence cannot support.

Public-health effects

Complaints may involve contamination, unsafe conditions, infectious disease, failures of care, or other health concerns.

Use qualified public-health, medical, environmental, or scientific evidence when connecting an incident or condition to broader health outcomes.

Economic effects

Relevant economic effects may include:

• Financial loss to individuals
• Unnecessary public spending
• Fraud
• Loss of employment
• Property damage
• Costs resulting from service failure

Avoid assuming corruption, favoritism, or fraud unless evidence supports those conclusions.

Environmental effects

Documentation may involve:

• Air or water contamination
• Hazardous waste
• Wildlife impacts
• Damage to land or natural resources
• Permit violations

Environmental sampling or technical measurements should use appropriate methods and qualified expertise where necessary.

Institutional or civic effects

Misconduct or repeated institutional failure can reduce public trust, weaken participation, or interfere with effective government and community institutions.

Describe those effects carefully and avoid broad claims that go beyond the evidence.

Types of supporting documentation

Depending on the complaint, useful evidence may include:

• Photographs or video collected lawfully and safely
• Witness accounts
• Accounts from people directly affected
• Lawfully obtained emails, letters, memos, records, or other documents
• Logs or legally made audio or video recordings
• Public records, credible news reports, or other published material
• Relevant research or technical studies
• Qualified expert analysis

News reports can help establish context or identify potential sources, but use original records whenever they are available for important factual claims.

Document intent only when it matters

Whether intention matters depends on the complaint.

It may be important to distinguish between:

• An accident
• Negligence
• Knowledge of a problem without action
• Deliberate misconduct

Do not assume intent from the result alone.

Emails, policies, warnings, prior complaints, meeting records, or other evidence may help establish what an organization knew and when it knew it.

Preserve and organize your documentation

Keep documentation organized from the beginning.

A simple record might include:

• Date
• Source
• Description
• Where the original is stored
• Why the item is relevant

Preserve originals

Keep original documents and files whenever practical.

Provide copies when copies are acceptable.

Avoid altering original photographs, documents, screenshots, recordings, or electronic files used as evidence.

Back up important records

Maintain secure backups of important digital files.

Depending on sensitivity, consider:

• Access controls
• Secure cloud or organizational storage
• Encrypted storage
• A separate backup location

Protect confidential and personally identifiable information.

Preserve context and metadata when relevant

Screenshots alone may omit important information such as dates, URLs, senders, or document history.

When practical, preserve the original email, webpage, file, or record along with the screenshot.

For evidence likely to be used in a formal legal or regulatory process, ask the relevant authority or qualified professional whether additional preservation or chain-of-custody procedures are needed.

Presenting your documentation

Documentation may need to be presented to:

• Supervisors or organizational leaders
• Regulatory agencies
• Licensing boards
• Unions
• Administrative hearing officers
• Legislative committees
• Courts
• News organizations
• Community members

Organize the material so another person can understand:

• What happened
• What evidence supports the complaint
• What remains uncertain
• What effect occurred
• What response you are requesting

Prepare to explain the information accurately

Know the major facts and be able to locate the supporting records.

You do not need to memorize every detail.

An organized timeline, index, or set of notes can make it easier to answer questions accurately.

In formal legal settings

If you are testifying, giving a deposition, or participating in another formal legal process:

• Tell the truth
• Listen carefully to each question
• Answer accurately
• Say when you do not know or do not remember
• Avoid guessing
• Follow instructions from the court or hearing officer
• Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate

General advocacy guidance should not substitute for individualized legal advice about testimony or litigation strategy.

Protect privacy and safety

Documentation may contain sensitive information about:

• Health
• Disability
• Employment
• Housing
• Immigration status
• Finances
• Education
• Family circumstances

Collect only the information you need.

Before sharing documentation, consider:

• Who needs access
• Whether names or identifying information can be removed
• Whether consent is needed
• Whether disclosure could create retaliation or safety risks
• Whether confidentiality laws or organizational policies apply

In Summary

Documenting a complaint means creating and preserving an accurate record of the events, communications, policies, conditions, and effects involved.

Strong documentation can help organizations, regulators, courts, employers, journalists, and community members understand what happened and decide what response is appropriate.

A complainant does not necessarily have to prove every element of a case before reporting a concern. Different complaint systems have different responsibilities and evidentiary requirements.

Begin documenting as early as practical.

Record dates, times, locations, participants, communications, actions, and effects. Distinguish what you observed directly from what you heard from someone else or inferred.

Preserve relevant emails, photographs, records, receipts, reports, public documents, and other lawfully obtained evidence.

Intent is not always required. Determine whether the particular complaint depends on intent, knowledge, negligence, impact, or another standard.

Follow the complaint procedure that applies, including filing deadlines and required forms.

Protect privacy and sensitive information, and do not encourage people to obtain documents unlawfully or violate legitimate confidentiality obligations.

Recording laws vary, so determine what consent or notice is required before making audio or video recordings.

Public communication should distinguish allegations from established facts and avoid exaggeration.

Store documentation securely, preserve originals where possible, and keep backups.

Finally, good documentation should make the complaint easier to evaluate, not simply more forceful.

The goal is to create a clear, accurate, well-supported record that helps the appropriate people determine what happened and what should be done about it.

To document a complaint:

___Determine whom you're filing the complaint with, and document accordingly

___Develop a plan for documentation

___Research all necessary background information

___Obtain the basic facts

___Describe in writing exactly what the complaint is about

___Describe in writing, as clearly as possible, exactly what happened for as many incidents as possible

___Record conversations, in exact words where possible

___Document the consequences of each incident or policy and/or of the overall series of incidents or policies you're complaining about

___Provide as much actual proof of the substance and details of your complaint as possible

___Present your complaint, with its documentation

Other considerations:

___Your documentation establishes you as a credible witness

___You established your concern by paying attention to and recording the details of the situation

___You have determined whether or not your complaint is taken seriously

___You have used the proper documentation so that it might make a difference as to whether or not the complaint can be acted on by a regulator or court

___You know how you want the complaint acted on and have the proper documentation to support that action

___Your documentation will protect you against libel or slander charges if you make public accusations

___You established the moral advantage through the use of your proof

___You encouraged anyone who has a complaint to document it, and did so yourself

___You asked experts in the field to document the situation

___You asked people directly affected by the actions or policies at which the complaint is directed o document the situation

___You asked people on the inside of the entity at which the complaint is directed to document the situation

___You asked community leaders or other respected individuals to document the situation

 

• What is documenting a complaint?

• Why should you document a complaint?

• Who should document complaints?

• When should you document a complaint?

• How do you document a complaint?

Imagine that a prospective homebuyer believes real estate professionals are treating them differently because of race.

The person notices a pattern: homes described as available by phone are suddenly unavailable when they appear in person, while they are repeatedly directed toward another neighborhood.

The person begins keeping records of:

• Dates and times of calls and meetings
• Properties discussed
• What each person said
• Emails, listings, or other written communication
• Changes in what was represented as available

They then contact an appropriate fair-housing organization or enforcement agency to learn what additional documentation may be useful and how to file a complaint.

Careful documentation may help an agency determine whether further investigation is appropriate.

Complaints can concern many issues, including discrimination, environmental conditions, consumer protection, workplace practices, public services, professional conduct, or treatment by a community organization.

In each case, preserving accurate information can make it easier to understand what happened and determine what response is appropriate.

What is documenting a complaint?

Documenting a complaint means creating and preserving an accurate record of the events, conditions, policies, communications, and effects related to the complaint.

Documentation may include:

• Notes
• Emails or letters
• Photographs
• Public records
• Receipts or invoices
• Policies or contracts
• Witness accounts
• Reports
• Relevant data
• Other lawfully obtained records

The amount and type of documentation needed will depend on the complaint and the organization or process reviewing it.

Filing a complaint does not always require you to prove the entire case yourself. Regulators, courts, employers, schools, professional bodies, and other organizations may have their own authority to investigate.

Your responsibility is generally to provide the most accurate and relevant information you reasonably can and to follow the applicable complaint process.

What might you need to document?

Depending on the issue, useful documentation may help establish:

• That the action, condition, event, or policy occurred
• What the people or organizations involved knew or reasonably could have known, when that is relevant
• Which individual, organization, department, or institution had responsibility
• What conversations, communications, or interactions occurred
• Whether people experienced harm, loss, exclusion, delay, or another negative effect
• The physical, social, economic, health, psychological, environmental, or other effects involved
• The qualifications or relevant experience of experts whose analysis you rely on

Not every complaint requires proof of intent.

Some laws, policies, or complaint processes focus on what happened or what effect a practice had, while others may require evidence about knowledge, intent, negligence, or another legal standard.

Determine what is relevant to the particular complaint rather than assuming the same elements apply in every case.

Why should you document a complaint?

Careful documentation can help the person or organization reviewing a complaint understand what happened.

It can also help distinguish:

• Facts from assumptions
• Individual incidents from patterns
• Direct observations from secondhand information
• Confirmed effects from possible effects

Documentation may help establish credibility

Consistent, detailed records can show that you paid attention to the circumstances and preserved information close to the time events occurred.

Documentation does not automatically prove that one person is truthful and another is not, but it can make the facts easier to evaluate.

Documentation may determine whether a complaint can be investigated

Some agencies or organizations require specific information before they can act.

This may include:

• The date of the incident
• The identity of the organization involved
• A description of what happened
• Supporting records
• Information showing that the complaint falls within the organization's authority

Requirements vary, so check the current procedure that applies to your complaint.

Documentation may affect how a complaint is resolved

Accurate records can help determine:

• Whether a policy or law may have been violated
• Whether the issue appears isolated or repeated
• How serious the effects were
• Whether corrective action has already occurred
• What remedy may be appropriate

Documentation may reduce risks when communicating publicly

Public accusations can create legal and reputational risks.

Before making serious public claims:

• Verify the facts
• Distinguish allegations from established findings
• Avoid exaggeration
• Preserve the sources supporting the statement
• Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate

Defamation law varies by jurisdiction and circumstance, so this section should not be treated as legal advice about whether a particular public statement is protected.

Who should document complaints?

Anyone directly involved in a complaint can preserve information that may later be useful.

Different people may contribute different types of documentation.

People directly affected

People who experienced the conduct or condition can document what they personally observed or experienced.

Their accounts should not be treated as less credible merely because they are directly affected.

Witnesses

Other people who observed relevant events may be able to confirm details or provide additional context.

Subject-matter experts

Technical complaints may benefit from qualified expertise.

For example, environmental, medical, engineering, financial, statistical, or legal questions may require professional analysis.

Experts should be used for questions within their expertise, and their qualifications and possible conflicts of interest should be clear.

Employees and others with direct organizational knowledge

Employees, former employees, contractors, or others with direct knowledge may sometimes have information relevant to a complaint.

Protect confidentiality and retaliation concerns.

Do not encourage anyone to unlawfully access records, disclose legally protected information, or violate legitimate professional obligations.

When whistleblower protections may apply, seek appropriate guidance about reporting channels and confidentiality.

Community members and organizations

Community organizations or respected community members may help identify patterns or provide context.

Their status alone should not make their evidence more important than information from people directly affected.

When should you document complaints?

When possible, begin documenting as soon as you recognize that an incident or pattern may become important.

Memories fade, websites change, records can be deleted under ordinary retention schedules, and physical conditions may change.

Early documentation can help preserve details.

