Chapter 32. Providing Encouragement and Education | Community Tool Box

• What do we mean by developing a proposal for change?

• Why develop a proposal for change?

• Who should develop a proposal for change?

• When should you develop a proposal for change?

• How do you develop a proposal for change?

As the economy got worse, Pratt City was feeling the pinch. There were shuttered storefronts on Main Street, and factories were laying off workers. More and more homeless people were visible, sleeping in the park and under the bridge. With winter coming, the plight of the homeless was looming larger and larger in the consciousness of members of the Pratt City Community Coalition. Most local officials and politicians were ignoring the situation. A few were threatening to give the homeless one-way bus tickets to Sun Belt cities. No one really knew what to do about the issue, and many preferred not to think about it.

The Coalition wasn't sure what to do, either, but its members didn't propose sitting on their hands while people froze to death under the bridge, or were packed onto buses for Phoenix. They knew that an advocacy effort for the homeless had a better chance of success if they had specific solutions to recommend, so they decided to develop a plan to confront homelessness in Pratt City.

The Coalition formed a core planning committee made up of representatives of agencies that worked with the homeless population. The committee then added to itself, by recruiting other concerned community members (including a woman who had run a homeless shelter in another city), some key local officials, and people who were themselves homeless. After studying the situation from a number of different angles - some members of the committee looked at the research, some inventoried local resources, others talked to officials and organizations in similar towns who had dealt with the problem, still others interviewed members of the homeless population - the committee came up with a multi-pronged approach to addressing both the current issue and the long-term causes of homelessness in Pratt City, and presented it to the public through the media and a presentation at a Town Council meeting.

With the help of the officials on the committee, the proposal received wide support from both the community and town government. As a result, no one froze to death that winter, and Pratt City was on its way to the plan's goal of "No one forgotten and alone, no one without a safe and adequate place to live."

This Chapter is about encouraging citizens to participate in advocacy, and about providing education - for both advocates and the targets of advocacy - about the issues at hand. One way to do both is to involve the community in creating a proposal for changing a troublesome situation or addressing the root causes of an issue of concern. In this section, we'll discuss just what that means; why, by whom, and when such a proposal might be developed; and how to go about it. Later in the section, we'll return to Pratt City, and show just how the committee developed its homeless proposal.

What do we mean by developing a proposal for change?

When you're advocating for change - whether that means addressing an issue with a community intervention, establishing a new policy, stopping something negative from happening, or changing the way the community thinks and acts - it's not enough to point out what's wrong or could be improved: you have an obligation, when it's possible, to present better alternatives. That's what a proposal for change is: your suggestions (or demands) for change, and for how that change can be brought about.

Your proposal might be in the form of a long-term plan, an intervention, a policy change - whatever is necessary to bring about the result you're concerned with. In an advocacy context, it almost always makes sense to have something specific to advocate for, rather than just to demand action from policy makers or the community.

By developing your proposal before anyone else does, you can set the boundaries of the discussion on the issue or problem - its definition, its context, and its range of reasonable resolutions. Moreover, a proposal for change is more likely to be successful if it comes from people who actually know the field and the issue - including members of the target population - than from policy makers who don't have as much familiarity with them, and who may be more interested in the political than in the practical and human implications of their solution.

Developing such a proposal spans a range of possibilities. You may believe you already know what needs to be proposed, and simply have to set it down in a logical and usable form. You may have the information to determine how to effect the needed change, but may still have to analyze it to decide what actually needs to be done. Or you may have to start from scratch, because neither you nor anyone else fully understands the situation.

Depending upon the needs of the situation, some of the most common forms a proposal for change might take include:

• A plan for an intervention, or a series of interventions. This is the kind of proposal described in the introduction to this section, where a community issue needs a resolution. Rather than simply advocating for policy makers to find an answer - or letting the issue reach crisis proportions - a community group can devise and advocate for its own solution. This may take the form of a single intervention, or several simultaneous interventions, to deal with a specific problem or situation. Or it may encompass a series of interventions over time, in an effort to affect the root causes of the issue.
• Legislation. The change you're seeking may take the form of new or revised laws. Sometimes legislation is not the specific goal, but can help bring about the change you're looking for, and should therefore be part of your proposal.

If you're seeking legislative action, one of the best ways to make sure that a bill or legislative policy statement says what you want it to is to draft it yourself. This course of action has more than one advantage to it:

• Legislators and aides are often grateful if you offer to take on the chore of drafting legislation about your issue. It gives them something to start with, and relieves them of the necessity of constantly referring back to you with questions. It also saves them a considerable amount of work. While some legislators, as you might expect, prefer that they or their staffs actually draft any legislation they're planning to sponsor, you can still make suggestions about specific language, issues that should be covered, or actions a bill might mandate. The legislator may or may not accept your recommendations, but she certainly won't accept them if they're not offered.
• If you draft legislation, you can include in it everything reasonable to create the desired change. You're much more apt to get most of what you want if you start with something that represents the ideal. Then, you can compromise by dropping the least crucial parts of your proposal. If you start with a legislator's draft, there may be little room for negotiation without dropping essential elements of the legislation.
• Legislation you draft is more likely to be effective than legislation drafted by a legislator or aide who knows far less about both the field and the issue than you do.

Don't assume that a legislator will simply adopt what you've drafted. She has to consider the opinions of her colleagues and constituents, her position with the leadership, the amount of money available, etc. There will be negotiations, not always based on fact or knowledge on the legislator's part. If you understand her position, you can negotiate more effectively. While you and others in the community may have been dealing with this issue for years, legislators have too much information to digest to be familiar with all but a very few areas. They depend on the opinions of colleagues, aides, and others for the rest. Unless he's chosen to focus on it, the chances that any legislator will know more than the person next to you in the elevator about a particular issue are small.

• A proposal for expanding or refocusing existing services. The mechanism for change may already exist in the form of community health or human services, but those services may lack resources to meet the need, or may be bypassing potential participants. Your proposal may be for increased funding, a change in policy, or some other means of building capacity so that the community resources that already exist can be used to bring about the desired change.
• A long-range strategic plan that addresses both the symptoms and the causes of a problem. If you see the issue as one that can't be easily resolved with a single intervention or policy change, it might be time to develop a long-range strategic plan. Such a plan would include vision and mission statements, to define your end result and the focus of your effort to achieve it; the objectives you hope to reach, and when you hope to reach them; the strategies you'll use to get there; and an action plan to carry out those strategies.

Why develop a proposal for change?

Developing a proposal for change may be a difficult and time-consuming process. Nonetheless, there are numerous good reasons for undertaking it, including:

You're more credible and in a stronger position if you can offer solutions to a problem, rather than merely pointing out what's wrong. Identifying problems is much easier than solving them. If you're willing and able to come up with solutions, you - and your solutions - are more likely to be taken seriously.

You almost undoubtedly know more about the issue, the field, and the community than policy makers do. The chances are that you've had experience working with the issue, are in contact with others who've done the same, are aware of research in the field, and have some idea of what's worked elsewhere. Most policy makers are either politicians or generic "experts" who have academic or public service credentials, but little practical experience at the street level (or "water" or "ground" level, in the case of environmental issues). When it comes to specific health and community issues, they are likely to have only the most general knowledge to bring to the situation.

You can draw on local people and resources that policy makers wouldn't think to consult or use. You're familiar with members of the target population and the community at large who know the history of the community, understand the relationships, how the issue in question has played out over time, what has been attempted before, and what happened as a result, all of which can be crucial in devising a plan that will work. In addition, you know the community resources - the effective organizations, the key opinion leaders, the institutions, the funding sources - that can make change possible.

You establish your group as the authority on the issue. Once you're in that position, policy makers and the public will see you as the people to consult when the issue comes up, and will take your recommendations seriously. It puts you in a much stronger position as an advocate.

You have an investment in the community that policy makers don't have. No matter whether you live in the community or just work there, the success of your proposal will mean far more to you and to people you care about than it will to policy makers. They'll never take the time and effort you will, nor the care to ensure the proposal's effectiveness and its fit with the issue and the community.

If you develop the proposal yourself, you can include everything you believe is necessary to meet the needs of the community. The best way to make sure that a proposal contains all the important elements is to create it yourself. You may have to compromise on some of them to make the proposal "saleable", but you'll still be closer to an ideal than you would be likely to get otherwise.

Presenting your own proposal helps to educate the public to appropriate avenues for change, and to enlist them as advocates. If your proposal is easily understood and logical, and you can explain clearly why it will work, people will support it. Once the public is behind a reasonable plan, policy makers usually follow.

If the proposal is generated locally, especially if it's developed through a participatory process, it gives the community ownership of it. That means they'll support it and work to make it successful.

Your proposal defines the issue and frames the debate about it. As mentioned earlier, by issuing a proposal that views the issue or policy in a particular way, you can set the limits of discussion about it. This assures that the issue or policy is approached from an appropriate angle, and that important elements leading to change aren't lost in the shuffle.

Who should participate in developing a proposal for change?

Although who should actually work on a proposal for change depends to some extent on the situation, the Community Tool Box generally favors a participatory process, because it leads to better decisions and to community ownership and support of the final plan. This means assembling a team that includes representatives from all relevant sectors of the community.

Stakeholders.

These include any groups or specific individuals directly affected by or involved in carrying out the substance of the proposal. Some of those might be:

• A target population.
• Health and human service agencies and their staffs.
• Agencies and officials expected to take part in carrying out the plan - police, schools, hospitals or clinics, environmental organizations, etc.

Community activists.

People who've worked for change on this and/or other issues, and have demonstrated their commitment to the community.

Local officials.

They may be the policy makers themselves, or they may have some say over funding or other aspects of any eventual intervention. Whatever the situation, they have influence and it makes sense to include them.

Community members and groups who'll be indirectly affected.

These might include parents, seniors, landowners, environmentalists, or even the whole community.

Experts and researchers in the field.

These folks can be tremendously helpful in fleshing out the details of a proposal, and they can also add to the credibility of the final result.

Policy makers.

If you include policy makers on your planning team, your proposal is much more likely to be accepted. In addition, they'll end up with knowledge of the local situation and the issue that they didn't have before, which can improve future policy-making for your community and others.

When should you develop a proposal for change?

The material below assumes that a proposal for change - i.e., having some idea of what needs to be done - is always necessary before entering on an action, and that's usually true. Keep in mind, however, that sometimes action needs to be taken for its own sake, and a plan for change may develop out of that action. If it's suddenly announced that a wilderness area will be turned into an industrial site or that a historic building is about to torn down, it may be necessary to protest first and develop proposals later.

In general, you should work on a proposal for change whenever change is necessary. It's almost always best to have your own plan to advocate for, rather than waiting for someone else to come up with a solution to your problem or a way out of your circumstances. There are, however, times when it's particularly important to be able to suggest a course of action.

At the beginning of an advocacy campaign. It's always better to advocate for something specific, rather than against something, or for a generic "change." You'll look better and more credible, and you'll be advocating for something you believe will work.

At the start of a legislative campaign. If you have proposed legislation to present to legislators, you've done a lot of their work already. In general, legislators are appreciative when you take the time to draft language for bills or regulations.

