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 participate in developing a proposal for change?

• When should you develop a proposal for change?

• How do you develop a proposal for change?

What do we mean by developing a proposal for change?

A proposal for change is a specific, evidence-informed recommendation for addressing a community issue, changing a policy or practice, improving a service, preventing harm, or creating better conditions.

Advocacy is often stronger when it identifies not only what should change, but also what a workable alternative might look like.

A proposal might include:

• A new or revised policy
• An intervention or program
• Changes to an existing service
• A funding or budget proposal
• Legislation or regulatory language
• A long-term strategic plan
• A combination of several approaches

Developing a proposal does not mean that your organization must already know the answer.

In some situations, you may begin with a fairly clear idea of what needs to change. In others, research and community participation may substantially change your understanding of the problem or the solution.

The proposal should therefore be treated as something that develops from evidence, lived experience, professional knowledge, community priorities, legal requirements, and practical constraints.

Example: Addressing homelessness in Pratt City

Imagine that Pratt City is experiencing an economic downturn.

Businesses have closed, workers have lost jobs, and more residents are experiencing housing instability and homelessness.

With cold weather approaching, community organizations are concerned that people without safe housing may face serious health and safety risks.

Rather than proposing only an emergency response, a local coalition decides to develop a broader proposal.

The planning group includes:

• People currently or formerly experiencing homelessness
• Housing and homelessness-service organizations
• Health and behavioral-health professionals
• Local government representatives
• Affordable-housing organizations
• Community members
• Researchers or other people with relevant expertise

The group examines immediate safety needs as well as longer-term issues such as affordable housing, income, health care, transportation, eviction prevention, and access to supportive services.

Its goal is not simply to create a proposal for people experiencing homelessness, but to develop it with them.

Common forms of proposals for change

An intervention or series of interventions

A proposal may recommend one intervention or several coordinated actions.

For example, a community addressing housing instability might combine:

• Emergency shelter or other immediate safe housing options
• Eviction prevention
• Affordable housing development
• Rental assistance
• Health and behavioral-health services
• Employment or income supports
• Permanent supportive housing where appropriate

Legislation or regulation

Some changes require new or revised law, regulation, ordinance, or administrative policy.

Community organizations can contribute:

• Recommended policy language
• Draft legislative concepts
• Technical comments
• Evidence about implementation
• Testimony from people affected
• Cost or funding information

Drafting proposed language can help clarify what advocates want, but legislation should usually be developed with people who understand applicable law, legislative drafting, implementation, and enforcement.

Do not assume that community advocates automatically understand the legal or administrative details better than legislative or agency staff.

Different participants bring different kinds of expertise.

Expanding or improving existing services

Sometimes the necessary infrastructure already exists but does not have enough capacity, funding, accessibility, or reach.

A proposal might therefore recommend:

• Additional funding
• Expanded hours
• More locations
• Language access
• Disability access
• Revised eligibility rules
• Better coordination among providers
• Improved outreach

A long-term strategic plan

Complex issues may require action over many years.

A strategic proposal may include:

• Vision
• Goals
• Objectives
• Strategies
• Responsibilities
• Timelines
• Funding
• Evaluation
• Sustainability

Why develop a proposal for change?

To move from identifying a problem to considering solutions

Pointing out a problem can be necessary, especially when harm is being ignored.

A proposal adds another step by explaining what could be done differently.

This can help decision-makers and community members evaluate actual options rather than discussing the issue only in general terms.

To incorporate community knowledge

People directly affected by an issue often understand barriers, unintended consequences, and practical realities that are not visible in administrative data or professional research.

Organizations, practitioners, researchers, public officials, and others may contribute different forms of expertise.

Strong proposals combine these forms of knowledge rather than treating one group as the single authority.

To clarify what you are advocating for

A specific proposal can make it easier to explain:

• What needs to change
• Why the change is needed
• Who would be responsible
• What resources are required
• How implementation would occur
• How progress would be evaluated

To identify tradeoffs and unintended consequences

A concrete proposal can be examined more carefully than a general demand for change.

Ask:

• Who benefits?
• Who may experience costs or burdens?
• What might happen unintentionally?
• What implementation challenges are likely?
• What protections or adjustments may be needed?

To create a basis for public discussion

A proposal can help organize discussion, but its purpose should not be to set artificial boundaries around what counts as an acceptable solution.

Other groups may identify better alternatives or important concerns.

Treat public discussion as an opportunity to improve the proposal rather than simply gain support for a predetermined plan.

Who should participate in developing a proposal for change?

Whenever practical, use a participatory process.

The planning team should reflect the people, organizations, expertise, and institutions relevant to the issue.

People directly affected

Their involvement should be meaningful rather than symbolic.

They may help:

• Define the issue
• Identify barriers
• Evaluate possible solutions
• Identify unintended consequences
• Set priorities
• Decide what success should mean

Organizations and staff involved in implementation

Include organizations that may be responsible for carrying out part of the proposal.

Their practical knowledge can help determine:

• Staffing needs
• Costs
• Legal constraints
• Operational barriers
• Training needs
• Implementation timelines

Community organizations and advocates

People who have worked on the issue may contribute historical knowledge, relationships, organizing experience, or familiarity with prior attempts at change.

Public officials and agency staff

Their involvement may be useful when government has authority, funding responsibility, regulatory responsibility, or implementation duties.

Include them because of the knowledge or authority they bring, not simply because their participation might make the proposal easier to approve.