When considering a formal complaint

If you may submit information to a regulator, employer, school, licensing body, court, union, or other formal process, determine the documentation requirements as early as possible.

Complaint and filing deadlines may apply.

When advocating for policy change

Documentation can help show whether a community concern is based on isolated events or reflects a broader pattern.

Historical evidence of discrimination, exclusion, unsafe conditions, or unequal treatment has often played an important role in policy and civil-rights reform.

When seeking organizational change

For example, if people receiving public assistance repeatedly report disrespectful treatment, long delays, inaccessible procedures, or other problems, records of specific experiences may help administrators identify what needs to change.

When alleging misconduct or poor performance

Serious allegations should be based on the strongest evidence reasonably available.

One incident may be sufficient when the incident itself is serious or violates a clear rule.

Other complaints may depend on establishing a repeated pattern.

When you suspect consumer fraud

Consumer fraud may affect people of any age, although some scams are deliberately designed to target older adults or other populations perceived as vulnerable.

Useful documentation may include:

• Emails or text messages
• Advertisements
• Contracts
• Receipts
• Account statements
• Caller information
• Screenshots
• Written notes of conversations

When another complaint or allegation may arise from the same conflict

If a dispute becomes complicated, preserve records of your own conduct and communications as well as the information supporting your complaint.

The purpose is to create an accurate record, not to prove another person's “true colors.”

How do you document complaints?

Start by identifying:

• Where the complaint will be submitted
• What authority that organization has
• What information it requires
• What deadlines apply
• What forms or procedures must be followed

Complaining to an official body

Regulatory agencies, employers, schools, unions, professional boards, government agencies, and other institutions may have formal complaint or grievance procedures.

Review the current instructions carefully.

• Submit the complaint to the organization or office that has authority over the issue.
• Pay attention to filing deadlines and other time limits.
• Use the required form or submission process when one exists.
• Provide the documentation the process requests and any other relevant information the process allows.
• Keep confirmation that the complaint was submitted.

If instructions are unclear, contact the appropriate office and ask what is required.

Keep records of:

• The date submitted
• Confirmation or case number
• Contact information for the office
• Any follow-up deadlines

Complaining directly to the organization involved

In some situations, contacting the organization directly may resolve the issue.

Present the concern clearly and provide enough documentation to explain:

• What happened
• When it happened
• Who or what was involved
• What effect it had
• What response or correction you are requesting

A cooperative approach may be useful when the organization appears willing and able to correct the problem.

Stronger advocacy, regulatory action, or another process may be appropriate when serious harm is occurring, rights are being violated, retaliation is possible, or previous attempts have failed.

Communicating with news organizations

Journalists may ask for documentation before reporting on a complaint, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

Three useful principles are:

• Clarity: Be able to explain what happened and why it matters.
• Consequences: Explain the effects on the people or community involved without suggesting that an individual complaint matters only if large numbers of people are affected.
• Confirmation: Be prepared to identify documents, witnesses, public records, or other sources that can help a journalist independently verify important facts.

Never exaggerate or invent details to make a story more compelling.

A journalist's responsibility is to report accurately, not to act as an advocate for your position.

Provide evidence and allow the journalist to evaluate it independently.

Making a complaint public yourself

Advocacy organizations may also communicate complaints through:

• Public meetings
• Reports
• Websites
• Social media
• Public testimony
• Demonstrations
• Community forums

Before publishing allegations:

• Verify important facts
• Protect private or confidential information
• Distinguish what you observed from what you infer
• Distinguish allegations from official findings
• Consider whether public identification of individuals is necessary
• Seek legal guidance when significant legal risk exists

Collect the actual documentation

Record information as soon as practical

Contemporary notes – records made close to the time an event occurred – can be especially useful.

Include:

• Date
• Time
• Location
• People involved
• What you personally observed
• What someone else told you
• Actions taken afterward

Distinguish clearly between direct observation, memory, interpretation, and information received from another source.

Do the background research you need

Learn enough about the issue to understand what information is relevant.

Depending on the complaint, this may include:

• Laws
• Regulations
• Contracts
• Professional standards
• Organizational policies
• Scientific or technical information
• Historical context

Seek qualified help when specialized interpretation is necessary.

Get the basic facts

Record details that may help identify and verify the incident.

These may include:

• Date and time
• Location
• People, organizations, departments, or agencies involved
• Relevant professional or organizational contact information
• Number of incidents or duration of an ongoing problem

Collect personal contact information only when it is genuinely relevant.

Avoid unnecessarily collecting or circulating home addresses, personal phone numbers, or other sensitive personal information.

Describe clearly what the complaint is about

Explain:

• What happened
• Why it is a concern
• Which policy, law, contract, standard, or expectation may apply
• What outcome you are seeking

Avoid stating that a law was violated unless you have a reasonable basis for that conclusion.

When uncertain, describe the facts and identify the rule you believe may apply.

Document what happened

Record each incident as accurately as possible.

Useful details may include:

• Sequence of events
• People present
• Documents exchanged
• Statements made
• Actions taken
• Follow-up communication

If your memory is uncertain about a detail, say so rather than filling in the gap.

Document conversations

After an important conversation, make a written record that includes:

• Date and time
• Participants
• Main points discussed
• Commitments made
• Any follow-up steps

A follow-up email summarizing an important conversation can sometimes create a useful written record and allow others to correct misunderstandings.

Audio or video recording laws vary by jurisdiction, and organizational rules may also apply.

Before recording a conversation, determine what consent or notice is required.

Document the effects

A complaint may involve one incident, repeated incidents, or an ongoing policy or condition.

Possible effects may include:

• Physical harm
• Mental or emotional effects
• Financial loss
• Housing instability
• Loss of services
• Employment consequences
• Educational consequences
• Public-health effects
• Environmental effects
• Loss of access or participation

Be careful about causation.

The fact that an effect occurred after an incident does not by itself prove that the incident caused it.

Medical, environmental, economic, or other technical claims may require additional evidence or qualified analysis.

Human and psychological effects

Policies or treatment by institutions can affect stress, dignity, financial stability, housing, health, or participation.

When documenting these effects, describe what people actually experienced rather than making clinical or causal claims that the evidence cannot support.

Public-health effects

Complaints may involve contamination, unsafe conditions, infectious disease, failures of care, or other health concerns.

Use qualified public-health, medical, environmental, or scientific evidence when connecting an incident or condition to broader health outcomes.

Economic effects

Relevant economic effects may include:

• Financial loss to individuals
• Unnecessary public spending
• Fraud
• Loss of employment
• Property damage
• Costs resulting from service failure

Avoid assuming corruption, favoritism, or fraud unless evidence supports those conclusions.

Environmental effects

Documentation may involve:

• Air or water contamination
• Hazardous waste
• Wildlife impacts
• Damage to land or natural resources
• Permit violations

Environmental sampling or technical measurements should use appropriate methods and qualified expertise where necessary.

Institutional or civic effects

Misconduct or repeated institutional failure can reduce public trust, weaken participation, or interfere with effective government and community institutions.

Describe those effects carefully and avoid broad claims that go beyond the evidence.

Types of supporting documentation

Depending on the complaint, useful evidence may include:

• Photographs or video collected lawfully and safely
• Witness accounts
• Accounts from people directly affected
• Lawfully obtained emails, letters, memos, records, or other documents
• Logs or legally made audio or video recordings
• Public records, credible news reports, or other published material
• Relevant research or technical studies
• Qualified expert analysis

News reports can help establish context or identify potential sources, but use original records whenever they are available for important factual claims.

Document intent only when it matters

Whether intention matters depends on the complaint.

It may be important to distinguish between:

• An accident
• Negligence
• Knowledge of a problem without action
• Deliberate misconduct

Do not assume intent from the result alone.

Emails, policies, warnings, prior complaints, meeting records, or other evidence may help establish what an organization knew and when it knew it.

Preserve and organize your documentation

Keep documentation organized from the beginning.

A simple record might include:

• Date
• Source
• Description
• Where the original is stored
• Why the item is relevant

Preserve originals

Keep original documents and files whenever practical.

Provide copies when copies are acceptable.

Avoid altering original photographs, documents, screenshots, recordings, or electronic files used as evidence.

Back up important records

Maintain secure backups of important digital files.

Depending on sensitivity, consider:

• Access controls
• Secure cloud or organizational storage
• Encrypted storage
• A separate backup location

Protect confidential and personally identifiable information.

Preserve context and metadata when relevant

Screenshots alone may omit important information such as dates, URLs, senders, or document history.

When practical, preserve the original email, webpage, file, or record along with the screenshot.

For evidence likely to be used in a formal legal or regulatory process, ask the relevant authority or qualified professional whether additional preservation or chain-of-custody procedures are needed.

Presenting your documentation

Documentation may need to be presented to:

• Supervisors or organizational leaders
• Regulatory agencies
• Licensing boards
• Unions
• Administrative hearing officers
• Legislative committees
• Courts
• News organizations
• Community members

Organize the material so another person can understand:

• What happened
• What evidence supports the complaint
• What remains uncertain
• What effect occurred
• What response you are requesting

Prepare to explain the information accurately

Know the major facts and be able to locate the supporting records.

You do not need to memorize every detail.

An organized timeline, index, or set of notes can make it easier to answer questions accurately.

In formal legal settings

If you are testifying, giving a deposition, or participating in another formal legal process:

• Tell the truth
• Listen carefully to each question
• Answer accurately
• Say when you do not know or do not remember
• Avoid guessing
• Follow instructions from the court or hearing officer
• Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate

General advocacy guidance should not substitute for individualized legal advice about testimony or litigation strategy.

Protect privacy and safety

Documentation may contain sensitive information about:

• Health
• Disability
• Employment
• Housing
• Immigration status
• Finances
• Education
• Family circumstances

Collect only the information you need.

Before sharing documentation, consider:

• Who needs access
• Whether names or identifying information can be removed
• Whether consent is needed
• Whether disclosure could create retaliation or safety risks
• Whether confidentiality laws or organizational policies apply

In Summary

Documenting a complaint means creating and preserving an accurate record of the events, communications, policies, conditions, and effects involved.

Strong documentation can help organizations, regulators, courts, employers, journalists, and community members understand what happened and decide what response is appropriate.

A complainant does not necessarily have to prove every element of a case before reporting a concern. Different complaint systems have different responsibilities and evidentiary requirements.

Begin documenting as early as practical.

Record dates, times, locations, participants, communications, actions, and effects. Distinguish what you observed directly from what you heard from someone else or inferred.

Preserve relevant emails, photographs, records, receipts, reports, public documents, and other lawfully obtained evidence.

Intent is not always required. Determine whether the particular complaint depends on intent, knowledge, negligence, impact, or another standard.

Follow the complaint procedure that applies, including filing deadlines and required forms.

Protect privacy and sensitive information, and do not encourage people to obtain documents unlawfully or violate legitimate confidentiality obligations.

Recording laws vary, so determine what consent or notice is required before making audio or video recordings.

Public communication should distinguish allegations from established facts and avoid exaggeration.

Store documentation securely, preserve originals where possible, and keep backups.

Finally, good documentation should make the complaint easier to evaluate, not simply more forceful.

The goal is to create a clear, accurate, well-supported record that helps the appropriate people determine what happened and what should be done about it.

What is a watchdog?