If you're working with one or more legislators on legislation, you should be sure to confer with him or them before anything - verbal or printed - goes out to other legislators or to the public. It's a matter of courtesy and protocol - legislators can be annoyed if they feel they're being used or taken advantage of - and practical as well. Before you draft or say anything, and before anything is presented to anyone other than him, discuss it with the legislator, so there will be no surprises in either direction. He'll know what you have in mind and what you've said, and you'll know if there's anything he finds unacceptable.

Another type of legislative effort may be centered on the budget process. In that situation, rather than a piece of legislation, your proposal will take the form of a proposed budget for your issue, backed up with as many hard numbers as you can find. You should be able to inform legislators about the number of people or situations that need to be affected by change, what it will cost for each, what other expenses are necessary to make the system work, etc. The budget numbers you give them must be legitimized by what the money will buy (and that information should be both accurate and reasonable), or legislators won't pay attention.

When there's an obvious problem, but no obvious solution. It makes far more sense to find the best solution yourself, before someone else - perhaps someone without your knowledge and experience, and without any commitment to participatory planning - comes up with something that isn't right for the situation or the community.

When policy makers or funders have indicated that they're about to address an issue or a particular area. Because they're not close enough to the issue, policy makers and funders may come up with ideas that aren't appropriate in your community or your field. Sometimes their plans hinder, rather than help, those actually doing the work. If they have your proposal to start from - a proposal that considers all possible factors, identifies possible unintended consequences, and makes clear what the community needs are - the process is more likely to produce a workable plan for change.

When potentially bad solutions are being proposed. Whether the proposal is by another group or by policy makers or funders themselves, if it's probably going to cause more problems than it solves, it's time to take action. Simply protesting that a proposal is bad isn't enough: you have to have a clear (and better) alternative to advocate for.

During, or leading up to, an election. As has often been mentioned in the Community Tool Box, politicians are most attentive when an election is at stake. It's one of the best times to present your ideas, and to suggest issues they might take on in the next session. If your concern is a hot-button issue, you may even find your proposal, or parts of it, being touted as part of the politician's vision.

When the public, or a segment of the public, wants a problem solved or an issue attended to. The weight of public opinion, whether local or state- or nationwide, can often spur policy makers to action. It creates the situation of #4 above, and yields both the opportunity and the necessity for devising and presenting a plan for change.

How do you develop a proposal for change?

Once you've decided to develop and present a plan for change, how do you go about it? The material that follows outlines a process you can follow that should stand you in good stead.

Assemble a team to develop your proposal. As explained above, the Community Tool Box suggests a participatory approach, which means that your team should include stakeholder groups, activists, experts, officials and other policy makers, etc.

If you include folks from all these groups, be aware that some of them may not have had experience in doing this kind of thing before, or even of participating in meetings. It's extremely important to provide some training and ongoing support for anyone in this category - members of a target population, youth, etc.

Some ways to provide this training and support include pairing experienced and inexperienced members of the group, providing training at the beginning of the process, and spending extra time with the people in question, explaining and encouraging, as the process goes on. It is also important to actively solicit their participation in meetings; make sure that they're provided with and understand any information that others in the group are likely to have, so that the group doesn't split into "professional" and "nonprofessional" factions; and to encourage and facilitate the building of personal connections among all members of the group.

The Pratt City Community Coalition started by setting up a core committee to come up with a proposal. The six initial members, mostly from organizations that dealt with homelessness and the homeless - the food bank, the survival center, the town's one small shelter (housed in a church), an HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment program - recruited homeless people, town officials, a mental health worker, and others to bring the total committee membership to 14. Each committee member was assigned a partner, so that those with less experience would be supported, but not singled out.

Do your research, as necessary. Make sure you've examined all the necessary aspects of the issue. (You probably won't need to address all, or even most, of the research areas below: you may know most of what you need to know already, or many areas simply may not be appropriate to your proposal or situation.)

Important potential areas to research include:

• The history and politics of the community, and the history and politics of the issue in the community.
• All the current policy and law that pertains to the issue. That includes both formal and informal policy, the state of funding, who in government or the private sector is responsible for oversight, etc.
• The roles played by various groups, corporations, agencies, etc. in the current situation.
• Best practices, and what's worked elsewhere.
• Any relevant research results and theory about the issue.
• The opinions and experiences of others in the field.
• The opinions of the community.

The Pratt City committee assigned research tasks that were appropriate to the issue and to the skills of those who carried them out. The two homeless people on the committee and an HIV/AIDS program staffer interviewed other homeless folks about their needs and situations. A university professor and a program director with a doctorate reviewed recent academic research, while agency staff members and one of the public officials talked to people and organizations in other towns around the state to determine what they were doing, and whether it was working. Another public official contacted legislators to find out whether the state had any planned legislation that concerned the homeless issue.

The minister and others on the committee tried to take the pulse of the community on the issue. Had there been a problem in Pratt City with homelessness at other times? What happened then? Did people see that homelessness was currently a problem? What did they think should be done about it? Were they frightened of homeless people? Sympathetic? Were they willing to do something themselves?

Others looked at services and resources in the community that were already available. What other resources were needed to expand these services, and how much more could they do without more resources?

The committee set a short deadline for research to be finished. By the time that deadline arrived, they had a picture of the issue and some ideas about what needed to be done.

Using your research, analyze the issue. Once you have all the information your research has produced, you have to use it to determine what to propose. Analyzing your research means figuring out what it tells you about the issue you're concerned with, and what the implications are for your proposal for change.

Some questions you might ask in the course of your analysis:

• Is the issue at hand the real issue, or is it just a symptom of something larger?
• If it is a symptom, can you address it without dealing with the larger issue also, or instead? Do you have, or can you find, the resources to do that? Is it an issue so large that it makes no sense to tackle it directly?

Many familiar social ills - hunger, homelessness, some forms of crime - are symptoms, for instance, of poverty. Eliminating poverty is beyond the reach of most community advocates, but addressing some of its symptoms may not be. And addressing those symptoms may, in fact, eliminate poverty for some individuals. The larger issue may have to wait for another "Great Society" program.

The root cause of an issue may not be larger than the issue itself, but may be so important that the issue cannot be resolved without attending to it. The root cause of unemployment among single parents may be a lack of safe and affordable child care, for instance. Job training and other employment-related services may do nothing to address the issue unless child care is also provided.

• Are there community resources already in place to deal with this issue, and can they be included as part of your proposal? Do you in fact need a new plan or policy, or do you just need increased funding to better use the resources that already exist?
• What's the least you can do to deal with the issue effectively (i.e., either resolve it permanently, or create a system to keep it under control, if that's the best possible solution)? In general, the less complex the solution and the necessary action, the better, for several reasons: It will cost less to fund; it will be less intrusive, and inconvenience fewer people; it will contain fewer elements that could go wrong; and if something does go wrong, it's generally easier to fix.
• What will the community support? Do you need community support for your plan to succeed? Community support is always desirable, but it may not always be necessary.

Looking at their information, the committee found several striking things. First, many of the homeless people weren't individuals, but families. Second, many were working at low-wage jobs, and simply couldn't afford housing. A significant number of the homeless were chronically mentally ill, and had no place to go when the state mental hospital was closed. Perhaps the most significant finding about the homeless population was their lack of connection to others in the community - no extended families, no friends, no faith community, no safety net of relationships to fall back on when they had no place to go. This last was a feature of the academic research as well.

Pratt City's citizens understood that there was a problem, and wanted to help. Faith communities and others offered space for shelters, and the YMCA thought it could run a meals program if someone could come up with food and some funding. Many citizens offered volunteer time in a number of capacities.

What seemed to work in other communities was a combination of immediate and long-term services. The immediate services saw to the need for food, shelter, and clothing; the long-term concerned affordable housing, support networks, and education so that people wouldn't find themselves homeless again.

Develop your proposal. Based on your research, your analysis, and the experience and expertise of your planning group, now it's time to come up with your actual proposal for change.

The first step is to decide on the best possible outcome. What would the community/country/world look like if this issue were resolved in the best possible way?

The best possible outcome is not necessarily the same as the ideal outcome. You may already know that it's not possible to fund the ideal outcome fully, or that the issue is so large that the ideal resolution would take generations or centuries. (Everyone agrees that world peace is an ideal, but it's not likely that we can make it happen any time soon.) You may be under time pressure, if the issue is one that puts lives at stake, such as a deadly epidemic, or a rash of domestic violence. The best possible outcome is the best you can hope to do, given the realities of the community, available resources, time limits, and the nature of the issue.

Start with your desired outcome, and generate ways to reach it. The work you've done so far should help you understand the nature of the core issue, and alert you to other issues that must be addressed as well if the core issue is to be resolved. Be as specific as possible about what each step entails, so that you can work out exactly what has to happen by when.

There are other ways to work out how to reach your goal: brainstorming, adapting a best practice, and adopting another community's or organization's solution just as it is are three, for instance. You may long ago have worked out what needs to happen, and simply have to tweak it a little to get rid of any potential problems and rough edges. If you're starting from scratch, working backwards is a particularly good method. Start with your goal, determine the step that will get you directly to it, then figure out the step that will get you to that next-to-last step, all the way back to where you are now. That process will help you identify sticking points, and point out if you'll need a multi-pronged approach to get where you're going. It's certainly not the only way, but it's one that often works well.

Examine the barriers and disadvantages, including possible unintended consequences, of the approach you've chosen. Look at these in terms of the target population, those implementing change, the community, and policy makers and funders. All are important in the ultimate success of your plan.

Line out the action steps you'll need to take in order to make your proposal work. Be as specific as possible about exactly what will need to be done at each stage.

Determine who will do what under this proposal. Who will fund it? Who will implement it, and carry out each of the action steps? Who will oversee it? Who will conduct evaluations and suggest adjustments?

Who will be accountable for the operation and outcomes of what's proposed, and to whom will they be accountable?

Create a reasonable timeline for the proposal. It should allow enough time so that it can actually work, and should include benchmarks (checkpoints along the path to the final goal) with their own timelines, and a projected endpoint, if that's appropriate, for the whole proposal.

Many kinds of change don't have an endpoint. If the issue is childcare for working parents, for example, you might consider the endpoint the point at which safe, affordable childcare is available to any parent who needs it. But even when that point is reached, childcare still must be provided indefinitely.

The Pratt City committee felt it now knew what was necessary: Homeless people had to be sheltered or otherwise protected through the coming cold winter, and they also had to be offered the opportunity for permanent housing, and connection to a support network.

To address the health and safety of the homeless population, the committee decided to both advocate for more shelters and propose the creation of a volunteer program to distribute hot food and blankets nightly, and to help those who couldn't or wouldn't take advantage of a shelter to build their own shelters, so that no one would freeze to death.

The need for permanent affordable housing encompassed both the creation of more affordable housing, and helping the homeless gain the financial, organizational, and personal skills to find and keep housing once it was available. To create housing, the committee proposed an advocacy effort to subsidize new affordable housing units, as well as the rehabilitation of abandoned buildings (acquired by the town by tax foreclosure) through the use of "sweat equity" - the labor of those who would eventually occupy the buildings. The committee also conceived an intervention in the form of a course all shelter residents could take that would help them with all aspects of finding and keeping affordable housing - financial management, job readiness and training, career planning, conflict resolution, etc. This part of the proposal included additional services for the homeless mentally ill, which provided them with mental health care, help and monitoring in taking medication, and other support.

The final part of the committee's proposal was a mentoring program, in which each homeless individual or family would be paired with a community volunteer who would be a friend and emergency support person, and would also help his partner construct his own network of friends, neighbors, agencies, and the like.