___A watchdog is an individual or group (generally non-profit) that keeps an eye on a particular entity or a particular element of community concern, and warns members of the community when potential or actual problems arise

___A watchdog may operate on the local, state, federal, or global level, and may deal with any issue or range of issues

___You can decide what kind of watchdog to be by considering:

• Your resources

• Your philosophy of activism

• What or whom you’re watching

• Whether you have opponents and who they are

• Your goals

• Whether you’re the best individual or organization to take action

What are the areas you might choose to monitor?

___Government

___Corporations and business

___Media

___The environment

___Human rights

___Hate groups

___American freedoms and civil rights

___Public safety

___Consumer affairs

___The general public good

Why act as a watchdog?

___Self-interest

___To defend those with little political or economic power, and help them learn how to gain and use that power

___To keep citizens aware of what is happening in their community and their world

___To maintain power in the hands of the community, rather than of those who have money or power or connections

___To prevent bad consequences that could cost the community economically or socially

___To promote social justice and social change

___To maintain democratic ideals

___Simple justice

Who can act as a watchdog?

___Agencies or organizations concerned with a particular issue

___People affected by an issue or condition, or organizations that represent them

___Professional organizations

___Organizations that represent the general public interest

___Agencies, organizations, and individuals concerned with the economic consequences of policies, practices, and actions

___Those who are members of minority groups or represent minority interests, and want to make sure they aren’t discriminated against, and that their concerns aren’t ignored or forgotten

___Those concerned with the maintenance of democratic ideals

When should you act as a watchdog?

___When you’re seeking to institute or change laws or regulations

___When a new project or venture is starting or about to start, and you have doubts about its impact

___When you believe the public interest is threatened

___When an entity or individual – government or a government official, a corporation or industry, a police department, a human service program, etc. – has proven untrustworthy in the past

___When you receive information about actual, planned, or likely harmful or questionable actions or practices

___When democracy is actually or potentially under attack

___When simple justice demands it

How do you act as a watchdog?

___Do your research:

• Learn everything you need to know to be able to explain and discuss the background and history of the issue(s), situation(s), and entities that you’re concerned with

• Gather the facts about the current state of the issue, and/or about the current policies and practices of the entities you’re concerned with

• Build a network and cultivate sources

___Decide what you’re going to do with the information you have:

• Nothing

• Go public

• Use it as leverage

• Take official action

___Keep up your watchdog stance for the long term

Example #1: Ohio Refuses to Be Intimidated by Hate

Letters from the Ohio Secretary of State and other officials falsely warned these voters that participating in elections could result in felony charges—a clear attempt to intimidate and suppress their right to vote. These actions erode trust in elections, deter civic participation, and disproportionately impact communities of color already facing heightened xenophobia and discrimination. 

Community Response and Advocacy

In response to these fearmongering tactics, organizations like OPAWL (Ohio Progressive Asian Women’s Leadership) and the Asian Law Caucus exemplified the role of advocacy groups as effective watchdogs. They released a bold, race-conscious statement affirming the importance of protecting voting rights for all Ohioans, regardless of race, ethnicity, or citizenship pathway. Their efforts as a watchdog demonstrating how advocacy organizations can monitor, expose, and counteract abuses of power.

OPAWL’s statement reinforced the belief that everyone deserves the freedom to shape the decisions that affect their lives. By holding public officials accountable, these organizations emphasized the critical role of civic engagement in safeguarding—not undermining—democratic rights. Their swift action exposed voter intimidation tactics as blatant attempts to divide and disenfranchise marginalized communities.

Empowering Public Messaging

To counteract these oppressive strategies, OPAWL launched a video campaign titled OH No You Don’t. This campaign serves as a powerful example of how public messaging can mobilize collective resistance against voter intimidation. The video sends a strong message to corrupt politicians exploiting hate to restrict fundamental freedoms while pitting communities against each other. Available on Instagram and Facebook, the campaign acts as a rallying cry for unity, empowerment, and active resistance.

Broader Implications

This event underscores the importance of vigilance in protecting voting rights, particularly for marginalized groups targeted by discriminatory practices. It demonstrates the resilience and solidarity of AANHPI communities and the critical role of grassroots organizations in advocating for equality and mobilizing action.

By responding decisively, OPAWL and its partners model how watchdog organizations can not only expose harmful practices but also galvanize communities to push back against systemic injustices. Their work aligns with the Community Tool Box framework by:

• Monitoring public officials and systems for abuses of power.
• Exposing discriminatory practices that undermine democracy.
• Educating and mobilizing communities to take collective action.

A Commitment to Democracy

By uniting against these attacks, Ohioans send a clear message: efforts to intimidate, divide, and undermine democracy will not succeed. Instead, communities reaffirm their commitment to inclusivity, justice, and the protection of voting freedoms for all.

For more information, visit OPAWL's statement or watch the OH No You Don’t campaign video on Instagram and Facebook.

---

Example #2: Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG): Legal Advocacy for Community Power

Overview

Lawyers for Good Government demonstrates how organized legal professionals can serve as effective community watchdogs while advancing systemic change. Their network of volunteer attorneys partners with local organizations to protect civil rights and environmental justice through strategic advocacy.

Strategic Approach & Impact

Environmental Justice Victory

When a marginalized community faced environmental threats from unexamined industrial development, L4GG showcased effective watchdog advocacy by:

• Partnering with local environmental justice organizations
• Documenting regulatory violations systematically
• Providing legal training to community members
• Securing comprehensive environmental review requirements
• Establishing ongoing community oversight mechanisms

Keys to Success

1. Systematic Documentation
   
   • Tracking civil rights violations
   • Creating accessible legal resources
   • Developing replicable advocacy models
2. Community Partnership
   
   • Building local leadership capacity
   • Providing technical assistance
   • Creating rapid response networks

Lessons for Advocacy

• Professional networks amplify community power when properly organized
• Systematic documentation drives reform
• Investment in community relationships ensures lasting impact
• Knowledge sharing across jurisdictions accelerates change

L4GG exemplifies how organized legal advocacy can transform systemic challenges into opportunities for community empowerment and lasting social change.

• What are audits of consumer services?

• Why conduct audits of consumer services?

• Who should conduct audits of consumer services?

• When should you conduct audits of consumer services?

• How do you conduct audits of consumer services?

Imagine that an experienced restaurant worker applies for a small-business loan.

The applicant has relevant work experience, savings, a business plan, a partner, and potential collateral, but the bank denies the application. Later, the applicant learns that another person seeking a similar loan received approval from the same bank under apparently comparable circumstances.

Concerned that lending decisions may not be applied consistently, the applicant contacts an attorney and an appropriate banking oversight agency.

A review of lending practices may examine whether applicants are being treated consistently and whether race, ethnicity, national origin, or another protected characteristic is improperly affecting decisions.

This kind of review illustrates one purpose of a service audit: to determine whether a service is being delivered as required, whether access is fair, and whether policies and practices are consistent with applicable standards.

Service audits may also examine whether publicly funded programs are providing the services they agreed to provide, whether funding is being used for its intended purpose, whether important services are unavailable, or whether procedures create unnecessary barriers for the people the service is intended to reach.

What is an audit of consumer services?

In this section, an audit of consumer services is a structured examination of a service's policies, practices, procedures, access, and delivery.

The audit asks whether the service:

• Is actually being provided
• Matches what was promised, funded, contracted, or required
• Complies with applicable laws and regulations
• Follows relevant professional and ethical standards
• Is accessible to the people it is intended to serve
• Is delivered consistently and fairly

An audit is different from a program evaluation.

For the purposes of this section, an audit focuses primarily on whether services, procedures, and practices meet established requirements or expectations.

An evaluation focuses more directly on whether a program produces intended outcomes.

In practice, some reviews may include elements of both.

Internal and external audits

An organization may review its own services internally.

Internal reviews can identify problems early and support continuous improvement.

An external audit can provide greater independence when:

• There are allegations of discrimination or misconduct
• Public or charitable funds are involved
• A regulator or funder requires independent review
• Trust in the organization is limited
• The organization has a conflict of interest in evaluating itself

Independence does not mean the auditor has no perspective or institutional interests. The auditor's qualifications, role, methodology, and conflicts of interest should be transparent.

Financial audits and service audits

The word audit is often associated with financial records.

Financial audits generally examine whether financial statements and accounting practices meet applicable standards and accurately reflect an organization's finances.

A service audit may include financial questions when they are relevant, such as:

• Whether funds were spent for their intended purpose
• Whether contracted services were actually delivered
• Whether fees or charges were applied appropriately
• Whether financial practices created barriers to access

Types of consumer and public services

Service audits may apply to many kinds of programs and institutions.

Publicly funded or publicly supported services

These may include:

• Maternal, infant, and child health and nutrition services
• Adult education and literacy programs
• Workforce development and job-training programs
• Parenting and family-support programs
• Services for families experiencing homelessness
• Reentry services for people returning from incarceration
• Disability services
• Public-health programs
• Housing assistance
• Transportation assistance

These services may be designed for people who meet particular eligibility requirements or face specific barriers.

Regulated services offered to the general public

These may include:

• Transportation
• Banking and lending
• Real estate and housing
• Financial services
• Health care
• Utilities
• Municipal services
• Education
• Insurance
• Telecommunications

Why conduct audits of consumer services?

To determine whether needed services are actually available

An audit can examine whether a community has access to the services that are supposed to exist and whether those services are available in practice.

For example, a program may technically offer a service but provide it only during hours that make it inaccessible to many participants.

To support advocacy for needed services

If an audit identifies important gaps, the findings can support requests for:

• Additional funding
• New services
• Expanded hours
• Additional locations
• Transportation support
• Language access
• Disability access

Audit findings should be used as evidence, not merely as “ammunition” against an organization.

To determine whether funded services are being delivered as promised

Contracts, grants, laws, regulations, and program descriptions often establish what a provider is expected to deliver.

An audit can compare those requirements with actual practice.

Differences may result from:

• Limited capacity
• Poor management
• Inadequate funding
• Implementation problems
• Misunderstanding of requirements
• Improper use of funds
• Deliberate misconduct

Avoid assuming deception before the evidence supports that conclusion.

To protect the interests and rights of people using services

People receiving publicly funded or regulated services may face barriers to filing complaints or influencing institutions.

Barriers may include:

• Limited information about rights or procedures
• Language barriers
• Disability-related barriers
• Fear of retaliation or loss of services
• Limited transportation or technology access
• Complicated grievance procedures

An audit can help identify those barriers.

People who use the service should also have meaningful opportunities to help define what should be examined and to explain how the service operates in practice.

To protect public and charitable resources

Public or charitable funds should be used consistently with the purpose for which they were provided.

Audits can help determine whether:

• Services are being delivered
• Funding is being used as authorized
• Required reporting is accurate
• Contracts and grant requirements are being followed

To improve services and community outcomes

An audit may identify procedural or operational problems that can be corrected.

Examples include:

• Confusing intake procedures
• Inadequate staff training
• Unnecessary documentation requirements
• Unequal treatment
• Poor communication
• Inadequate language or disability access
• Services that do not match the program's stated purpose

Who should organize or conduct an audit?

The person or organization requesting an audit does not always need to be the one conducting it.

Separate the questions:

• Who should request or organize the audit?
• Who has the authority and expertise to conduct it?
• Who can access the necessary information?
• Who can do the work with sufficient independence?

Do you have the necessary expertise?

Auditors need enough subject-matter knowledge to understand:

• Applicable laws and regulations
• Funding or contractual requirements
• Relevant professional standards
• How the service is supposed to operate
• Appropriate research and data-analysis methods

Specialized questions may require legal, financial, medical, statistical, accessibility, engineering, or other expertise.

Do you have the resources?

A careful audit may require substantial:

• Staff time
• Data analysis
• Interviews
• Document review
• Travel
• Translation or interpretation
• Accessibility accommodations
• Legal or technical consultation

Are you sufficiently independent?

An advocacy organization can identify concerns, gather information, or request an audit.

In some situations, however, an independent auditor may strengthen confidence in the process.

Independence may be especially important when:

• The auditor and provider are organizational competitors
• Political controversy is significant
• The audit may lead to sanctions or funding decisions
• Serious allegations are involved

Credibility should depend primarily on qualifications, transparency, sound methods, independence, and evidence – not simply on prestige, political status, or name recognition.

Can the auditor obtain the information needed?

Formal regulators, funders, inspectors general, auditors, or other oversight bodies may have authority to obtain records that are not available to the general public.

A community organization conducting an independent review may need to rely on:

• Public records
• Voluntarily provided records
• Interviews
• Publicly observable conditions
• Program participants' experiences

Be clear about these limitations when reporting findings.

Possible auditors

Depending on the issue, appropriate auditors or reviewers may include:

• Government regulatory or oversight agencies
• Inspectors general or auditors
• Funding organizations
• Licensing or professional oversight bodies
• Qualified independent consultants
• Researchers or evaluators with relevant expertise
• Peer-review teams
• Community-based oversight bodies
• Watchdog organizations with appropriate expertise

Well-known individuals or public figures are not automatically appropriate auditors. Relevant expertise and a credible process matter more than prestige.

When should you organize or conduct an audit?

When there is a question about whether needed services exist

An audit can identify:

• Missing services
• Inadequate capacity
• Geographic gaps
• Long waiting periods
• Eligibility barriers
• Limited hours

When advocating for a service or funding change

Audit findings can help explain why additional resources or different services may be needed.

Conduct the audit when reliable information is needed for decision-making, rather than timing it primarily to take advantage of an election or political campaign.

When there are concerns about equitable access

An audit can examine whether people are treated differently because of:

• Race or ethnicity
• National origin
• Disability
• Language
• Gender
• Age
• Income or economic circumstances
• Geography
• Another characteristic relevant to applicable law or program policy

Differences in outcomes do not automatically establish discrimination, but they may identify patterns that require closer examination.

When program incentives may unintentionally exclude people

Funding formulas can sometimes create incentives to enroll people who are easiest to serve rather than those facing the greatest barriers.

For example, a workforce or adult-education provider paid primarily according to completion or employment rates may have incentives to prioritize applicants who are already closest to completing the program successfully.

An audit can examine whether funding and performance measures are unintentionally narrowing access.

When funding is at stake

An audit may help determine whether:

• Funding should continue
• Additional resources are justified
• Funding conditions should change
• Corrective action is needed
• Another provider or delivery model should be considered

During broader community planning

Service audits can contribute to community assessments by identifying:

• Service gaps
• Duplication
• Access barriers
• Equity concerns
• Coordination problems
• Areas requiring additional investment

How do you organize or conduct an audit of consumer services?

Organizing an audit

Gather evidence that an audit may be needed

Begin with enough information to explain the concern clearly.

Possible indicators include:

• Repeated complaints
• Documented service gaps
• Inconsistent treatment
• Possible violations of law or policy
• Questions about whether funds are being used as required
• Significant differences between promised and actual services
• Patterns suggesting unequal access

Community reports and informal information may provide useful leads but should be verified before being presented as established facts.

Protect people who report concerns

People using services may fear retaliation, loss of benefits, embarrassment, or other harm if they complain.

Before collecting or publishing their accounts:

• Explain how information may be used
• Obtain meaningful consent
• Protect identifying information where appropriate
• Consider retaliation risks
• Avoid making promises of confidentiality that you cannot keep

Identify the appropriate auditor

Ask:

• Who has formal authority?
• Who has relevant expertise?
• Who can access necessary records?
• Who is sufficiently independent?
• Who can conduct the audit fairly and transparently?

Build appropriate support

Support may come from:

• People who use the service
• Community organizations
• Funders
• Oversight agencies
• Public officials
• Professional organizations

Public attention is not always necessary for an audit to be effective.

Decide whether public communication is useful based on:

• The seriousness of the issue
• Safety and retaliation risks
• Whether the organization is cooperating
• Whether public disclosure is necessary for accountability
• Whether disclosure could interfere with an investigation

Avoid hiding serious misconduct merely to preserve a future relationship with the organization.

At the same time, not every problem requires immediate public exposure. The response should fit the evidence, severity, and accountability needs.

Conducting an audit

Define the purpose and scope

Before gathering data, state clearly:

• What service or practice is being audited
• What period the audit covers
• Which standards will be used
• Which questions the audit will answer
• Which questions are outside its scope

A clearly defined scope helps prevent the audit from becoming a general search for anything that may reflect poorly on the organization.

Budget the necessary resources

Plan for:

• Staff time
• Data collection
• Records review
• Interviews
• Translation and interpretation
• Accessibility
• Technical expertise
• Data security
• Report preparation

Establish a working process with the organization when appropriate

If the organization is cooperating, clarify:

• Schedule
• Records requested
• Interview access
• Confidentiality
• Privacy protections
• Who will receive preliminary and final findings
• Whether the organization will have an opportunity to correct factual errors

Cooperation should not compromise the auditor's independence.

Distinguish an audit from an outside investigation

If an organization provides no access to internal records or staff, an outside group may still conduct an investigation or public-interest review using available evidence.

Be clear about the limits of that process.

Do not describe an investigation based solely on public information as though it had the same access or authority as a formal audit.

Determine what information is needed

Depending on the audit, information may include:

• Financial information
• Number of people served
• Geographic reach
• Demographic information relevant to equitable access
• Eligibility criteria
• Wait times
• Hours and locations
• Language access
• Disability access
• Staff qualifications
• Grievance procedures
• Service-delivery methods
• Participant experiences
• Contract or grant requirements

Collect demographic information only when it serves a clear purpose and protect sensitive personal data.

Gather information

Possible sources include:

• Contracts
• Grant agreements
• Policies
• Procedures
• Service records
• Financial records
• Board or governing-body records
• Public records
• Annual reports
• Reports to funders
• Complaints and grievances
• Interviews
• Surveys
• Observation
• Community-generated information

Follow applicable privacy, confidentiality, consent, and records-access requirements.

Interview a range of people

Depending on the service, interview:

• Current and former service users
• Family members or caregivers when relevant
• Frontline staff
• Supervisors
• Administrators
• Board members
• Funders
• Oversight officials
• Partner organizations
• Community organizations

Service users should not be treated merely as sources of complaints. Their experience can help explain how policies function in practice.

Observe service delivery when appropriate

Observation may help auditors understand:

• Intake procedures
• Waiting conditions
• Accessibility
• Staff-participant interactions
• Classroom or program operations
• Transportation routes
• Follow-up procedures

Observation should respect privacy and informed-consent requirements where applicable.

Analyze the data

Compare actual practice with the standards identified at the beginning of the audit.

Ask:

• Is the service being delivered as required?
• Are policies followed consistently?
• Are participants informed of their rights and grievance procedures?
• Are people able to access the service?
• Are particular populations disproportionately excluded or burdened?
• Are funds being used consistently with the program's purpose?
• Are records complete and accurate?
• Are there unexplained differences between policy and practice?

Required procedures

Some funded or regulated programs must maintain:

• Grievance procedures
• Participant notices
• Eligibility documentation
• Nondiscrimination procedures
• Privacy protections
• Required reporting

An audit can determine whether those requirements exist on paper and whether they are actually being implemented.

Use of funds

An audit may examine whether program funds are used consistently with grants, contracts, donor restrictions, or other requirements.

Do not assume that high administrative spending alone proves misuse.

Administrative costs can include necessary functions such as:

• Staff supervision
• Financial controls
• Technology
• Compliance
• Training
• Evaluation

Focus on whether spending is reasonable, authorized, transparent, and connected to the organization's responsibilities.

Fraud or serious misrepresentation

If evidence suggests that an organization is reporting services it did not provide or intentionally providing false information, the issue may require formal investigation.

Distinguish:

• Errors
• Weak documentation
• Poor management
• Contract noncompliance
• Misrepresentation
• Fraud

Do not label conduct fraudulent unless the evidence supports that conclusion.

Equity and discrimination

Service audits can identify patterns in access or treatment.

Examples may include:

• Transportation routes that provide substantially less access to some neighborhoods
• Programs serving large numbers of people who use languages other than English without appropriate language access
• Physical or digital systems that create barriers for people with disabilities
• Lending or housing practices that appear to differ by race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, or another protected characteristic

Statistical differences may identify a need for further review but do not automatically establish unlawful discrimination.

Prepare the audit report

A useful report should explain:

• Why the audit was conducted
• The audit's scope
• Standards used
• Methodology
• Sources of information
• Limitations
• Findings
• Strengths
• Problems or inconsistencies
• Recommended corrective actions

A detailed report creates a record of what was found at a particular point in time.

It should not imply that findings are beyond dispute merely because the report is detailed.

Readers should be able to understand how the conclusions were reached.

Acknowledge what is working

An audit should identify strengths as well as problems.

This can help:

• Preserve effective practices
• Distinguish isolated problems from broader failures
• Make recommendations more specific

Recommend corrective action

Recommendations should be tied directly to the findings.

Depending on the problem, they might include:

• Revising policies
• Staff training
• Improved language or disability access
• Changes in eligibility or intake procedures
• Stronger financial controls
• Better complaint processes
• Additional staffing
• Improved documentation
• Independent monitoring
• Referral to an oversight authority when serious violations may have occurred

Develop a corrective-action plan

When problems can be corrected, establish:

• Specific actions
• Responsible individuals or departments
• Timelines
• Resources required
• Measures of completion
• Follow-up review dates

The auditor may help identify corrective actions, but responsibility for operating the service remains with the provider and relevant oversight bodies.

Decide what to do with the findings

The appropriate response depends on the seriousness of the findings, the authority of the auditor, and the risk to people using the service.

Share findings with organizational leadership or the governing board

Internal leadership may be able to correct operational or management problems.

Work with the provider on corrective action

Collaboration may be appropriate when:

• Problems appear correctable
• The organization acknowledges them
• Leadership is willing to act
• Immediate public disclosure is not necessary to protect people from harm

Report findings to an appropriate oversight body

Serious or unresolved concerns may need to be referred to:

• Regulators
• Funders
• Inspectors general
• Licensing bodies
• Civil-rights agencies
• Auditors
• Other responsible authorities

A community organization does not necessarily need to prove an entire legal case before making a good-faith report to an agency responsible for investigation.

Consider legal action when appropriate

Litigation may be appropriate when:

• Rights have been violated
• Serious harm is ongoing
• Administrative remedies are inadequate
• A court order or other legal remedy is necessary

Seek qualified legal advice about applicable rights, deadlines, evidence, and remedies.

Communicate findings publicly when appropriate

Public communication may include:

• Publishing the audit report
• Holding a community meeting
• Sharing findings with journalists
• Giving public testimony
• Posting accessible summaries or data

Public communication should serve transparency and accountability rather than being used primarily as a threat to obtain concessions.