Various members of the committee agreed to take responsibility for the advocacy, or in some cases - the food, blanket, and shelter volunteer program, for instance - for the actual carrying out of aspects of the proposal. A friend of a businessman on the committee came up with a slogan - "No one forgotten and alone; no one without a safe and adequate place to live." - and a logo of a house with a family in it.

Create a plan for maintaining change.

As you might infer from the box above about the endpoints of change, every proposal for change should include a plan for maintaining that change over the long term. No matter how well thought out it is, no matter how good a job you do in advocating for its adoption, and no matter how successful your proposal is initially, it has to be nurtured indefinitely if it's to be really successful.

The committee decided that, regardless of what happened with its proposal, it would stay together, both to make sure that all the homeless in Pratt City made it through the winter safely, and to continue to advocate for change throughout the year, so that there would not need to be an emergency response to homelessness each fall. They agreed that they would keep advocating until all the elements of their proposal had been addressed.

Present and advocate for your proposal as early as possible.

The ideal situation is that your plan will be the baseline for whatever's actually adopted. As a result, you need to get people thinking about it as early in the effort as possible. That means presenting it to policy makers and the public, alerting the media, publishing it on a website, and using whatever other methods are necessary to get the information out.

Through members of the committee - specifically the minister, whose church membership included both the editor of the Pratt City News and the station manager at WPKV-TV, and one of the public officials, a member of the Town Council - the proposal was given media coverage immediately, and was the subject of a carefully-prepared presentation at a Town Council meeting (the businessman's friend - the owner of an ad agency - helped again). Committee members also used their own networks - local agencies and organizations, communities of faith, service clubs, etc. - to publicize their proposal, and to trumpet the need for a change in the way homelessness was addressed in Pratt City.

Plan to continue working for as long as it takes to get your proposal adopted.

In some cases, you may be able to present a proposal in the course of an advocacy campaign, bring the campaign to a successful conclusion in a relatively short time, and have the proposal adopted. In others, however, you may have to go back many times before anyone will listen. Successful advocacy, however, is about persistence. A campaign may have to be viewed as a series of initiatives over a period of years, rather than a month-long blitz. You have to be prepared to hang in there until the job is done.

The committee was prepared to keep working indefinitely until all aspects of the plan had in some way become reality. Most of its members also realized that, even then, their job would not be done. They might disband as a committee, but they knew they would have to keep watch to make sure that the services and programs that grew out of their proposal would continue to be available, and that homelessness was never again a serious issue for Pratt City.

In Summary

When you're advocating for change, it's almost always best to have a specific proposal to advocate for. The best way to come up with a proposal for change is to develop it yourself through a participatory process. By presenting your own proposal, you can forestall well-meaning but uninformed proposals from policy makers and others, or counter unfortunate proposals that have already been made. Your proposal can set the tone and boundaries of discussion over the issue, and make sure that necessary elements of change are included in whatever is finally adopted. It also establishes your group as one to be reckoned with - the experts on the issue - and thereby gives you greater leverage as an advocate.

If you can, use a participatory process - one that involves all stakeholders (particularly members of a target population, if that's relevant) and any other significant individuals or groups affected by or concerned with the issue at hand. Such a process will confer credibility and community ownership on your proposal, and make it more acceptable to everyone. It will also increase the chances that the proposal you create will actually work, because it draws on the knowledge and experience of a broad range of people.

The timing of a proposal can be important. If you're aiming at legislators or other officials, then the start of a legislative advocacy campaign, an election, or an annual budget process may be crucial times for developing and presenting proposals for change. Other times include those when the issue is in the public consciousness, either because it has reached a crisis, or because policy makers have turned their attention to it (often the same thing).

Actually developing a proposal that will be effective follows a logical process. Assemble your planning team, using participatory principles where possible; do your research; analyze the issue; design your actual proposal; create a plan for maintaining change once it's achieved; present and advocate for your proposal early and often; and expect to have to continue working to get it accepted over the long term, and to maintain it after that.

What do we mean by developing a proposal for change?

___A proposal for change is a plan (or sometimes just a group of suggestions) for addressing a situation, an issue, or a condition of importance to the community.

A proposal for change might take the form of:

___An intervention or series of interventions.

___Legislative language or legislation.

___Funding or other resources to expand existing services.

___A long-range strategic plan.

Why develop a proposal for change?

___You're more credible and in a stronger position if you can offer solutions to a problem, rather than merely pointing out what's wrong.

___You almost undoubtedly know more about the issue, the field, and the community than policy makers do.

___You can draw on local people and resources that policy makers wouldn't think to consult or use.

___You establish your group as the authority on the issue.

___You have an investment in the community that policy makers don't have.

___If you develop the proposal yourself, you know it will include everything you believe is necessary to meet the needs of the community.

___Presenting your own proposal helps to educate the public to appropriate avenues for change, and can enlist them as advocates.

___If the proposal is generated locally, especially if it's developed through a participatory process, it gives the community ownership of it.

___Your proposal defines the issue and frames the debate about it.

Who should develop a proposal for change?

___All stakeholders.

___Community activists.

___Local officials.

___Community members and groups who'll be indirectly affected.

___Researchers and experts in the field.

___Policy makers.

When should you develop a proposal for change?

___At the beginning of an advocacy campaign.

___At the start of a legislative campaign.

___When there's an obvious problem, but no obvious solution.

___When policy makers or funders have indicated that they're about to address an issue or a particular area.

___When potentially bad solutions are being proposed.

___During, or leading up to, an election.

___When the public, or a segment of the public, wants a problem solved or an issue attended to.

How do you develop a proposal for change?

___Assemble a team to develop it

 

___Do your research

 

___Analyze the issue

 

___Develop your proposal

 

___Create a plan for maintaining change

 

___Present and advocate for the proposal

 

You've worked in a number of human service programs that serve low-income people in a particular neighborhood, and you've noticed that most of the participants are distinctly less healthy than you and your friends, even though they are younger than you are. They seem to get both minor and major illnesses with much greater frequency than most other people you know, and their kids seem to be sick a lot as well. Although many of the people you've worked with are on Medicaid, they rarely go to doctors. They use the emergency room instead, and then only when they or their children are injured or seriously ill.

These folks have told you that they avoid doctors both because most doctors don't treat them with any respect, and because their offices are just too far away. It's difficult for them to make it to appointments without a car or child care. They know that once they're there, they'll probably have to wait a long time, and keeping squirming kids entertained in a doctor's waiting room filled with disapproving eyes is almost impossible. And what happens when it's time to go into the examining room? The emergency room is easier, and it's close by.

The result, of course, is that the folks you work with never get a sense of how to keep themselves healthy. All they've learned about is treating illnesses, not preventing them. You believe there's a desperate need in the area for a community medical center, where people can establish ongoing relationships with doctors and nurses who'll treat them with respect, and who'll work with them to help them become and stay well.

So now what? This clearly calls for an advocacy campaign: a health center will cost money, which won't materialize without community and political support. You're going to need allies, and lots of them. How do you contact them and enlist them in the effort?

You've come up with a plan for what needs to be done, as described in the previous section of this chapter (Developing a Proposal for Change), and now your task is to establish communication with individuals and organizations that can help your cause, and persuade them to become partners in your advocacy effort. We'll discuss what that means, why it's necessary, whom you should aim at, when are the best times to establish communication and request participation in the effort, and how to go about it. This section should help you put together a collaborative advocacy group that can accomplish what you might not be able to by yourself.

What exactly is establishing formal communications and requesting participation?

What's the point of this "formal communications" stuff? If you want someone to join you in advocacy, you just call and ask. What's so complicated about that?

The answer is nothing...sometimes. If the individual or organization you want to contact is one you know well or have worked with before, then a phone call or other informal contact will probably work just fine. If, however, the individual is the mayor or a powerful legislator, or if the organization is a large non-profit with many layers, or a corporation with which you've never had any contact, the situation is somewhat different.

Everyone is bombarded by messages of various kinds, from e-mail spam to urgent calls from home. Most people, especially those in positions of responsibility, do their best to screen out the unnecessary messages, so they can attend to those that are important. The more responsibility someone has, the more carefully she's likely to screen. By establishing a formal communications link, you assure that your messages get through, and that you have easy access to an individual or organization when you need it.

You'll need to find out what the procedure is to talk to the right person. In the case of a government office, organization, business, or institution, it may be hard to find out just who the right person is. You may need to learn what the proper channels are to communicate with the individual or organization at all.

When we talk about establishing formal communications, we're not suggesting that you have to wear a tailcoat and striped tie, or speak impersonally and correctly. Rather, we're referring to developing a structured, "official" connection with an organization or individual that can be a valuable ally in your advocacy effort. This formal arrangement might be anything from an unspoken agreement that you'll take each others calls, to regularly scheduled meetings between two organizations, to contact as needed between individuals.

If the individual is one you've known for years, or the organization is one you've worked with before, you probably already have such a formal connection, although it may have developed over time so that it now looks and feels - and is - informal. If the individual or organization doesn't know you, or has no particular reason - yet - to think about participating in your effort, a formal communication link will keep the channel between you open, and define your relationship as one of equals and potential collaborators.

Once you have a connection, you have to know how to ask for participation effectively. You have to present the proposition in a way that shows how it will benefit the other party, and that communicates respect and the spirit of collaboration.

So, no - it's often not just a matter of calling and asking. Establishing formal communications and requesting participation take some thought and preparation.

Why establish formal communication and request participation?

There are really two questions here - Why bother establishing communications and requesting participation at all? and Why establish formal communications and formally request participation? We'll consider them separately.

Why bother establishing communications and requesting participation at all?

Why not just go it alone, or leave people to decide for themselves whether they want to join you or not?

We're starting with an assumption here that the participation of other individuals and groups is necessary to any advocacy effort, and that a participatory process has great advantages. You can't leave others' participation to chance: without it, you probably have much less hope of achieving your advocacy goals.

• You need all the help you can get. The more people and organizations you can attract to your advocacy effort, the stronger it will be, and the better its chances of success.
• It's necessary to assure the participation of those who are key to the effort. Some people and/or groups - legislative sponsors, for instance - are so important to the effort that you can't really expect to be successful without them. Making contact with them and asking them to join is crucial.
• It's important to enlist as many of the people and organizations concerned with the issue as you can, in order to show solidarity for the effort. Presenting a united front can be extremely important, especially in making sure that the result of your advocacy is what you've been aiming for, and not an ineffective action or policy.
• A coordinated effort is much stronger than a haphazard one, with a number of individuals and organizations working separately toward a similar goal. If you can enlist everyone concerned in the same effort - one with a clear goal and a clear strategy for reaching it - your chances of success increase immensely.
• You're asking not just for a single action, but for a commitment to an effort that might take a long time. Approaching people and groups with the facts, making sure they understand what they're signing up for, helping them see how the effort will be beneficial to them and/or their target populations, and telling them how much you need and value their partnership - all of these are more likely to gain their participation than either leaving it to chance, or inviting them in an offhand way.
• Establishing communications and requesting participation can head off turf issues and ego problems that can quickly derail an advocacy effort. By recruiting as many people and groups as possible early on, you can make sure that everyone has a say in planning and implementing the effort, and that no one feels disrespected or left out. You can also work out who's going to do what, forestalling turf issues and similar problems.