Before publication:

• Verify important findings
• Protect confidential and personal information
• Distinguish findings from allegations
• Explain important limitations
• Consider whether people using the service could face retaliation

Follow up

An audit is useful only if findings lead to appropriate follow-up.

Monitor whether:

• Corrective actions were completed
• Service access improved
• Problematic practices stopped
• Policies were actually implemented
• New problems emerged
• Additional oversight is necessary

Follow-up does not always require repeating a full audit on a fixed schedule.

The appropriate frequency depends on:

• The seriousness of the findings
• Legal or funding requirements
• The risk of recurrence
• Whether corrective actions are complete
• Available oversight resources

In Summary

Audits of consumer services can help communities determine whether publicly funded or regulated services are available, accessible, fair, and consistent with applicable standards.

A service audit generally focuses on practices, procedures, policies, and compliance. An evaluation focuses more directly on outcomes, although some reviews may include elements of both.

Audits can identify service gaps, unequal access, failures to deliver contracted services, financial or procedural problems, and other barriers affecting people who use services.

People directly affected should have meaningful opportunities to contribute to the audit rather than being treated merely as sources of complaints.

The organization requesting an audit does not necessarily need to conduct it.

Choose an auditor according to expertise, authority, access to information, independence, methodology, and available resources rather than prestige alone.

Define the audit's scope and standards before gathering information.

Use records, interviews, observation, program data, complaints, and other relevant information while protecting privacy and confidentiality.

Compare actual practice with applicable requirements and distinguish errors, poor management, noncompliance, misrepresentation, and fraud rather than treating them as interchangeable.

Examine equitable access carefully. Differences across populations may identify important concerns but should be analyzed before conclusions about discrimination are drawn.

The audit report should explain methods, findings, strengths, limitations, problems, and recommended corrective actions.

When problems are correctable, develop a clear action plan with responsibilities, timelines, and follow-up.

More serious findings may require referral to regulators, funders, civil-rights agencies, courts, or other oversight bodies.

Public communication may also be appropriate, but it should promote transparency and accountability rather than function primarily as a threat.

Finally, follow up after the audit.

The goal is not merely to identify what is wrong. It is to determine whether services are being delivered fairly and appropriately, correct deficiencies, protect the people who rely on those services, and strengthen accountability over time.

What are audits of consumer services?

___An audit is an independent, formal inspection of the procedures, practices, policies, and/or programs of a service, in order to show that that the service is what it is meant to be, and that it adheres to accepted legal, ethical, and professional standards.

___You acknowledge two types of consumer services:

• Publicly-funded services offered to a target population - often disadvantaged - to improve its physical, economic, psychological, or social well-being.
• Publicly-regulated services offered to the general public.

Why conduct audits of consumer services?

___To determine whether needed services are actually being provided

___To use as ammunition for an advocacy campaign to acquire needed services

___To determine whether services that are being funded are actually being provided as they were intended to be

___To protect the interests of those for whom the services are intended

___To protect the economic and social interests of the public, who are paying for the services or their regulation

___To improve the chances of the successful resolution of community issues

___To foster social change

Who should conduct audits of consumer services?

___Do you have the expertise to conduct the audit?

___Do you have the resources to conduct the audit?

___Are you the most appropriate party to conduct the audit? (Is it someone else's job?)

___Can you gain the cooperation of the organization to be audited?

___Would an audit by you be as credible as one conducted by someone better known?

If you don't conduct the audit, you might choose:

___A government oversight agency or regulator

___A professional oversight body

___A watchdog organization

___Academics and other researchers and experts in the field

___Eminent individuals or commissions they serve on

___An audit team from one or more peer organizations

___Funders

When should you conduct audits of consumer services?

___When you're advocating for the need for a particular service

___When there's a question about the availability of services

___When there's a question about equity in the delivery of services

___When funding is at stake

___When there's a broad-ranging community development or other, similar effort

How do you organize and conduct audits of consumer services?

___You gather evidence of the need for the audit

___You identify an appropriate auditor

___You gather support for the audit

To conduct an audit of consumer services:

___You budget adequate resources for the audit

___You negotiate beforehand with the organization to be audited

___You decide what information you need

___You gather data

___You analyze the data

___You prepare an audit report, including a plan for correcting whatever problems you found

___You work with the audited organization to put remedies into practice

___You decide what to do with the audit results

___You create a plan for maintaining the audit process

Tool: Rubric for consumer audit

This tool will allow you to judge the quality of an audit process (from Iowa State University's Marketing Class) 

Rubric for Consumer Audit

Criteria	Excellent (3 pts)	Satisfactory (2 pts)	Unsatisfactory (1 pt)
Data Collection
Observations	Observations of both customers and employees are thoroughly and clearly reported. There is no to almost no missing information that could be collected via observation.	Observations of both customers and employees are reported, but the thoroughness and / or clarity of the information is problematic. There is clearly other informationt that should have been collected via observation.	Either the observations for customers or employees are missing, or the information that is reported is so scant as to be useless.
Surveys / Interviews	Information collected via survey/interviews of both customers and employees is thoroughly and clearly reported. There is no to almost no missing information that could be collected via surveys / interviews. The correspondence between this information and the observation data is clearly and thoroughly detailed.	Information collected via surveys / interviews of both customers and employees is reported, but the thoroughness and / or clarity of the information is problematic. There is clearly other information that should have been collected via surveys / interviews. The relationship of this information to the observational data is discussed, but not in enough detail.	Either the information collected via surveys / interviews for customers or employees is missing, or the information that is reported is so scant as to be useless. The relationship between this data and the observational data is not provided.
Data Analysis	Analysis of data is detailed. Any necessary assumptions are stated and justified. The analysis appropriately incorporates consumer behavior theories and concepts.	Some analysis is included, but it is not very detailed. Some statements are not supported by analysis. Linkage to consumer behavior concepts is incomplete and / or sometimes incorrect.	Analysis is missing or trivial, lacking any depth. Necessary assumptions are not stated. Linkage to consumer behavior concepts is missing.
Data Inferences
Market Segmentation	Careful identification of all possible market segments is provided and is based solely on the consumer data. Each identified segment is clearly and thoroughly described; it is clear how multiple segments differ from one another. Reasoning for segment)s is provided and logical.	Some, but not all possible market segments are identified and thoroughly described, given the consumer data. How multiple segments differ from one another and / or the reasoning for each segment is weakly argued.	Market segmentation is provided, but it is only the most basic of segmentation, suggesting that little critical thought was given to this issue. Reasoning for segmentation is missing or faulty. Arguments for multiple segments (if applicable) is missing.
Marketing Recommendations	Reasonable marketing recommendations are thoroughly described and reasoned and are clearly linked to market segmentation.	Marketing recommendations are made, but not as thoroughly as possible. Some of the recommendations may lack reasonability. Some of the recommendations may be only obscurely linked to market segmentation.	Marketing recommendations are missing, or the recommendations that are identified are clearly not linked to market segmentation, or the recommendations that are identified are not at all reasonable.
Written Communications
Organization	Written work is well organized and easy to understand. Sections of paper are marked with appropriate headings. Tables and charts are appropriately used and easy to understand, and contribute to the ease of reading the paper.	The organization is generally good, but some sections seems out of place. Some headings may be missing. Tables and charts are included, but are difficult to understand (e.g., poorly labeled).	The paper is disorganized to the extent that it prevents understanding the content. There are no headings, inappropriate use of charts or tables, or, use of tables and charts is indicated, but not included.
Integration of Writing Styles	The team developed a writing style that is uniform throughout the paper. There is no indication that the paper involved multiple authors.	There is some indication of multiple authors (.e.g., different fonts, different paper, etc.)	Paper is clearly the work of multiple authors with different writing styles, margins, printer fonts, paper types, etc.
Grammar, Spelling, and Formatting	The paper has been thoroughly spell-checked and proofread. There are none to almost no grammatical or spelling errors. There are no formatting errors.	There are a few spelling and / or grammatical errors. There are one to three formatting errors.	There are frequent instances of misspelled words, serious grammatical errors, and formatting errors, indicating that time was not taken to spell-check and proofread.
Use of Appendices	Information is appropriately placed in either the main text or an appendix. Appendices are documented and referenced in the text.	Information is sometimes misplaced. Documenting and referencing in text are somewhat incomplete. Appendices are poorly documented and referenced in text.	Considerable amount of material is misplaced. Appendices are not documented or referenced in the text.

 

 

Imagine this scene: A county finance committee is meeting to decide how limited public funds should be allocated among several community programs.

Each program director has only a few minutes to explain the need their organization addresses and why continued or additional funding may be justified.

The director of a program serving adolescent parents anticipates that committee members will want to know:

• How many young people in the county are affected
• Whether rates differ across towns or neighborhoods
• How many people the program currently serves
• Whether there is unmet demand
• What outcomes the program is designed to improve

The director therefore arrives with current local data, program information, and appropriate examples of how the issue affects residents.

Personal stories may also help policymakers understand an issue, but participants should decide voluntarily whether and how their experiences are shared. Their identities should not be disclosed privately or publicly without meaningful consent.

This example illustrates a central principle of advocacy research: research is most useful when it anticipates the questions decision-makers and communities need answered without sacrificing accuracy, privacy, or the people whose experiences are being represented.

What do we mean by conducting research to influence policy?

Research can take many forms, and different questions require different methods.

Research intended to inform or influence policy focuses on evidence that can help policymakers, community members, organizations, and other decision-makers understand:

• Whether a problem or need exists
• Who is affected
• What contributes to the issue
• What policies or interventions have been tried
• What evidence supports different options
• What costs, benefits, and unintended consequences may result
• Whether existing policy is working

The purpose is not simply to collect information that makes a preferred policy more persuasive.

Good policy research can support a proposed approach, suggest modifications, identify a better alternative, or show that the original assumption was incorrect.

When communicating findings, advocates may use statistics, research summaries, lived experience, testimony, examples, and other forms of evidence.

Each should be presented accurately and with enough context for the audience to understand what the evidence does and does not establish.

Why conduct research to influence policy?

To determine whether funding, services, or policy action are needed

Research may begin with a suspected need.

In that situation, your research should test the assumption rather than simply gather information to prove it.

Ask:

• How widespread is the problem?
• Who is affected?
• What do people directly affected identify as important?
• What services or policies already exist?
• Where are the gaps?
• What evidence supports possible responses?

If sound research does not support the need you expected to find, reconsider the original assumption.

Advocacy credibility depends on being willing to change course when the evidence changes.

To identify what a community actually needs

Sometimes the appropriate policy is not known in advance.

Research may help identify:

• Community priorities
• Barriers to services
• Root causes
• Populations experiencing disproportionate effects
• Gaps in existing policy
• Possible unintended consequences

In this situation, the research helps define the advocacy goal rather than merely supporting one that has already been chosen.

To demonstrate that an issue exists and should be addressed

Policymakers and community members may not know the scale or consequences of a problem.

Research can provide:

• Local prevalence or incidence data
• Trends over time
• Geographic patterns
• Community experiences
• Economic or health effects
• Evidence of unequal access or treatment

The aim should be to make the issue understandable, not to manufacture urgency or outrage.

To make sure policy addresses the right problem

The most visible problem is not always the underlying one.

Research may show that an intervention should focus on:

• Access
• Communication
• Economic conditions
• Service quality
• Institutional practices
• Education
• Prevention
• Another underlying factor

Avoid moving from one study directly to a policy conclusion unless the evidence supports that connection.

To evaluate a specific policy, method, or practice

Research can help determine whether a policy or practice:

• Produces intended outcomes
• Creates unintended harms
• Is implemented consistently
• Works equally well across populations
• Is cost-effective
• Should be expanded, revised, replaced, or discontinued

Use terms such as support, evaluate, or challenge rather than treating research mainly as a tool for “discrediting” a practice.

To learn from other communities

Research can identify policies or programs that have been tried elsewhere.

When considering whether those findings apply locally, ask:

• How similar is the population?
• How similar are local laws and institutions?
• What resources were available?
• How was the intervention implemented?
• What outcomes were measured?
• What limitations did the researchers identify?

A policy that worked elsewhere may require adaptation rather than direct replication.

To investigate possible misconduct or institutional failure

Research may be appropriate when there are credible concerns involving:

• Corruption
• Fraud
• Conflicts of interest
• Misuse of public funds
• Discrimination
• Regulatory violations
• Misleading public statements
• Failure to carry out legal or contractual obligations

Investigative research should seek to establish facts and accountability.

Its purpose should not be to generate enough public anger to force a particular result.

To protect public health and safety

Research may identify risks involving:

• Environmental contamination
• Workplace conditions
• Transportation safety
• Food or product safety
• Public-health threats
• Infrastructure

Technical questions should be addressed with appropriate scientific or professional expertise.

To strengthen the evidence behind advocacy

Good research helps advocates:

• Explain the issue accurately
• Answer legitimate questions
• Evaluate competing claims
• Identify uncertainty
• Avoid overstating conclusions
• Revise recommendations when necessary

To maintain integrity

Policy research should influence advocates as well as policymakers.

If credible evidence contradicts your preferred position, examine:

• Whether the research question was appropriate
• Whether the methods were sound
• Whether the evidence applies to your community
• Whether your original assumption was wrong

Do not reject sound evidence simply because it complicates the advocacy message.

Who should conduct research to influence policy?

Many people and organizations can contribute to policy research.

The appropriate team depends on the question, methods, resources, and expertise required.

Community members and community-based organizations

People directly affected by an issue may bring knowledge that is absent from formal datasets or academic research.

They can help:

• Identify research questions
• Design surveys or interviews
• Recruit participants
• Interpret findings
• Identify unintended consequences
• Develop policy recommendations

Community organizations may benefit from partnerships with researchers or data specialists when statistical, technical, or methodological expertise is required.

Academic researchers

Universities and research centers may provide:

• Subject-matter expertise
• Statistical analysis
• Evaluation experience
• Access to research databases
• Student or faculty collaboration

Academic status alone does not guarantee that a study is appropriate or unbiased.

Review methods, limitations, funding, and conflicts of interest.

Research organizations and policy institutes

Research organizations may contribute valuable policy analysis.

Evaluate their work according to:

• Methodology
• Data sources
• Transparency
• Funding
• Relevant expertise
• Conflicts of interest
• Whether conclusions match the evidence

Do not assume research is reliable or unreliable simply because an organization is associated with a particular political or ideological perspective.

Government agencies

Public agencies often collect large amounts of data related to:

• Health
• Education
• Employment
• Housing
• Transportation
• Environment
• Public spending
• Other policy areas

Review definitions, collection methods, dates, exclusions, and revisions before using government data.

Professional associations

Professional organizations may sponsor research, establish standards, or provide expertise in their fields.

Consider whether the association represents interests that may affect its interpretation of the issue.

Independent commissions and review bodies

Governments or institutions sometimes create commissions to investigate complex policy questions.

Their usefulness depends on:

• Independence
• Expertise
• Transparency
• Access to information
• Whether findings and recommendations are made public

Organizations working directly on the issue

Service organizations and advocacy groups may have valuable administrative data, community relationships, and practical experience.

Their involvement should be transparent, including any direct interest they have in the policy outcome.

Watchdog and oversight organizations

These organizations may contribute investigative research or analysis.

Apply the same source-evaluation standards to watchdog organizations that you would apply to government agencies, universities, businesses, advocacy organizations, or other sources.

Regulatory, investigative, or law-enforcement agencies

When there is credible evidence of possible illegal conduct, an appropriate government authority may conduct a formal investigation.

Community organizations should not attempt to substitute for agencies that have legal authority, subpoena power, specialized forensic tools, or other formal investigative responsibilities.

When should you conduct research to influence policy?

When no adequate policy exists

Research can help establish:

• The nature of the problem
• Who is affected
• What approaches have been tried elsewhere
• What implementation would require
• Which options appear most promising

When an urgent or overlooked issue needs attention

Research can help demonstrate that a problem exists even when it is poorly understood or has received limited public attention.

Avoid assuming that lack of attention always reflects deliberate indifference. Information may be incomplete, responsibilities may be unclear, or competing priorities may be involved.

When an existing policy or budget is being reviewed

Policy review creates an opportunity to present current evidence regarding:

• Need
• Effectiveness
• Cost
• Access
• Equity
• Implementation
• Unintended effects

When important considerations are being overlooked

Research can ensure that difficult or less visible issues are considered during policy discussions.

When the effects of current policy are unclear

Evaluation can help determine:

• Whether intended outcomes occurred
• Whether effects differed across populations
• Whether there were unintended consequences
• Whether policy should continue, change, or end

When new evidence suggests current policy may need revision

Policy should be revisited when credible evidence indicates that:

• Existing assumptions are outdated
• Programs are not producing expected outcomes
• Costs or harms are greater than expected
• New approaches appear more effective

When you have an opportunity to contribute to policymaking

Public hearings, advisory committees, regulatory comment periods, legislative briefings, commissions, and community planning processes may provide opportunities to present research.

Evidence is especially useful when you can explain:

• The source
• Methods
• Findings
• Limitations
• Policy implications

How do you approach research intended to influence policy?

Define the policy question

Be clear about what you are trying to learn or change.

You may be trying to:

• Determine what policy should be
• Evaluate whether existing policy works
• Support a policy change
• Oppose a proposed policy
• Advocate for funding
• Improve implementation
• Strengthen oversight or enforcement

Identify the relevant audiences

Different people may need different information.

Audiences may include:

• Elected officials
• Public agencies
• Funders
• Businesses
• Community organizations
• People directly affected
• Researchers
• Journalists
• The broader public

The purpose of understanding an audience is to determine what questions it needs answered and what level of explanation is appropriate – not to identify personal vulnerabilities or manipulate people into supporting your position.

Elected officials and public decision-makers

Decision-makers may need information about:

• Number of people affected
• Budget consequences
• Legal requirements
• Evidence of effectiveness
• Community priorities
• Implementation feasibility
• Effects on different constituencies

Avoid assuming that elected officials are motivated primarily by reelection or personal connections.

Personal testimony from constituents can be valuable, but people should not be selected or approached primarily because of family or social relationships with officials.

Businesses and employers

Businesses may consider:

• Costs
• Revenue
• Legal obligations
• Workforce effects
• Customer needs
• Community relationships
• Reputation
• Long-term sustainability

Do not assume that profit is the only relevant consideration for every business or that the same evidence will matter equally to all businesses.

Funders

Funders may want information about:

• Need
• Outcomes
• Cost
• Implementation quality
• Equity
• Sustainability
• Community priorities

Avoid assuming that all funders prioritize the lowest-cost intervention or that ideological disagreement automatically means evidence will be ignored.

The public

Community members may want to understand:

• How a policy affects them
• Whether it is fair
• Whether it is likely to work
• What it costs
• Who benefits
• What risks or tradeoffs are involved
• Whether alternatives exist

Do not characterize public reasoning as simplistic or based mainly on emotion.

Community members may bring lived experience, practical knowledge, values, and concerns that technical research alone does not capture.

Use existing evidence before collecting new data

Before beginning new research, determine whether reliable evidence already exists.

Review:

• Peer-reviewed research
• Government data
• Program evaluations
• Community assessments
• Public records
• Previous policy analyses
• Research from comparable communities

Collect new information when existing evidence cannot answer the policy question adequately.

Conduct the research

Choose methods according to the question rather than according to what is most likely to produce the result you want.

Useful approaches may include:

• Statistical analysis
• Surveys
• Interviews
• Focus groups
• Program evaluation
• Cost analysis
• Policy comparison
• Public-records research
• Community-based participatory research
• Qualitative research

Use multiple kinds of evidence where appropriate

Different evidence can answer different questions.

Quantitative data may help describe:

• Scale
• Trends
• Differences among populations
• Costs
• Outcomes

Qualitative evidence may help explain:

• Experiences
• Barriers
• Perceptions
• Implementation problems
• Why observed patterns may be occurring

One type of evidence should not automatically be treated as superior to another when they answer different questions.

Do not go looking only for evidence that persuades your audience

Define the question and appropriate methods first.

Then collect and analyze the evidence.

Avoid choosing data merely because:

• It is emotionally powerful
• It supports the preferred policy
• It comes from a prestigious person
• It is difficult for another side to challenge

Credibility comes from sound methods, transparent sourcing, relevance, and accurate interpretation.

Analyze your results

Depending on the research, analysis may involve:

• Statistical analysis
• Comparing groups
• Identifying patterns
• Qualitative coding
• Examining historical context
• Comparing implementation with policy requirements
• Investigating root causes

Respect the results.

Do not exaggerate them because you expect criticism.

If findings differ from what you expected, ask:

• Did we ask the right question?
• Were the methods appropriate?
• Is the sample adequate?
• Are there important confounding factors?
• Does previous research apply to this setting?
• Were our original assumptions incorrect?

If the evidence shows that your original position was wrong, revise the advocacy goal.

Present findings clearly and responsibly

Make communication accessible

Use communication channels appropriate to the people who need the information.

Consider:

• Language
• Disability access
• Digital access
• Literacy
• Format
• Level of technical detail

Make the information understandable

Clear communication may include:

• Plain-language summaries
• Charts
• Maps
• Tables
• Fact sheets
• Short policy briefs
• Longer technical reports

Avoid using visual or emotional techniques in ways that obscure uncertainty or make evidence appear stronger than it is.

Communicate across cultures without stereotyping

Effective communication may require:

• Translation
• Interpretation
• Community review of materials
• Accessible terminology
• Communication through trusted organizations or messengers

Avoid broad assumptions about how people communicate based solely on race, ethnicity, social class, or another demographic category.

Personal testimony and lived experience

First-person experience can help explain the effects of policy.

People sharing their experiences should:

• Participate voluntarily
• Understand how their information may be used
• Decide whether identifying details are included
• Understand possible public or media exposure

Do not choose people mainly because their identity, personal relationships, or story will make a policymaker more sympathetic.

Ways to present research

Depending on the audience and purpose, options may include:

• Meetings with policymakers or agency staff
• Formal public-comment processes
• Legislative or administrative briefings
• Letters or email
• Public presentations
• Community forums
• News-media outreach
• Websites and digital publications
• Social media
• Policy briefs
• Academic or professional publications
• Formal reports or white papers
• Fact sheets, flyers, or posters

Direct communication with policymakers

Established relationships can make it easier to bring findings to the attention of relevant officials.

Relationships should supplement rather than replace official processes.

People without personal access to decision-makers should still have meaningful ways to submit information and participate.

Official channels

Legislative offices, agencies, regulatory bodies, commissions, and local governments increasingly provide formal channels for:

• Public comment
• Testimony
• Written submissions
• Hearings
• Advisory processes

These channels should not be dismissed simply because personal relationships may sometimes provide faster access.