Turf issues arise when someone perceives that another is stepping on her territory, or "turf," taking over funding, privileges, responsibilities, recognition, etc. that she sees as her own. This can happen in almost any situation, although it's particularly common among people with overlapping or similar responsibilities in the same organization, and among organizations providing similar services in a community (and/or competing for the same pot of funds). In any collaborative effort, it's really important to anticipate the possibility of turf battles, and to structure the situation to address them or defuse them before they occur.

• Even when they're in total agreement with what you're doing, people and organizations like to be asked to join. It shows you value their participation enough not to take it for granted.
• Getting as many partners as possible on board early creates a sense of trust and common purpose that can propel the effort through difficult times.
• Requesting participation early, rather than only when the effort needs to be strengthened or when the final push is on, creates buy-in. If the other parties are on board from the beginning, they feel responsible for the effort, and will work harder to make it successful.

Why establish formal communications and formally request participation?

Again, why not just call and ask? Why should anyone care about formality? But some people and organizations do care; and there are advantages to formality, in the way we're defining it, even with those that don't.

• It's the only way you can approach some people and organizations. Unless you know them well, powerful individuals are usually well protected by layers of aides and assistants who screen communication. In order to get to see and/or talk to them and make your case, you often have to go through a formal process, which may include meeting with someone else first. The same may be true for the actual decision-maker(s) in an organization or institution.
• It shows respect for the integrity of the other party's procedure. Unless the procedure is meant to keep out people and organizations like you, following it demonstrates a willingness to accept the other's priorities, and conveys respect.
• It acknowledges the other as an equal partner. By establishing formal communications and making a formal request, you're implying a partnership of equals, not that you're in charge or that it's all your idea.
• It points up the importance of the other party's potential contribution, and makes apparent that you really want their help.
• It establishes a relationship, and acknowledges that you might have something to offer each other. By establishing formal communications, you're both confirming your connection, and assuming that you have reasons for remaining connected.
• Establishing formal communications means that a channel is always open, and a certain amount and type of communication becomes automatic. Necessary information or other communication doesn't get lost, but is in fact passed on, and passed on when it should be.

With whom should you establish formal communications to request participation?

You'd seldom turn down anyone who wants to be part of your advocacy campaign, but there are always people and groups who are especially important allies. Who they might be varies, of course, depending on the direction of your efforts and the nature of the issue at hand.

Are you seeking policy change or funding through legislation? Are you trying to change the public's behavior, or their opinions? Are you concerned with substance use, homelessness, arthritis research, water pollution, domestic violence, affordable housing, child poverty? Each of these directions and issues might call for a different set of collaborators in advocacy. People and organizations you might approach include:

Legislators and other political figures.

If you're advocating for a policy or the passage of a bill in a state legislature or in Congress, you'll need a legislative champion to sponsor it, as well as the support of other lawmakers. If your advocacy is local - the community health center effort referred to in the introduction, for instance - you might need the help of the mayor or the neighborhood city council member. An anti-smoking campaign would benefit from the support of the Board of Health; an environmental initiative might try to enlist the Conservation Commission. Furthermore, it's always good to have these folks on your side, even if they're not directly involved in your issue.

Other initiatives or advocates with similar goals.

As we've mentioned, a coordinated effort is far more powerful than a number of groups going it alone.

Watch out for turf issues and jealousy here. Organizations are sometimes concerned with pride of place ("We thought of this first." "We're the major advocacy organization in this field."), or with being in charge of an effort, rather than a partner. If there's money involved (e.g., sharing funds as opposed to getting the whole pot), the situation can turn nasty. As discussed earlier, it makes sense to anticipate potential problems and try to defuse them before they come up. Making sure that everyone has important responsibilities; giving equal billing (or making sure that each of several organizations gets top billing or responsibility for one aspect of the effort); creating an inclusive steering committee for the effort - these are a few possible ways to head off trouble before it happens.

Experts in the field.

This may include former state or federal agency directors, researchers and scholars, and policy makers.

Professional associations.

The local medical association would be an important ally if you were seeking funding for that community health center. A local chapter of the National Society of Professional Engineers might be helpful in advocating for improved sewage treatment or infrastructure repair.

In one rural county, the county bar association took up the cause - initiated by one of the judges - of court reform. With the bar association's backing and participation, a "Reinventing Justice" program was developed that reshaped many aspects of the court system. The program resulted in reduced court caseloads and fewer incarcerations, and probably wouldn't have been possible without the bar association's involvement.

Other organizations concerned with the issue.

These would include health and human service organizations that serve target populations that are affected, that share funding that might be in question, have the same or similar program goals or social concerns, etc. They might also include businesses unable to find trained workers, or concerned about the economic situation of their customers.

Community activists.

These are people and groups that may not be concerned specifically with your issue, but that are concerned with social justice, community development, quality of life, or other general areas that might be positively affected by your effort. Community activists have useful organizing skills, often know the community and the individuals in it quite well, and may have important information on what works and what doesn't from past experience with similar issues.

Controversial community activists may have lots of friends and allies...but they may have lots of enemies and opponents, too. Be sure you know whom you might be befriending and whom you might be alienating by recruiting someone to take part in your effort.

You may be allying yourself not only with the individual or group you've approached, but with others you'd just as soon not be associated with. You may be taking on powerful opponents, or angering key people or groups who would otherwise participate in your effort. If you're considering recruiting a controversial figure or group, you have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs. And you have to do it before you make any overtures. If you recruit a person or group and then change your mind, you'll look foolish, and be viewed as indecisive, disloyal, untrustworthy, or underhanded.

Influential citizens or groups.

These comprise people in the community who have standing with one or more segments of the population, either because of personal connections or because they're considered particularly knowledgeable or trustworthy. A list might include:

• Business leaders and groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce.
• Civic leaders - some may be current or former officials; others may be those same community activists discussed above.
• Clergy and communities of faith.
• Service clubs (Kiwanis, Lions, Masons, etc.) and social organizations.

In one town, a group seeking to provide services to the Portuguese community found that the focal point of community life was the soccer club. Not only did it sponsor a number of very competitive soccer teams whose games attracted practically the whole community, but it was also the gathering place for weddings, wakes, graduations, community politics, and just about everything else. If you wanted to reach the Portuguese community, the way was through the doors of the soccer club

• Heads or officers of large organizations or institutions, such as the hospital director, or a college president or dean.
• People with high credibility in the community. These folks may have credibility because of position - doctors or newspaper editors, for instance. They may know everyone in town, either because they've lived there all their lives, or because their jobs - pharmacists, teachers - bring them into contact with most community members. Or they may be ordinary citizens who simply have a reputation for extraordinary integrity or intelligence or moral compass.

Media people and media outlets.

If you can get the media on your side, you have an enormous advocacy advantage.

Community agencies, services, and institutions.

You might need the backing of the police or the fire department or the schools. The municipality's Planning Office could be helpful, as could the support of the local college or university. Nearly every community of any size has at least one local institution that wields influence, and that should be contacted as a potential partner in an advocacy effort.

Members of the target population, or the group as a whole.

These folks have the most to gain or lose through your effort. They are a storehouse of knowledge and experience of the issue, and often have compelling stories to tell. In addition, they bring their voices, their numbers, and, often, their votes, which translate to political clout.

When should you establish formal communication and request participation?

In general, the time to establish formal communications and seek participants in your effort is as early in the process as possible. There are several good reasons for this:

• Starting with a large group gives you more clout at the outset, and legitimizes your effort in the eyes of policy makers and the public.
• Recruiting people and organizations at the beginning establishes the effort as a partnership, rather than as something you started and others joined later. That encourages ownership of the effort by everyone, leading to real commitment to the advocacy goals and more effective advocacy.
• Bringing them in from the first shows respect for your allies and partners. The effort won't make any crucial decisions without them. No one feels like an afterthought: all know that their participation is valued.
• More partners means more input and ideas into planning for the effort, and better strategy as a result.
• Participation builds momentum, which builds more participation, which builds momentum...

There are, however, reasons to establish communications and recruit at other stages of an effort as well:

At the beginning of a legislative advocacy campaign.

Your legislative champion can help you find other legislators willing to sign on. Adding other allies at this point can increase your organizational possibilities, as well as the amount of political pressure you can generate. Legislators are swayed by numbers: the sheer weight of your participation, if it's large enough, will probably get you at least some of what you're asking for. (The rest is dependent on the power of your advocacy itself.)

Just before and during the planning stage of an advocacy campaign.

It makes sense to get as many people and organizations as you can involved in planning. As explained above, more participation in planning means more input, buy-in and ownership of the effort, and a better plan.

When you're trying to build momentum.

This may be when an effort is faltering and needs a boost, but there are also times in the normal course of an effort when momentum becomes an issue. These might be in the early stages when you haven't picked up speed yet; a lull in the middle, when little seems to be happening and enthusiasm often wanes; and near the end, when you're gearing up for a final push to reach your goal. Fresh participation in any of these circumstances can help revitalize the effort and provide the spark to take it to the next level.

When your effort has really taken off. Everyone wants to back a winner.

Using your appeal to pull in as many allies as you can may shorten the effort, and propel you to an early success.

How do you establish formal communications and request participation?

Once again, we'll look at establishing formal communications and requesting participation separately. Remember, however, that in practice the whole process should be integrated and relatively seamless.

Remember also that nothing at all will happen unless you make the effort to communicate and ask for participation. This is no time for shyness or hesitation. A few allies may come to you once they know about your advocacy, but most have to be recruited.

For all parts of the process, remember to follow some very basic communication guidelines:

• Use language that people understand. That may be plain, clear English, or it may be the first language of the people you're contacting. In the latter instance, you might ask a fluent user of that language to make a call or compose a letter for you, or bring a translator to an interview.
• Be respectful. Approach everyone as an equal partner, regardless of their background or experience.
• Build trust. This may involve both of the bullets above, but also being absolutely honest and straightforward. Be clear about what you're asking for, don't downplay (or overdramatize) problems, and volunteer important information as soon as possible.
• Stress your areas of agreement. In any communication, and by your actions, be sure to point out the areas where you agree, and the importance of those areas. This can be especially important where the other individual or group is an ally on the issue you're currently advocating for, but disagrees with you in one or more other areas.
• Be culturally sensitive. Communication styles are different in different cultures. What's considered a comfortable speaking distance in the US - generally about three feet - seems cold in Middle Eastern cultures, where the comfortable distance is much closer. Make sure you know the other's customs, so that you neither offend nor are offended by something that seems normal to one or the other of you.
• Even if your request is turned down, keep communication lines open. You may be allies in the future, the other party may change his mind, or there may be many other areas on which you can agree and collaborate.

Determine what "formal communications" means for the individual or group in question. Is there actually some formal procedure or protocol, or is it just a matter of making contact in your "official capacity" as a representative of the advocacy effort?

If there is a formal procedure, learn all you can about it, so you'll be able to use it - or avoid it - as well as possible. How well protected are the people you're trying to reach? Do they return phone calls or e-mails? Will they even get your message?

If the answer to this last question is no, you might try to get around the official communication process. One possibility, if you have a personal e-mail address, is by using e-mail. Another is by using personal contact (see directly below). Even if you don't have a personal line to your target person, you may be able to skip several rungs in the communication ladder with a personal connection to someone partway up - an aide, a personal assistant, a manager, etc.