Public presentations and media

Public presentations can explain findings, answer questions, and broaden participation.

Media outreach can help make research accessible to wider audiences.

Provide journalists with:

• The main findings
• Methodology
• Relevant limitations
• Source documents or links where appropriate
• Contact information for qualified researchers or participants who have agreed to speak

Aim for accurate coverage rather than simply maximizing attention.

Continue research after policy changes

Policy adoption is not the end of the research process.

Follow-up research can help determine:

• Whether the policy was implemented
• Whether intended outcomes occurred
• Whether effects differed across populations
• Whether unintended consequences emerged
• Whether circumstances have changed
• Whether the policy should be revised

Do not conduct follow-up research simply to prove that policymakers made the right decision.

The purpose is to learn what happened and use that information to improve future decisions.

In Summary

Research can play an important role in policy development, advocacy, implementation, and evaluation.

It can help identify community needs, clarify causes, evaluate existing policies, compare possible approaches, investigate institutional problems, protect public health and safety, and support more informed decision-making.

Advocacy research should not begin with the assumption that its job is to prove a preferred position.

Begin with a clear policy question and methods capable of answering it.

Include community members and people directly affected in defining research questions and interpreting findings when appropriate.

Use qualified research, technical, or statistical expertise when needed.

Evaluate sources according to methods, transparency, relevance, date, expertise, and conflicts of interest rather than reputation or ideology alone.

Understand the information needs of policymakers, funders, businesses, community members, and other audiences without reducing those audiences to stereotypes about what supposedly motivates them.

Use both quantitative and qualitative evidence when appropriate.

Personal testimony can add important context, but people should control whether and how their experiences are used.

Analyze findings honestly. If the evidence contradicts your preferred policy, revise the policy recommendation rather than the evidence.

Present research clearly, accessibly, and transparently, including important limitations and uncertainty.

After policy changes, continue research to determine what was actually implemented and what effects followed.

The purpose of research to influence policy is not simply to make advocacy more persuasive.

It is to help communities and decision-makers choose policies that are better supported by evidence and more responsive to the people affected by them.

Why should you conduct research?

___You or your group has agreed that you want to influence policies related to issues of concern to you and your constituents

You have determined to conduct policy research to (choose one or more of the following):

___Assure that an issue is actually addressed

___Assure that the issue addressed is the one that needs to be addressed

___Show a need for funding or intervention for an issue

___Support or discredit the use of a particular practice or approach

___Identify and advocate for appropriate policy on an issue

___Point out incompetence or corruption that harms the public interest

___Protect public health and safety

___Build a solid base for your advocacy

___Maintain your own integrity

For maximum credibility, you have collaborated with or received help from (indicate which groups have helped):

___Think tanks

___Government agencies

___Professional associations

___Official commissions

___Organizations that work with the issue

___Watchdog organizations

___Law enforcement agencies

You conducted policy research because:

___There was a need for policy, and none has been established

___There was a critical situation that was not recognized or acknowledged

___Our issue was under legislative review

___The policy was under discussion, and we wante to make sure that important points weren't ignored

___The results of current policy were unknown or unclear

___Policy was headed in the wrong direction

___We were consulted as an expert

Example #1: Illinois Child Passenger Protection Act

This example is from Murray Levine and David Perkins' book, Principles of Community Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

In the early 1980's, Leonard Jason and Tom Rose, two researchers at DePaul University in Illinois were concerned about getting a law passed that would require child safety seats for young children in the state. They did some background research, and then sent a summary of the research to the members of the Illinois State Senate. Actually, they sent the summary to only half the legislators, chosen randomly as part of an experiment. As it turned out, those receiving the research summary were significantly more likely (79% to 53%) to vote for the bill than those who didn't, and the legislation passed. While the margin of victory might have been greater if the letter had gone to all senators, Jason and Rose's research clearly had an impact on the outcome of the vote.

The following is the text of the letter. Note the use of multiple research methods as well as the concise manner of communication.

"As you know, the Child Passenger Protection Act (House Bill 608) is due to be brought before the Illinois State Senate within the next month. We would like to provide you pertinent data that we hope will be useful to you as you consider this piece of legislation. Tom Rose and I, two investigators at DePaul University, have been collecting data over the past eight months and have found that 93% of children 4 years and less are not placed in appropriate restraints when riding in automobiles. These data were collected in the Chicago metropolitan area and are based on looking at whether children in 1450 cars were in appropriate restraints. To obtain information about citizen attitudes concerning the issue of child restraints in automobiles, in March of 1982 Mr. Rose and I interviewed a sample of Illinois citizens and found that 78% of adults in the Chicago metropolitan area would support the passage of the Child Passenger Protection Act. Illinois traffic statistics indicate that 140 children were killed and 25,828 children injured in automobile accidents during the period from 1975-1981. Not only do these statistics represent a tragic loss of human life and potential, they also represent a tremendous cost in rehabilitative care. For example, a 3-year-old who sustains a spinal injury in an automobile accident -- not an infrequent injury-- and is rendered a paraplegic will require $724,140 dollars in rehabilitative care over his or her life. If this child were rendered a quadriplegic, costs would exceed $3,317,929, for rehabilitative care over his/her lifetime.

Finally, states that have adopted child restraint legislation have experienced significant increases in the use of restraint devices. In Tennessee, for example, twice as many children were placed in appropriate restraints after the Tennessee Child Passenger Protection Act became law on January 1, 1978.

We hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. I can be reached at 312-321-7884."

 

Example #2: Santa Monica’s Use of Data to Lift All Boats: A Deeper Look

Four years ago, Santa Monica took a data-driven approach to become a true City of Wellbeing where everyone thrives. The city used a Wellbeing Index to produce a data-based guide for steering policy. The city used existing information from city departments and fresh input from surveys. The Wellbeing index sets a framework for priorities and promotes initiatives on health and wellness.

Contributed by Lia Thompson, University of Kansas, Community Tool Box Intern.

 

 

This section is adapted from Leighninger, Flavin-McDonald, and Ghandour's Building strong neighborhoods: A study circle guide for public dialgoue and community problem-solving.

Today, we are facing some difficult challenges. Neighborhoods are dealing with crime, economic problems, tensions between different groups of people, drug and alcohol abuse, and other things. To make matters worse, many of us barely know our neighbors.

The good news is that the people in our neighborhood communities are full of energy, talent, and creativity -- attributes that can be channeled into improving everyone's quality of life. But all too often, neighborhoods aren't able to take full advantage of their residents' energy and commitment. Most of the people who live and work in our neighborhoods are not at the table when problems are being discussed and decisions are being made. It is often the same leaders who try to represent all of the people in the neighborhood, and sometimes those leaders "burn out."

So how can you tap into the talent and creativity where you live for the benefit of the neighborhood as a whole? A growing number of community organizers, hoping to bring neighborhoods together, have successfully used study circles.

What are study circles?

A study circle is a small group of people who meet regularly over a period of time to explore an important public or community issue in a collaborative, structured way.

Study circles typically include about 8 to 12 participants, although the exact size can vary depending on the topic, setting, and facilitation approach.

Participants:

• Share their own experiences and perspectives
• Listen to people with different experiences or viewpoints
• Examine relevant information and evidence
• Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
• Develop possible actions or recommendations

A study circle is usually supported by a facilitator whose role is to help create a fair, focused, and respectful process.

The facilitator should not use the role to steer participants toward a preferred conclusion.

A typical study circle may move through several stages:

• Experience: How does this issue affect us or our community?
• Understanding: What different perspectives, evidence, or experiences should we consider?
• Options: What possible responses or solutions exist?
• Action: What can participants, organizations, or institutions realistically do next?

Study circles can take place within neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, faith communities, nonprofit organizations, public agencies, or other settings.

A community may also organize several study circles at the same time and bring participants together afterward to identify common themes and possible actions.

Study circles may be held in person, online, or in a hybrid format.

The format should be selected according to accessibility, privacy, technology access, participant preferences, and the nature of the issue.

Why should you organize study circles?

Study circles can be useful when a community wants to understand an issue more fully while building relationships and identifying practical next steps.

People may find study circles valuable because:

• Discussions begin with people's actual experiences rather than treating the issue only as an abstract problem.
• Small groups can make it easier for more people to participate than in a large public meeting.
• Participants can hear perspectives they may not encounter in their everyday lives.
• The process can help clarify where agreement exists and where important differences remain.
• Participants can move from discussion toward specific recommendations or actions.
• Relationships formed through the process may support future community work.

Study circles should not be presented as automatically “safe” spaces.

Difficult discussions may involve disagreement, discomfort, or unequal power.

Organizers should instead work to create conditions that are respectful, accessible, and supportive while making clear how harmful or disruptive conduct will be addressed.

How do you organize a community-wide study circle program?

Start by defining the purpose

Be clear about why you are organizing the study circles.

You might want to:

• Understand community experiences
• Improve relationships across groups
• Explore a difficult public issue
• Develop recommendations
• Identify community priorities
• Develop specific action projects

The topic may be chosen in advance, or participants may help identify which issue should receive attention.

Example: Community safety and connection in Milltown

Imagine Milltown, a diverse neighborhood in a large Midwestern city.

The neighborhood includes longtime residents, newer residents, students, families, older adults, renters, homeowners, and people from a variety of racial, ethnic, cultural, and economic backgrounds.

Residents have recently raised concerns about vandalism, vehicle break-ins, poor lighting, limited activities for young people, strained relationships among neighbors, and a general sense that people do not know one another as well as they once did.

Community members disagree about what contributes most to these concerns and what should be done.

Rather than assuming that any racial, ethnic, age, or newcomer population is responsible, local organizers decide to create study circles so residents can examine the issues together.

Possible questions include:

• When do you feel safe or unsafe in the neighborhood?
• What conditions contribute to those feelings?
• What information do we have about actual safety concerns?
• What community strengths could help?
• What roles could residents, young people, businesses, community organizations, public agencies, and law enforcement appropriately play?
• What solutions should we explore further?

Build a core planning team

Recruit a small group of people who can help organize the process.

Try to include people with different forms of experience and community connection.

The planning team may help with:

• Defining goals
• Recruiting participants
• Finding facilitators
• Selecting meeting formats
• Identifying accessibility needs
• Arranging childcare, transportation, food, or technology support
• Communicating with community organizations
• Planning follow-up action

Avoid relying only on people already connected to the organizers.

A planning team made up entirely of one social, professional, racial, economic, political, or organizational network may overlook important perspectives.

Hold a pilot study circle

Before launching a larger effort, consider holding one or more pilot circles.

A pilot can help determine:

• Whether the questions are understandable
• Whether the session length is appropriate
• Whether facilitation guidance is adequate
• Whether the location or technology is accessible
• Whether participants understand the purpose
• What should be changed before expanding the program

Ask pilot participants for direct feedback.

Choose accessible meeting formats and locations

In-person study circles might meet in:

• Libraries
• Schools
• Community centers
• Faith-community facilities
• Apartment or housing-community meeting rooms
• Public meeting spaces

Online or hybrid meetings may also be appropriate.

Consider:

• Physical accessibility
• Transportation
• Childcare
• Language interpretation
• Hearing or visual access
• Technology access
• Internet connectivity
• Scheduling
• Participant privacy
• Whether the location feels welcoming to different parts of the community

Avoid assuming that a private home, police facility, religious building, or other location will feel equally comfortable or accessible to everyone.