Yet a third possibility is putting yourself in a position to "run into" the person you want to contact, by frequenting someplace you're likely to find him - his place of business, a favorite cafe, a softball game, etc. There may be some ethical issues to consider here - Is this fair? Does it constitute lying? - but it's a potential way to reach someone who's otherwise unreachable.

Approach your target personally, if it's possible. This is true whether you're dealing with an individual or a group.

• If you're approaching an individual, see if there's someone already involved in your effort who knows that person well and is willing to make the initial contact. If none of your partners has a direct connection, you or one of them may have a personal acquaintance who can act as an intermediary. You have a better chance both of arranging communication and of successfully gaining an individual's participation if the original contact comes from someone he knows personally.
• For an organization or other multi-person entity, the approach is similar, except that you have to find out who the key individual or group within the entity is, if you don't already know. This is the person or persons who can make - or heavily influence - the decision about whether the organization will become a partner in your advocacy effort. It's not always the director or CEO. Some organizations, for instance, involve several people, or even the whole staff, in decision-making. In others, the board has the final say in matters that affect the whole organization. Whatever the case, making a personal connection is the best approach.

Even if the individual or organization you're approaching is at a distance - a national organization, for instance, or a Senator - you can still use personal connections. A participant in your effort may be a former college classmate of the director of a national organization. Another participant's brother-in-law may be a close friend of one of the Senator's aides. An introduction through a known and trusted source can work wonders.

Be persistent. Especially if you don't have a personal contact, you may have to keep trying to reach the people you're aiming at. Don't be obnoxious - but don't give up. If you continue to be polite but firm about your need for access to the target individual, and to continue to explore other ways to make the contact, the chances are you'll ultimately be successful.

Being polite and friendly - in person and on the phone - is almost never a bad idea, and can sometimes reap rewards. The communications gatekeeper is more likely to let you through if he approves of you. Sometimes, if you've developed a relationship of sorts with him, he'll even skirt the rules to connect you to the target individual. There's no guarantee of that...but there's certainly a guarantee that it won't happen if you're rude and obnoxious.

Once you've made contact, there's still the matter of persuading the other party to join your effort. There are a number of things you can do to make that possibility more likely.

• Make your request in person, if possible. If that's not possible, voice contact by phone is the next best approach. People are far more responsive to a person-to-person approach than to written requests or other material (multimedia presentations, for instance). Always try to meet face to face if you can.
• Be absolutely clear, in speaking or writing, about who you are, what your effort is about and what its goals are, and what you're asking from the other party. Spell out what participation in the effort will mean, and what the implications of achieving your goals are. If everything's on the table at the beginning, there'll be no unpleasant surprises for either of you down the road.
• If the individual's or group's participation involves an exchange or donation - in either direction - of money, goods, services, or personnel, you may want to put an agreement in writing.
• Let them know that you value their participation, and why. This not only conveys the message that this particular individual or group is important to the effort, but further explains and confirms what you hope she or it will do as a participant. An individual may be particularly valued for her credibility and her contacts, for instance, while a group may be important because of its reputation in dealing with the issue the advocacy effort addresses. In the first case, the individual can expect to use those contacts; in the second, the organization's main role may be in some combination of planning, lending credibility to the effort, and public relations.
• Let them know why it would be in their interest to participate in the initiative. Be clear and specific about the benefits to them and/or their target population if your effort or initiative is successful (and the disadvantages to them if it is not). Explain, too, how the effort would benefit society or the community in general. And remind them that they can be seen as a leader in this area, and be at the table to negotiate the final outcome of the effort.
• Leave doors open for the individual or organization to think about participation, or to join later if they don't feel comfortable doing so now. Don't close off the possibility of a later decision, even if they decide not to participate now. Minds and circumstances change, and alliances shift. Leave your options - and theirs - open.
• Regardless of the outcome, maintain communication over the long term. If they do decide to participate, they should be kept up to date with the latest information about the progress of the effort, the results of what you and they have done, etc. They need this information to be effective partners, and it will also keep them feeling that they're in the loop.

Even if they don't choose to participate, you may be allies in other advocacy ventures in the future. Keeping communication channels open may lead to other collaborations. If they're not opposed to your effort, you may want to keep them updated on its progress, even though they're not officially involved. They may later choose to be helpful, or to spread information for you, even without you knowing it.

Take it on yourself to initiate and maintain contact. Don't stand on ceremony or protocol, or expect someone else to do it. Communication channels are valuable, and someone has to be responsible for keeping them open. If you take on that responsibility, you'll know that it's being carried out.Even if the communication seems to be mostly one-way, keep at it. If it's at all valuable, it will become two-way before long.

Once formal communications have been established, never let them lapse into disuse. You have to keep the channels open by using them. After all, the larger your network, the more effective your advocacy will be in the long run.

In Summary

Establishing formal communications with an individual, organization, institution, corporation, or other group is simply a way of starting a recognized and businesslike relationship. It can both facilitate and assure effective and timely communication between you, thus making your advocacy more effective as well.

The reasons for establishing communications and requesting participation also have to do with effective advocacy. They include gaining the numbers and credibility necessary for a successful advocacy campaign; obtaining the buy-in, and thus real commitment, of your allies; making everyone feel like a welcome and valuable addition to the advocacy effort, thereby preventing jealousy and turf issues among allies; improving your planning possibilities with more input; and gaining political clout.

Potential allies -- as many of whom as possible should be recruited at the beginning of the effort to encourage ownership and involvement in planning - vary with the type of campaign and the issue(s) it addresses. Typical potential allies would be legislators and other political figures; initiatives and advocates with similar goals; professional associations; experts in the field; agencies and organizations that work on the issue; community activists; influential citizens and groups; media people and outlets; public services (police, fire), agencies, and institutions; and the target population.

In addition to "as early as possible," the best times to contact and enlist allies are as a legislative advocacy campaign begins; in the planning stages of an advocacy effort; when the effort is trying to build momentum; and when the effort has taken off, and people want to get behind a winner.

In actually establishing formal communications and making your request for participation, always remember some basic communication guidelines:

• Use language your audience understands.
• Be respectful.
• Build trust.
• Stress your areas of agreement.
• Be culturally sensitive.
• Keep communication lines open.

In establishing formal communications, determine just what that means for a particular individual or group and act accordingly. Approach your target personally, if you can, and be persistent until you reach the person you need to contact.

Once you've established communication, follow these guidelines in making your request for participation:

• Make your request in person, if you can.
• Be clear about who you are, what your effort and its goals are about, and what you're asking of the person or organization.
• Let them know that you value their participation, and why.
• Let them know why it's in their interest to participate.
• Leave wiggle room, so that the other party doesn't feel that it's now or never. Allow room for deliberation, a later decision to join, etc.
• Maintain communication whether the other party chooses to participate or not.

This whole procedure is about both building strength for the effort at hand, and building networks to strengthen advocacy over the long term.

 

What exactly is establishing formal communications and requesting participation?

___You establish formal communications and request participation by developing a structured, "official" connection with an organization or individual who can be a valuable ally in your advocacy effort, and asking for participation in a way likely to be successful.

Why establish formal communications and request participation?

You establish formal communications because:

___It's the only way you can approach some people and organizations.

___It shows respect for the integrity of the other party's procedure.

___It acknowledges the other as an equal partner.

___It points up the importance of the other party's potential contribution, and makes apparent that you really want their help.

___It establishes a relationship, and acknowledges that you might have something to offer each other.

___Establishing formal communications means that a channel is always open, and a certain amount and type of communication becomes automatic.

You formally request participation because:

___You need all the help you can get.

___It's necessary to assure the participation of those who are key to the effort.

___It's important to enlist as many of the people and organizations concerned with the issue as you can, in order to show solidarity for the effort.

___A coordinated effort is much stronger than a haphazard one.

___You're asking not just for a single action, but for a commitment to an effort that might take a long time.

___Establishing communications and requesting participation can head off turf issues and ego problems that can quickly derail an advocacy effort.

___Even when they're in total agreement with what you're doing, people and organizations like to be asked to join.

___Getting as many partners as possible on board early creates a sense of trust and common purpose that can propel the effort through difficult times.

___Requesting participation early, rather than only when the effort needs to be strengthened or when the final push is on, creates buy-in.

With whom should you establish formal communications to request participation?

You establish formal communications with and request participation from:

___Legislators and other political figures.

___Other initiatives and advocates with similar goals.

___Professional associations.

___Experts in the field.

___Human service and other organizations that work on the issue.

___Community activists.

___Influential citizens and groups.

___Media people and outlets.

___Public services, agencies, and institutions.

___The target population.

When should you establish formal communications and request participation?

You establish formal communications and request participation:

___As early as possible.

___At the beginning of a legislative advocacy campaign.

___In the planning stage of an advocacy campaign.

___When you're trying to build momentum.

___When your campaign has taken off.

How do you establish formal communications and request participation?

___You begin by following basic communication guidelines:

• Use language your audience will understand.
• Be respectful.
• Build trust.
• Stress your areas of agreement.
• Be culturally sensitive.
• Keep communication lines open.

To establish formal communications:

___You determine just what "formal communications" means for a particular individual or group and acting accordingly.

• What is corrective feedback?

• Who should give corrective feedback?

• When should you give corrective feedback?

• What are some methods of feedback?

• How do you give corrective feedback?

• How can corrective feedback help an advocacy campaign?

Giving and receiving feedback is part of life. Sometimes the feedback you give or get is neither useful, nor meant to be. ("You're a jerk!" comes to mind, for instance.) Other feedback, however, is a sincere attempt to help the recipient improve his performance, behavior, understanding, relationships, or interpersonal skills. This is corrective feedback, and all of us need it from time to time.

In community advocacy, both advocates and their targets need corrective feedback. Individual advocates and advocacy organizations need to know how they and their efforts and messages are perceived by and affecting both the targets and beneficiaries of their work. The targets of advocacy - legislators and other policy makers, agencies that deliver services, interest groups, the general public - need to understand both the perception and the real results of their actions, or inaction, on people who are affected by the advocates' issue. In this section, we'll discuss feedback in general, and look at how to provide corrective feedback in productive and effective ways.

What is corrective feedback?

Corrective feedback is information provided to an individual or group about how her or its behavior, actions, style, strategies, etc. are perceived by and affecting others. It is meant to lead to positive change, and, in the case of community advocacy, to more effective advocacy or public policy.

To have any real power, corrective feedback must be delivered in such a way and by such a person that it will be attended to, rather than simply arousing defensiveness, denial, or anger. That means that the ideal provider of feedback is someone the recipient trusts and respects, and that the provider conveys the feedback as sensitively as possible.

"Feedback" is not the same as criticism, constructive or otherwise. It is meant, rather, to be a reflection of what has been put out by the person or group receiving it. Since other people aren't mirrors, however, that reflection is really their perception of what the feedback recipient intended or did.

It's important for the recipient to know whether the perception and her intention are the same. If not, she may be putting out messages - either in words or actions - that are unclear, misinterpreted, or in fact very different from what she intends, or thinks she intends. The intent and the perception need, in some way, to be brought together if she is to accomplish her purpose, whether that's to change social policy or to cement a personal relationship.

Feedback in general may have a number of possible purposes:

• To help individuals in their personal development
• To improve relationships between and among individuals and groups
• To improve communication between and among individuals and groups
• To help individuals or groups improve their performance
• To improve the climate within an organization
• To increase the effectiveness of an activity or initiative

Who should provide corrective feedback?

Who should provide feedback depends, to a large extent, upon where that feedback is directed. If its recipient is an individual advocate or advocacy organization, then appropriate providers of feedback would include anyone who has an interest in the success of the advocacy or anyone at whom the advocacy is aimed. These can include:

• Supervisors
• Colleagues
• Others who work with the same or a similar target population
• Interested community members
• Beneficiaries of the campaign
• The general public
• Policy makers
• All of the above (see 360-degree feedback below)

If the corrective feedback is directed at the targets of advocacy, it should be provided, to the extent possible, by those directly affected by the issue or by advocates who actually have the knowledge and understanding of the issue that allows them to speak for those affected. It can be relatively easy to gather people in support of a cause, but unless they have a very clear understanding of what they're advocating, it's unlikely that they can either provide useful feedback, or that they will be listened to.

When should you give corrective feedback?

Any time can be a good time for corrective feedback, but there are some situations in which it's particularly appropriate.

When it's requested. The ideal is that an individual or organization asks for feedback, either on a regular basis, or in a particular situation. If the recipient has sincerely requested the feedback, he's much more likely to take it to heart and act on it than if it's offered out of the blue.

As an advocate, you'd do well to build a feedback loop - a mechanism for getting feedback on what you're doing - into any activity or initiative. It will make your organization as well as your advocacy campaign more effective, and having a formal structure for feedback will make it easier to accept.

One example of a feedback loop would be an evaluation of the week's accomplishments - or of the meeting itself - at weekly staff meetings. Here, people can get feedback on what they've done, and help on doing it better or on going in a slightly different direction.

Sometimes, objects of advocacy build in feedback to their projects or campaigns as well. Government agencies or private corporations subject to government regulations usually have to hold public hearings about projects that will affect the public environmentally, economically, or in any other significant way. These hearings are opportunities for providing corrective feedback.

At the beginning of an advocacy campaign, especially in the planning stage. The more quickly feedback can point out potential mistakes or inappropriate messages, the less chance there is of the campaign being damaged by them.

When the preliminary effects of the campaign can begin to be analyzed. If there are areas of the campaign that don't seem to be working well, corrective feedback could help to put them back on track by identifying the problem.

When the actions of advocates or of a target of advocacy have had, or are about to have, unintended consequences. Unintended consequences aren't always visible. Corrective feedback can point them out and help make clear what steps to take to prevent or eliminate them.

A well-meant policy that has had clear unintended consequences, for instance, is that of the de-institutionalization of U.S. mental patients. The policy was intended to remove people from dehumanizing and, in some cases, brutal situations in state mental hospitals, and succeeded in that. Too often, however, former patients have ended up homeless, because the advocates and policy makers who formulated de-institutionalization laws and regulations made some incorrect assumptions about how patients would get care and where they would live when they left the mental health facility.

There were some who foresaw these consequences, but they weren't able to give feedback to de-institutionalization advocates and policy makers in such a way that it could be heard and attended to. They were branded as short-sighted, anti-human, or fascist, and the substance of their feedback was lost in the ideology of the moment. If they had been able to couch their feedback as having the patients' best interests at heart (which may, in fact, have been impossible in the politics of the time), the situation might have turned out differently.

When there's a danger of the campaign's or the advocate's alienating potential allies or the public. Corrective feedback can identify attitudes, language, or other elements that could offend or put off important segments of the community.

When damage has already been done. Corrective feedback can help to explain what happened and either repair the damage or - if that's impossible - at least keep it from recurring.

When you're monitoring or evaluating a campaign or specific actions, strategies, tactics, or phases of it.

What are some methods of feedback?

Feedback obviously can take many forms. It can be directed from individual to individual, or flow between and among individuals and groups. It can be formal or informal, mutual or one-way, written or verbal, personal or impersonal, requested or unsolicited, embraced or unwelcome. We'll examine some of the more common forms here, and concentrate on one in particular - 360-degree feedback - because we believe it can be particularly useful in the context of advocacy.

Although feedback, as we discussed earlier, is different from criticism - both more and less subjective, in that it is based on the provider's perception of reality, rather than his opinion - it nonetheless often feels like criticism, or even like an attack, to the recipient. One dimension of the forms of feedback below is the extent to which they tend to make the recipient - whether an individual or a group - feel defensive, and therefore less likely to take the feedback seriously and act on it.

One-on-one feedback

An individual delivering feedback to another, face-to -face, is probably the most common form, and also the one most commonly abused or mishandled. Its great disadvantage is that, no matter how sincere the intent of the provider, it's easy for the recipient to feel personally attacked. This is compounded when the provider is a supervisor or other person with some power over the recipient. For this reason, any provider of one-on-one feedback has to be aware of the possible and actual reactions of the recipient, and to be careful to deliver feedback sensitively.

Intra-group feedback

In this situation,individuals in a group provide feedback to the group and/or to one or more individuals within the group. If the feedback is directed to the performance of the group, it can be particularly effective, with one person's ideas stimulating others', and with everyone focused on improving the group's or their own performance or functioning. If the group's focus is on one individual, however, it can seem extremely threatening.

Group-to-group feedback

This might take place between two groups or organizations that are working together and having some difficulty doing so, or between two groups both working with the same population or toward the same goals. Although less common, it might also take place between opposing groups that agree to meet to try to work out differences. The feedback may go in one direction or both.

The feedback might be directed at particular individuals or at the group as a whole. All or several members of each group might be involved, or only one representative of each. In the latter case, both giving and receiving the feedback is somewhat eased by the fact that the provider is representing a number of people, and therefore not setting herself up as the direct target of whatever defensiveness or anger her feedback engenders. The recipient, on the other hand, is not himself the only object of the feedback, and might for that reason be less likely to be defensive or angry about it.

Consultative feedback

In this situation, an individual or group serves, by request, as a formal or informal consultant to another (usually to a group, but occasionally to an individual). The advantage here is that, since the feedback was requested, there's a better chance that the recipient will listen to it. The disadvantage is that the recipient has no obligation or compelling reason to listen to it, as she might if the community, armed with torches and pitchforks, were beating down the door.

Another possible type of feedback is impersonal - in writing or by e-mail, anonymously, in the media, etc. As feedback, this is generally much less useful than one of the other forms discussed here, because it lacks the immediacy of being presented directly by the provider, with the opportunity to explain or enlarge on it so that it's clearly understood. Impersonal feedback generally feels much more like a personal attack, and is therefore less likely to be effective.

360-degree feedback

360-degree feedback is so called because it involves feedback from every direction: supervisors, peers, subordinates, the community, etc. The idea is that people with different relationships to the recipient may see her in different ways, and it's only by looking at all those ways that she can get an accurate picture of how she's perceived and of what effects her actions actually have.

This method is often used in business as a means of employee or organizational development, but it's equally relevant to non-business situations. We'll examine the standard model of 360-degree feedback, and then discuss how it can be used in advocacy.

The following paragraphs look at how 360-degree feedback is used with an individual recipient. The procedure for organizations is similar, but sources of feedback may include more organizations than individuals, and discussion of the results will probably be internal to the organization, perhaps with the assistance of a hired consultant.

Note that 360-degree feedback is a tool for improvement, not evaluation. 360-degree feedback works best as an aid to the improvement of individual and group performance, rather than as an evaluation tool. The information gained from the process is almost always used to help generate new strategies and strengthen areas of concern, not to judge past performance.

• 360-degree feedback starts with the recipient. She may, with the assistance of a supervisor or other consultant, identify the areas she most wants to know about, and then make up a feedback form concentrating on them. In many cases, however, the organization may have its own form, or may hire a consulting firm - with its own form - to administer the process.
• Next, the recipient may choose her own sources of feedback (ideally a group of 7-10), with at least one each from among:
  • Supervisors
  • Peers
  • Supervisees or subordinates
  • Customers (i.e. the target population)
  • Others within the organization who don't fall into any of these categories, but who have a working relationship with the recipient
• Each source completes a feedback form. Most standard forms are multiple choice, but often include spaces for comments if sources want to add them.
• Someone - usually either the supervisor or the hired consultant - tabulates the results and puts them in a form that will provide the most useful information to the recipient. (Consulting firms often use computerized forms that produce graphs and other printouts. While these can be useful, they may also tend toward standardized explanations of results that are less helpful than analysis based on actual familiarity with the recipient and her work.)
• After the recipient has seen the feedback results, someone - usually the supervisor or hired consultant - discusses them with her. This discussion has to be conducted sensitively, especially if some or much of the feedback is negative. (In most cases, the feedback itself remains with the recipient, and is not made public in any way unless she chooses to do so.)
• The recipient may choose to confer with her sources about what they meant, how they arrived at their conclusions, what specific behavior of hers gave rise to specific comments, etc. They, on the other hand, may have the option of remaining anonymous, and may only volunteer the broadest interpretations of the feedback data.

The question of anonymity raises an issue that always exists in feedback situations. The recipient is not the only one risking something here, especially if she's a supervisor of many of the feedback sources. If she has in the past shown herself to be insensitive or vindictive, people may be unwilling to give honest feedback for fear of reprisals, or of having to deal with her possibly uncivil reactions. It can be difficult to strike a balance between the recipient getting the feedback she needs in order to change her behavior for the better, and feedback sources being protected from unreasonable reactions.

• The recipient, either alone or with the help of a supervisor or mentor, formulates a plan to address the issues identified by the feedback.
• The supervisor or mentor works with the recipient over time to support and assist her in carrying out the plan for change.

In a community advocacy context, 360-degree feedback would mean an advocacy organization receiving feedback from other organizations and individuals (both those that advocate for the same or similar causes, and those that work with the beneficiaries of advocacy), from the community at large, and from both the beneficiaries and targets of advocacy themselves.

If the feedback is directed at the targets of advocacy, then 360-degree feedback means that they need to get information from as many segments of the community as possible - beneficiaries of advocacy, businesses, agencies, advocates, the community at large, etc. Targets of advocacy need to hear from a broad cross-section of the population about the effects of their actions and policies.

When it's possible to conduct it, 360-degree feedback can be tremendously effective. It can give a nearly complete picture of how well an advocate or advocacy organization is doing his or its job, and of how he or it is perceived by the community. The targets of advocacy are more likely to take feedback seriously if they hear it from a broad range of people and organizations. Perhaps most telling, 360-degree feedback can identify the exact sources of problems with an advocacy campaign, making clear which segments of the community aren't being reached or are being offended, and thereby suggesting ways to improve the situation.

How do you give and accept corrective feedback?

Feedback of different kinds and from different sources all try to convey information to the recipient, but they carry different emotional weights and different (implied or actual) levels of coercion. An employer may give what she sees as supportive feedback to an employee, but often - depending upon their relationship and the character of the organization - there lurks beneath the surface the suggestion that if the employee doesn't shape up, he'll lose his job. A consultant may be hired to provide feedback to an organization or the individuals within it, but unless both the organization and the individuals are committed to taking that feedback seriously, the consultant may as well not have bothered.

Feedback from the community to an organization may be ignored as well. (They don't understand what we're doing; they don't see how much we're helping them; they don't care about the people we serve.) Feedback that comes from a friend may be taken more seriously than feedback from someone with no particular relationship to the recipient, or from someone who's seen as hostile. As both a provider and recipient of feedback, you have to be aware of the relationships involved, and of how they affect you and the other person.