Map community organizations and networks

Identify organizations and networks that may help broaden participation.

These might include:

• Schools
• Libraries
• Neighborhood associations
• Tenant organizations
• Faith communities
• Businesses
• Nonprofit organizations
• Youth organizations
• Disability organizations
• Cultural organizations
• Immigrant and refugee organizations
• Older-adult organizations
• Public agencies
• Informal resident networks

Do not rely only on organizations with formal leadership.

People who are not affiliated with established groups may also have important perspectives and should have meaningful opportunities to participate.

Build a broader working group

After the pilot, create a working group to coordinate the larger effort.

Try to include people who reflect the community's range of experiences without assuming that one person can represent an entire demographic group.

The working group can divide responsibilities for:

• Facilitator recruitment and training
• Participant recruitment
• Accessibility
• Communications
• Meeting logistics
• Documentation
• Evaluation
• Follow-up action

Recruit and prepare facilitators

Good facilitators listen carefully, manage group dynamics, encourage participation, and help participants examine an issue without imposing their own preferred answer.

Facilitator preparation should address:

• The purpose and structure of the study circle
• Ground rules
• Inclusive participation
• Managing disagreement
• Power differences
• De-escalation
• Accessibility
• Handling harmful or discriminatory comments
• Confidentiality expectations
• When to pause or end a discussion

Facilitators should be impartial about the process.

They do not necessarily need to pretend they have no values or experiences of their own, but they should not use the facilitator role to pressure participants toward their personal position.

Recruit participants broadly

Personal invitations can be effective, but use several recruitment methods so participation is not limited to people already connected to organizers.

Recruitment may include:

• Personal outreach
• Community organizations
• Email
• Text messaging
• Social media
• Community websites
• Flyers
• Local news media
• Schools and libraries
• Multilingual outreach
• In-person community events

Ask which populations may still be missing.

Participation barriers may involve:

• Work schedules
• Childcare
• Transportation
• Disability access
• Language
• Technology
• Immigration-related concerns
• Distrust of institutions
• Previous exclusion from community decisions

Establish clear participation expectations

Each group should discuss and agree on ground rules.

These might include:

• Listen without interrupting
• Critique ideas rather than people
• Make room for others to speak
• Do not pressure anyone to share personal experiences
• Respect agreed confidentiality expectations
• Avoid personal attacks, harassment, or discriminatory conduct
• Ask questions when you do not understand
• Accept that disagreement may remain

Be clear about the limits of confidentiality.

Participants should know whether notes will be collected, how summaries will be used, whether comments will be attributed, and who will have access to records.

Hold an opening event if useful

A larger kickoff event may help explain the project and recruit participants.

It can include:

• An explanation of the issue and process
• Information about accessibility and participation
• Registration
• Opportunities to meet facilitators
• Time for informal conversation

A kickoff event is optional.

Do not devote so many resources to promotion that the actual discussion, facilitation, and follow-up are underfunded.

Support the study circles while they are underway

Organizers should check in regularly with facilitators.

These check-ins can identify:

• Questions participants are raising
• Facilitation challenges
• Accessibility problems
• Participation gaps
• Topics that require additional information
• Possible safety or confidentiality concerns

Provide facilitators with support rather than asking them to manage difficult situations alone.

Record the process responsibly

Notes can help identify themes across several study circles.

Before collecting records, decide:

• What information is actually needed
• Whether comments will be attributed
• How records will be stored
• Who will have access
• How long records will be retained
• How participant privacy will be protected

In most cases, summaries of themes are more useful than creating detailed records of who said what.

Move from discussion to action

Study circles should not promise that every discussion will produce immediate policy or community change.

Some circles may primarily:

• Improve understanding
• Identify questions requiring further research
• Clarify disagreements
• Build relationships
• Generate recommendations

When participants do identify actions, help them make those actions specific.

For each proposed action, ask:

• What is the goal?
• Who should be involved?
• Who has authority to act?
• What resources are needed?
• What is the timeline?
• How will people directly affected participate?
• How will progress be assessed?

Hold an action forum or community follow-up

If several circles have been meeting, a final gathering can bring their ideas together.

Organizers can summarize common themes while preserving meaningful differences among groups.

The forum may:

• Review what participants learned
• Present common recommendations
• Identify unresolved disagreements
• Form action teams
• Assign responsibilities
• Establish timelines
• Identify issues requiring additional research

Do not treat the most frequently mentioned idea as automatically representing the entire community.

Example: Possible actions in Milltown

Suppose the Milltown study circles identify several recurring concerns involving young people's access to activities, neighborhood lighting, relationships with public-safety institutions, and limited opportunities for residents to know one another.

Participants might consider:

• Expanding after-school recreation, arts, employment, or mentoring opportunities designed with young people
• Reviewing street-lighting and pedestrian-safety needs
• Creating regular resident-public safety dialogue meetings
• Supporting neighborhood events that bring residents together across age, language, culture, and length of residence
• Working directly with young people who have experience with violence or justice-system involvement to understand what supports they consider useful
• Improving access to mental-health, employment, educational, or family-support resources where residents identify gaps

Avoid claiming that one intervention caused a later change in crime or another community outcome unless the evidence supports that conclusion.

Keep the effort going when useful

After a round of study circles:

• Review what worked
• Ask participants what should change
• Document recommendations
• Support action teams
• Share appropriate results with the community
• Decide whether another round of circles is needed

Continuing the program should depend on community interest and purpose rather than an assumption that the circles must expand indefinitely.

Tips on recording and facilitating a study circle

The recorder's role

If the group uses a recorder, that person's job is to capture important themes, questions, ideas, and proposed actions.

The recorder should usually be someone other than the facilitator so each person can focus on their role.

Recorders should:

• Listen carefully
• Summarize accurately
• Avoid inserting their own interpretation into participants' comments
• Protect confidential or personally identifying information
• Ask for clarification when needed
• Follow the group's agreed documentation practices

The facilitator's role

Facilitators help participants have a fair, productive discussion.

• Do not steer the outcome. Help participants explore the issue rather than using the facilitator role to promote your own preferred solution.
• Be prepared. Review the topic, agenda, ground rules, accessibility needs, and possible areas of tension in advance.
• Encourage participants to respond to one another. The discussion should not become a series of exchanges only between participants and the facilitator.
• Balance participation. Intervene respectfully when one or two people repeatedly dominate the conversation.
• Invite quieter participants without pressuring them. Some people may need more time before speaking, and choosing not to speak should also be respected.
• Keep the discussion connected to its purpose. Allow useful connections while helping participants return to the central issue when needed.
• Allow silence. People may need time to think, particularly during difficult discussions.
• Do not force consensus. Document meaningful agreement as well as important disagreement.
• Ask the group when appropriate. Participants can help determine how to use time, apply ground rules, or address unexpected questions.
• Address harmful conduct. Neutral facilitation does not require allowing harassment, threats, discriminatory attacks, or repeated violations of agreed ground rules.
• Recognize power differences. Formal authority, professional status, race, income, age, disability, language, gender, immigration experience, or other factors may affect who feels able to speak and whose comments receive attention.

Evaluate the study circle process

Evaluation can help determine whether the process actually supported meaningful participation and useful action.

Ask:

• Who participated?
• Who was missing?
• Did participants feel able to contribute?
• Were accessibility needs addressed?
• Did people encounter disrespectful or harmful conduct?
• Did participants learn something new?
• Were recommendations specific and useful?
• Did action teams follow through?
• Did community relationships change?
• What should be changed in future rounds?

Do not measure success only by attendance, enthusiasm, or whether everyone reached agreement.

In Summary

Study circles are small, structured discussions that help people examine a community issue through personal experience, multiple perspectives, relevant information, and collaborative problem-solving.

They can strengthen community relationships, improve understanding, identify priorities, and generate ideas for action.

Study circles work best when participation is broad and intentional rather than limited to people already connected to the organizers.

Consider accessibility, childcare, transportation, language, technology, privacy, scheduling, and other barriers that may affect participation.

Facilitators should support a fair process rather than steering people toward a preferred conclusion.

They should also be prepared to address domination, harassment, discriminatory conduct, and other behavior that undermines meaningful participation.

People should not be pressured to share personal experiences, and organizers should be transparent about how notes and other records will be used.

Consensus is not required. A useful process may identify both genuine areas of agreement and important differences that remain unresolved.

When study circles generate action ideas, connect those ideas with responsible people or institutions, resources, timelines, and ways to evaluate progress.

Avoid claiming that a community outcome resulted from the study circles simply because it occurred afterward.

Finally, evaluate the process itself.

The strongest study circles do more than bring people into one room. They create a structured opportunity for people to understand one another, examine evidence, identify community priorities, and decide together what should happen next.

___You know what makes up a study circle, and the purpose of a study circle

___You know that study circles can have the biggest impact when they are held as part of a large-scale program

___You know why people find study circles valuable:

• Talk about their own experiences
• Talk about difficult issues in a controlled, respectful environment
• The chance to be part of a larger effort
• Empowers community residents

___You have solicited volunteers to help you with your efforts

___You have clarified that all backgrounds will be respected in your study circle

___You have put together your "core team"

___You have held a pilot study circle

___You have made a list of groups/organizations in your area and attempted to involve them

___A second pilot study circle has been held, including members from different organizations

___A study circle working group has been formed and you have:

• Planned the kickoff
• Recruited and trained facilitators
• Arranged for places to meet, and taken care of other details
• Recruited people to joint the study circles
• Planned the action forum

___The kickoff meeting has been held

___You have supported the study circles through encouraging facilitator collaboration, and collecting records

___You have held the action forum to celebrate what you have accomplished and decide what you want to accomplish

___You have kept the momentum going

___You have paused to reflect, and started planning for your next round

___You know the recorder's role in a study group

___You know the facilitator's role in a study group

Example 1: START - Study, Think, Act, Respond Together

START is a free-of-charge 24-session course designed to foster study circles among groups of people interested in community health and development issues. Participants study and discuss environmental, domestic, and world issues using the online readings, read and think about the world they want and how to get there, and then act. START is self-paced and flexible for a variety of groups.

Example 2: In Decatur and Beyond, It All Starts with a Conversation

“Addressing diversity issues in your community can be difficult and complex.  Many look to Decatur, Georgia as an example of inclusion, diversity & citizen engagement.  The city routinely  engages many different sectors of the community in addressing challenges, ranging from affordable housing to race equity issues to community police relations – going beyond the traditional public comment or public hearing to true and ongoing dialogue with many different sectors of the community.  It all started with a conversation – a conversation that has economic, racial, age, gender and religiously diverse representation, and that is reflective of the composition of the community itself.”

Jon Abercrombie, Senior Associate for Everyday Democracy, says, “we all recognize the need to keep dialogues active, inclusive, racially and economically diverse, and driven toward action and progressive change.”

Everyday Democracy is a local group that provides opportunities to unite people together to talk about current issues using what they call a “study circle.” These conversations have been able to “address a serious funding and sustainability issue” in the public schools. Additionally, they have created more conversations on topics like “improving affordable housing, building trusting relationships while addressing racial equity with police…and working on a plan to remove a confederate memorial on the public square.”

Decatur has seen tremendous success in asking the local community members to aid in finding solutions to their local problems. They have seen over 1,000 residents come together in various forms to present their ideas and solutions in how to make their community better.