Whether you're addressing a policy maker, a fellow advocate, a colleague or supervisee, or another organization as a whole, there are some general rules for providing feedback so that it will be heard. Even if you follow these rules, however, it's important to be aware of how you couch your feedback and the impact it will have.

Make your feedback formative, rather than summative. Formative feedback aims toward helping the recipient improve his effectiveness. Summative feedback sums up the recipient, making a judgment about his competence or personal worth. Thus, providing formative feedback means:

• Feedback should focus on developing skills and strengthening areas that need improvement, rather than criticizing or judging the recipient for inadequacy.
• The provider should suggest some possible alternatives to what the recipient has been doing.
• Feedback should help the recipient set reasonable goals for changing and improving performance or behavior.

Be supportive.

• Start with the positive. Emphasize what really went well, and praise what the individual or group is doing right.
• See if the recipient is aware of the issues or concerns that the feedback addresses before stating them directly. If it comes from the recipient himself, he's much less likely to be defensive, and apt to be more constructive and creative in discussing alternatives.
• Don't look for expressions of guilt or responsibility, but rather for changes that will improve the effectiveness of an individual's or organization's efforts.
• Especially if you're dealing with the opposition, or with the targets of advocacy, assume - or, better yet, identify and describe - common ground and your common interest in making things better.

Focus on the specific issue, and don't point fingers.

Identify the issue or problem as clearly and specifically as possible. Once you've done that, stick to exploring it. The question is not "Who's to blame?" but "How do we make this work as well as possible?"

Be honest.

Providing formative feedback, being supportive, and not blaming don't mean not being honest. To the contrary, they require honesty, or the feedback will be useless.

• Deal directly with the real problem or issue. Identify it clearly. If you know, explain how it became a problem, and help the recipient work out strategies for fixing it now and preventing its recurrence in the future.
• If the issue is a personal one, identify it clearly and help the recipient understand how to address it.

Doing this well calls for a certain amount of sensitivity and the use of "I-statements." Again, don't point fingers looking for blame: instead, use statements that talk about the effect of the other person's behavior or actions on you or those who've talked to you.

Finger-pointing means saying "You're a jerk because you do X." An I-statement starts with "I": "I feel attacked when you do X." The difference is that the second statement focuses only on your response to the other's actions, not his character or intent, and leaves room for him to explain that he doesn't mean to cause that reaction. Then you can discuss how alternative behavior can change the situation.

Listen to the recipient's reaction to your feedback. This is part of being supportive, but it's also part of the basic feedback process. You may learn something important about why a particular situation arose, or why things were done in a certain way. You may find that changing the situation is more complex than you expected, or that it needs to be done in a way different from what you assumed.

At the same time, although it's important to be understanding about the recipient's reaction, you need to stay firm and focussed on the issue. The issue is real, and you have to deal with it, or it's going to be a bigger problem in the future.

Help to formulate a plan to address the issues your feedback raised, and offer assistance to carry it out. This is equally true whether you're providing feedback to an individual advocate, to a staff member in your organization, to an organization as a whole, or to the target(s) of advocacy. Corrective feedback is useless unless it actually helps to correct a problem. The best way to assure that there's a good solution is to be part of it yourself.

In many ways, the guidelines for accepting feedback are similar to those for giving it:

• Try to listen objectively to what the provider has to say. The first step is simply to hear what's being offered. To the extent that you can, try to control your emotional reaction and your defensiveness, and simply hear the statement.
• Be honest with yourself. This is also at least partially a matter of putting your emotional response aside. Does the feedback address something actual? If you truly believe the provider is mistaken, is that at least partially your doing? What are the advantages of acting or not acting on this feedback? The disadvantages?
• If you truly believe the provider's impression is mistaken, discuss it with her. Find out what caused her to think or feel the way she did. Even if her impression is mistaken, it's important that she, and perhaps others, have that impression, and it may need to be corrected. On the other hand, she may know things you don't, or you may simply not be facing reality... and may need to.
• Discuss with the provider ways to address the issues raised. Work out a plan that speaks to the difficulties she and others have had with your plans, actions, behavior, etc. Then ask for help in implementing that plan.
• Thank the provider. True corrective feedback is meant to be helpful, not critical. Most of the time, the provider is actually doing you a favor, and it may have entailed a certain amount of courage on her part. Her feedback may help to extract you from a difficult situation, or head off a disaster. She deserves your gratitude.

How can corrective feedback help an advocacy campaign?

In addition to the general reasons above, corrective feedback is particularly important to an advocacy campaign. If it's to be successful, such a campaign has to have a powerful message that speaks to both the emotions and the intellect, that's clearly understood by its targets, and that doesn't scare or otherwise drive potential allies away. Timely and accurate feedback can help both advocates and the objects of advocacy, and can bolster success in several ways.

Advocates

Feedback can help advocates recognize and acknowledge errors, problems, and issues that could derail the campaign. As painful as it often is to admit that you 're doing something wrong, you can't correct a mistake until you acknowledge it. Corrective feedback can help to identify issues so that they can be dealt with.

Feedback can flag potential errors before they become problems. Sometimes a plan contains elements that would inevitably lead to failure if they're put into place. Corrective feedback from the right sources could help advocates identify and eliminate such elements before they bring disaster.

Feedback can help to avoid alienating potential allies. If an advocate or advocacy effort is seen as elitist, extremist, or out of touch with the mainstream, it can drive away people who would otherwise support the cause. Corrective feedback can alert individuals and groups when they are perceived, or are in danger of being perceived, as unacceptable to some potential allies.

Feedback can help advocates claim the moral high ground. It's difficult to be seen as morally superior if you're perceived as largely engaged in bashing opponents. Having a clear sense of how the world sees their campaign can allow advocates to adjust it to keep the moral advantage.

Targets of Advocacy

Corrective feedback can also be a useful tool when directed at the targets of advocacy. It can be useful to advocates in helping to change or focus the thinking of policy makers and others, of course. But it can also be useful to the targets themselves, in helping them to accomplish their goals, which may include some of the advocates ' goals as well.

Feedback can help the targets of advocacy avoid unintended consequences. Many policies that seem mean-spirited or vindictive are actually meant to benefit the people who are hurt by them. Their originators simply didn't allow for effects that weren't immediately apparent when the policies were formulated. Corrective feedback from advocates or from the community can help policy makers to understand when this is the case, and to change policies in ways that will correct the situation.

Feedback can help the targets of advocacy improve their image with various constituencies. Politicians, agency heads, hospital administrators, corporate CEOs and others responsible for policy or social conditions often seem - and may be - removed and uncaring. By listening to and acting on corrective feedback, the targets of advocacy can show that they are responsive to the needs of the community, and that they care about doing the right thing, thus making accomplishing all their goals easier.

In Summary

Corrective feedback is information on how the recipient and/or his actions are perceived by the provider or others who have confided in her. It is meant to lead to positive change for the recipient, and, in the context of this chapter, to improve his effectiveness as an advocate.

Advocates and others need to provide and accept corrective feedback in order to deal as objectively as possible with reality. In advocacy particularly, feedback can help to avoid or correct potential or real errors, to avoid alienating potential allies or the community, and to make it possible for advocates to claim the moral high ground. It can also allow targets of advocacy to avoid unintended consequences, and to gain credibility with their constituents and the community.

Corrective feedback can be provided by anyone with an interest in the issue. When providing feedback to targets of advocacy, however, it's important that the providers be people who have some credibility - either long-term, knowledgeable advocates or people directly affected by the issue.

Although important at any time, feedback can be particularly appropriate when it's requested, or when it's necessary to prevent or correct an error in the planning or implementation of an advocacy campaign (or any other initiative). It's especially helpful as a preventative - in the planning stages of an initiative, for instance - but can also serve to minimize the effects of disaster.

Feedback can take several forms: one-to-one, intraorganizational, interorganizational (group-to-group), impersonal, or 360-degree. This last, which is often the ideal, consists of feedback from all directions. In the case of advocacy, this means everyone interested in the initiative, from beneficiaries to colleagues to supervisors to the community at large.

Some general guidelines for giving feedback:

• Make your feedback formative, not summative.
• Be supportive.
• Focus on the issue, not on guilt or blame.
• Be honest.
• Listen to the response of the recipient.
• Help to formulate a plan to deal with the issues you raised, and offer help in carrying it out as well.

Some general guidelines for accepting feedback.

• Listen objectively to what the provider is saying.
• Be honest with yourself.
• If you think the provider's impressions are mistaken, discuss that with her.
• Ask for and use the provider's help to formulate and implement a plan to address the issues her feedback raised.
• Thank the provider.

Follow these guidelines, use 360-degree feedback where possible, and be sensitive to others' feelings and needs whether you're giving or accepting feedback, and it will benefit you and make your work more effective.

What is corrective feedback?

___You understand the definition and purpose of corrective feedback.

Who should give corrective feedback?

___As an advocate, you accept feedback from anyone who is affected by an advocacy campaign, whether as an advocate, a target, a beneficiary, or an interested observer.

___In dealing with targets of advocacy, you know that corrective feedback must be offered by advocates, beneficiaries of advocacy, or others who clearly understand the issue, and have some standing.

When should you give corrective feedback?

You provide (and accept) corrective feedback:

___When it is requested.

___ At the beginning of an advocacy campaign, especially in the planning stage.

___When the preliminary effects of the campaign can begin to be analyzed.

___When it's necessary to avoid unintended consequences.

___When it's necessary to avoid alienating real or potential allies or the public.

___When damage control is needed.

___When you're monitoring or evaluating a campaign or specific parts of it.

What are some methods of feedback?

You know how and when to use and not to use:

___One-to-one feedback.

___Intragroup feedback.

___Group-to-group feedback.

___Impersonal feedback.

___360-degree feedback.

How do you give and accept corrective feedback?

Giving feedback:

___Your feedback is formative, not summative.

___You're supportive when giving feedback.

___You focus on the specific issue, and don't point fingers.

___You're honest.

___You listen to the reaction to your feedback.

___Your feedback leads to a plan to address the issues it raises, and you offer help to carry out the plan.

Accepting feedback:

___You listen objectively to what the provider is saying.

___You're honest with yourself.

___If you think the provider's impressions are mistaken, you discuss that with her.

___You ask for and use the provider's help to formulate and implement a plan to address the issues her feedback raised.

___You thank the provider.

How can corrective feedback help an advocacy campaign?

You provide (and accept) corrective feedback to:

___Help advocates recognize errors, problems, and issues that could derail the campaign.

___Flag potential errors before they become problems.

___Avoid alienating potential allies.

___Help advocates claim the moral high ground.

___Help targets of advocacy avoid unintended consequences.

___Help targets of advocacy improve their image with their constituency and the community.

• What does it mean to frame the issue?

• Why should you think about how the issue is framed?

• When should you consider framing (or reframing) an issue?

• How should you best frame an issue?

• How should you reframe an issue?

 

What does it mean to frame the issue?

Framing is a way of structuring or presenting a problem or an issue. Framing involves explaining and describing the context of the problem to gain the most support from your audience. Your audience is key to framing. The way a problem is posed, or framed, should reflect the attitudes and beliefs of your audience.

Who is your audience? It might be anyone, including a single influential person, a person or group affected by the problem, a community group, or the media. It may also change from day to day, as you talk to different people.

Regardless as to who your audience is, when framing an issue you should be specific about:

• What is the issue?
• Who is involved?
• What contributes to the problem?
• What contributes to the solution?

More details on these questions are found under "How should you best frame an issue," below.

Why should you think about how the issue is framed?

The answer is simple. Framing an issue helps structure thinking about what the problem is about and how it can be addressed. It gives your audience a particular mindset about your issue. And mindsets are powerful; they govern future thoughts and action.

In other words, the framing hints at what the issue is, who is responsible, and what possible solutions are. Successful framing puts your group in a favorable position to direct the discussion of the problem and improves the chances of a successful solution, in a way that is best both for your group and for the community.

Just as how a picture or painting is framed affects how we see it and how we value it, how a social issue is framed similarly affects our perceptions and values.

Reframing is the flip side of framing. It is a way of altering the presentation of an issue to counter opposing views.

Sometimes the original frame in which the issue is described or explained may not be the best one for you or others who are concerned with the problem. In such cases it may make sense to reframe the issue for your audience. This may also improve your chances of solving the problem.

When should you consider framing (or reframing) an issue?

• Every time you present your issue and want to gain support
• When you are attempting to influence what is on the public agendas
• When the opposition's framing may interfere with your plan of action.

Most of the time, thinking in advance about framing the issue pays off!

How do you best frame an issue?

To frame an issue, you should begin by asking these questions:

• What is the issue?
• Who is involved?
• What contributes to the problem?
• What contributes to the solution?

Once you've asked these questions, you can begin to answer them. For some guidelines on how to do this, see the sections below.

What is the issue?

Framing begins with naming the issue as a problem. Naming and framing the problem allow you to address the issue in specific terms to suit your cause or the purpose of your audience.

Two common ways of framing are 1) framing an issue broadly as "common ground," and 2) framing an issues from a "single angle."

Framing as "Common Ground"

Common ground framing allows you to address the broad issue from many angles. Most societal concerns are a result of several different factors. By examining the issue at its broadest level, you can address many of these factors.

For example, abstinence and access to contraceptives are two of the many factors associated with teen pregnancy. The common ground framing approach would portray the problem broadly, as "teen pregnancy," as contrasted with a single factor such as "lack of contraceptives." For instance:

• View one: Abstinence is the only acceptable method to prevent teen pregnancy.
• View two: Teens must have access to contraceptives to prevent teen pregnancy.
• Common ground: Teen pregnancy is the higher issue. A variety of strategies may be needed to prevent adolescent pregnancy.

By keeping the issue at a broad level--teen pregnancy--the group can help establish common ground for working together.

Framing from a "single angle"

The single angle approach allows you to emphasize one or more particular factors contributing to the problem. It may be most helpful when you are working with a small, specific group of people.

In many cases, the single angle approach can have an impact on a number of broader issues. For example:

• View one: Teen pregnancy is a big problem in our community.
• View two: Sexually transmitted diseases are affecting our youth at alarming rates.
• Single angle: Contraceptive access for teens is important to prevent a variety of health concerns, including teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

By identifying either abstinence or contraceptive access as the particular issue, your efforts for either objective will not only have an impact on teen pregnancy, but can also affect the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Depending on both what you are trying to accomplish and who you work with, which of these methods you use to frame the problem may change. In fact, it may even change depending on your audience at a given moment. Generally speaking, a common ground approach is better for large, diverse audiences, who may not agree on all strategies, and a single angle approach can be used with more heterogeneous groups. However, each situation should be looked at carefully on a case by case basis.

Who is involved?

Framing the issue also involves identifying the audience you are speaking to or for. A primary audience is made of targets of change--those individuals who are affected by the problem, or whose actions may contribute either to the problem or solution.

For example, targets of change for teen pregnancy logically include teens, but could also include parents and teachers. The audience might also include agents of change, people who can contribute to a solution. That is, teens can be potential agents of change for other teens who are at risk for adolescent pregnancy. Explicitly identifying the audience you are addressing will help clarify who is responsible for the issue and will help solicit champions for addressing it.

A key to successful framing is knowing your audience and directing your presentation in a way that addresses its needs. Gaining support from your audience is essential to the framing process.

What contributes to the problem?

Framing helps communicate information about what factors are contributing to the problem. Problems in larger systems, such as the educational system or the economic system, can add to or perpetuate the problem.

For example, one of the risk factors for teen pregnancy is time spent unsupervised. Some might argue that this is a result of the economic or educational systems, which do not provide for alternative activities for youth. Identifying large system barriers and resistance will help clarify the factors lending to the problem. Framing these points to your particular audience will enhance support for your cause.

What contributes to the solution?

By knowing who is responsible for the problem and what other factors are contributing to it, you can begin to seek solutions or strategies for addressing it. Framing the issue with possible solutions can help to focus the actions of your audience. Possible strategies for solutions include:

• Education and skill building
• Promoting access (or reducing it)
• Providing incentives and disincentives
• Arranging opportunities and resources
• Influencing public policy

How do you choose among these? The strategy choice will depend upon the values of those doing the choosing. For example, schools and religious organizations who want to prevent teen pregnancy may be more interested in promoting sexuality education, while health organizations and businesses may promote access to contraceptives. Framing allows the various strategies to be presented at the proper time and in the proper manner, so as to maximize support from the audience which hears them.

How should you reframe an issue?

Reframing is accomplished in the same manner as original framing. However, often more effort is needed to get your message across. Effective media advocacy may be necessary to change the original framing.

One of the most basic requirements for successful reframing is to structure the issue on your own terms, yet at the same time tailor it to your audience. Reframing the issue should maximize your efforts and counteract the efforts of the opposition.

Example: The tobacco industry has, for many years, framed cigarette smoking as something that "real men" do. These companies were successful by representing strong, rugged men as smokers. Advocacy groups who protested the use of tobacco had to change that image by reframing the issue as one of a health concern. Such groups began the battle by representing cigarette smokers as having black lungs, yellowing fingernails, and bad breath. This reframing has been successful at changing the focus of the issue.

Here are some other examples of reframing involving the tobacco industry. Tobacco industry framing is given first, with health-oriented reframing following in bold.

Smoking is a matter of personal choice.

People smoke because they are addicted.

Smoking bans discriminate against smokers.

Non-smokers have the right to breathe clean air.

The tobacco companies do good through sponsorship of cultural, athletic and community events.

The tobacco companies attempt to gain innocence by association.

Tobacco is just one of many presumed health hazards. Why don't we regulate fat?

Tobacco is the only legal product that when used as intended, kills.

___You understand what it means to frame the debate.

___You understand the issue, who is involved and contributing factors.

___You understand that successful framing puts your group in a favorable position to direct the discussion of the problem.

You understand when you should consider framing or reframing an issue:

___Every time you present your issue and want to gain support

___When you are attempting to influence the public agenda

___When framing by the opposition may interfere with your plan of action

You understand how to successfully frame an issue:

___You understand what the issue is.

___You understand how to frame an issue as "common ground."

___You understand how to frame an issue as "single angle."

___You know how to tell who is involved.

___You know how to communicate information about what contributes to the problem.

___You know how to communicate information about what contributes to the solution.

___You understand how to reframe the issue.

Example #1: Reframing the substance use debate

Adolescent substance use is a nationwide problem. In particular, many national campaigns have sought to reduce the use of alcohol by minors. Framing and reframing the issue proved to be a significant key to gaining community support for an adolescent substance use coalition.

The coalition was experiencing difficulty in gaining support from many community members. The reason? The coalition operates in a college town, where adolescent alcohol consumption is thought of more as a rite of passage than a problem. That put the coalition in a vulnerable situation: Without support for their cause, how could they survive as an organization? Or, more importantly, how could they have an impact on substance use?

The coalition began brainstorming. Several new ideas began to emerge. Adolescent substance use is not just alcohol consumption, but also involves other substances that were public health concerns: marijuana, cocaine, tobacco, etc. The coalition began examining the risk and protective factors associated with substance use.  They soon realized that most (if not all) of the risk and protective factors for alcohol use were relevant to addressing all of the various substances.

With this in mind, they reframed the issue to gain maximum support from the community. They chose to emphasize tobacco use, which most agree is a public health problem affecting youth today. Although the coalition's mission has not changed, the framing has been transformed to fit the purpose of a wider audience. As a result, the coalition received greater support from the community.

 

EXAMPLE #2: HOW TO TALK ABOUT FOOD AND FITNESS/COMMUNITY HEALTH

This brief summary highlights the FrameWorks Institute’s research on public perceptions of food and fitness. It summarizes three cultural models associated with food and fitness and community health that dominate public thinking, and provides guidance for reframing the issues to elevate community support.

 

Example #3: Framing Community Safety: Guidance for Effective Communication

The FrameWorks Institute offers Framing Community Safety: Guidance for Effective Communication (pdf), which is a guide for nonprofits, community-based organizations, public agencies, and others who want to communicate more effectively with the public about community-led efforts to prevent violence and promote safety and healing. Read more.

Example #4: From Victims to Survivors: Language Matters

Marvia Jones, MPH, PhD, Director of the Kansas City, Missouri Health Department, spoke at a panel titled Community-Engaged Research: Perspectives from researchers and community partners, at the Life Span Institute Collaboratory in Lawrence, Kansas. Dr. Jones shared the following about the importance of the use of language in community-based efforts:

“There was a study the Health Department was a part of, funded by the Department of Justice, titled, ‘Addressing Trauma in Youth Victims of Violence.’ One of the elements of our intervention was a survey. We would go out and ask, 'How many times have you been a victim of violence? What kinds of violence have you been a victim of?’ We used the word 'victim' in different ways. The people administering the surveys were saying 'These people spent the rest of the interview talking about how they’re not a victim.' They were talking about the term ‘victim’, about calling them a victim, calling them a victim in a circumstance, asking if they’ve been victimized, when have they been traumatized, anything that sounded like that. Those being interviewed didn’t see their everyday life as traumatic or their experiences as victimization. They just said it was a part of their experience; part of their life. We kept interviewing people to get to the crux of it, and someone said, 'It’s dangerous for me to ever consider myself to be a victim. That makes me weak, and makes me vulnerable.' So, we changed our approach. We changed the way we ask that question, and we also changed the way that we refer to people in the community who had experienced violence. We call them 'survivors,’ or 'people who have experienced violence,' or 'people who have been impacted by violence.' The federal funding is made by Congress, so we couldn’t change the study’s title, but we changed the way that we addressed the community about that issue.”

Example #5: ‘Affordable housing belongs here’: Nur Kausar makes the case for abundant housing

Nur Kausar, Business Development Manager at EAH Housing, discusses her commitment to expanding affordable housing in California. With a background in journalism and experience at Housing California and the state's Department of Housing and Community Development, Kausar emphasizes the importance of shifting narratives around homelessness and housing scarcity. She advocates for solution-oriented storytelling, utilizing Strategic CaseMaking principles to highlight the positive impacts of affordable housing and counter misconceptions that homelessness is a personal choice.
 

Kausar employs practical strategies like organizing tours of affordable housing developments to demonstrate successful solutions and engage stakeholders. She underscores the significance of illustrating potential losses if affordable housing is not prioritized, citing the rebuilding of Paradise, California, after a wildfire as an example of community resilience supported by affordable housing initiatives. Through her work, Kausar aims to inspire collective action and policy changes to ensure safe, stable homes for all Californians.

Read more about this story here.