Researchers and subject-matter experts

Relevant expertise may be needed for:

• Research design
• Data analysis
• Legal questions
• Public health
• Finance
• Housing
• Environmental science
• Education
• Other technical areas

Other community members likely to be affected

Depending on the proposal, this might include:

• Residents
• Parents and caregivers
• Young people
• Older adults
• Workers
• Property owners or tenants
• Businesses
• Neighborhood organizations

Support meaningful participation

Some participants may be unfamiliar with planning meetings, technical documents, legislative processes, or professional terminology.

That does not mean they lack relevant expertise.

Participation can be strengthened by:

• Explaining unfamiliar terminology
• Providing materials in advance
• Using plain language
• Providing interpretation and translation
• Providing disability access
• Offering childcare or transportation support
• Compensating community members for substantial time or expertise when possible
• Using facilitation methods that prevent professional or institutional participants from dominating
• Giving everyone access to the same relevant information

Avoid labeling participants as “professional” and “nonprofessional” in ways that imply one group's knowledge is inherently more valuable.

When should you develop a proposal for change?

A proposal can be useful whenever a community needs to move from identifying a problem toward evaluating possible action.

In some urgent situations, however, immediate protective action may need to occur before a detailed proposal is complete.

Examples might include:

• Immediate threats to health or safety
• Imminent displacement
• An approaching legal deadline
• Emergency environmental harm
• An urgent rights violation

Immediate action and longer-term planning can occur at the same time.

At the beginning of an advocacy effort

A concrete proposal can clarify what your organization is seeking while remaining open to revision as new information emerges.

During a legislative or regulatory process

Proposed language, evidence, implementation analysis, and community testimony may help policymakers understand what a change would require.

During budget planning

Budget proposals should explain:

• What funding would support
• Who would be served or affected
• Expected costs
• Staffing or infrastructure needs
• How results would be assessed

When there is a clear problem but no clear solution

This is often when participatory planning is most valuable.

Avoid assuming that your organization must produce the solution before someone else does.

Collaborative problem-solving may produce stronger options than competition over whose proposal appears first.

When another proposal is being considered

If you believe another proposal has significant weaknesses, explain those concerns and offer evidence-informed alternatives when possible.

A proposal does not become better simply because it comes from your organization rather than a policymaker, funder, business, agency, or another advocacy group.

When public attention creates an opportunity for change

Public attention may increase during:

• Legislative sessions
• Budget processes
• Elections
• Regulatory reviews
• Community crises
• Major reports or investigations

These moments can create opportunities to present proposals, but proposals should not be designed primarily around electoral advantage.

How do you develop a proposal for change?

Assemble the planning team

Include the people and organizations whose knowledge, experience, authority, or responsibilities are relevant.

Ask:

• Who is directly affected?
• Who understands the issue?
• Who would implement the proposal?
• Who has relevant authority?
• Who may experience unintended effects?
• Whose perspective is currently missing?

Do the necessary research

Relevant research may include:

• Community history
• Current law and policy
• Funding
• Existing services
• Community experiences
• Administrative data
• Research literature
• Approaches used elsewhere
• Cost and resource information
• Possible implementation barriers

Evaluate approaches used elsewhere rather than assuming that something labeled a “best practice” will automatically work in your community.

Differences in population, funding, laws, institutions, geography, and implementation can affect results.

Include lived experience in the research

Interviews, listening sessions, surveys, or other methods can help identify needs that formal data do not capture.

People experiencing the issue should not be asked only to provide personal stories while professionals conduct the “real” analysis.

Whenever possible, involve them in:

• Designing the research
• Interpreting findings
• Setting priorities
• Developing recommendations

Analyze the issue

Ask whether the problem being discussed is:

• The primary issue
• A symptom of a broader issue
• The result of several interacting causes

Avoid assuming there is always one “root cause.”

Complex community problems often have multiple contributing factors.

Examine existing resources

Before creating a new program or system, ask:

• What already exists?
• Is it effective?
• Is it accessible?
• Is it adequately funded?
• Could coordination or expansion address the problem?
• Is an entirely new approach actually necessary?

Develop several options when possible

Avoid moving directly from identifying a problem to a single preferred solution.

Compare possible approaches according to:

• Evidence of effectiveness
• Cost
• Accessibility
• Equity
• Feasibility
• Community priorities
• Legal requirements
• Sustainability
• Possible unintended consequences

Choose the strongest feasible approach

The simplest solution is not always the best, and the most comprehensive solution is not always feasible.

Choose an approach that is sufficient to address the problem while avoiding unnecessary complexity, cost, or burden.

Define the desired outcome

Describe what success would look like.

The desired outcome should be ambitious enough to matter while remaining grounded in available evidence, authority, resources, and time.

Some goals may require incremental progress rather than one final endpoint.

Work backward from the desired outcome

One useful planning method is to start with the desired result and identify the conditions and actions required to reach it.

This can help identify:

• Dependencies
• Missing resources
• Decision points
• Implementation barriers
• Needed partnerships

Examine barriers and unintended consequences

Consider effects on:

• People directly affected
• Organizations responsible for implementation
• Workers
• Community members
• Public agencies
• Funders
• Other groups likely to experience benefits or burdens

Define action steps

For each major component, identify:

• What will happen
• Who is responsible
• When it will happen
• What resources are required
• How progress will be measured

Define responsibilities and accountability

Be explicit about:

• Who funds the work
• Who implements it
• Who oversees it
• Who evaluates it
• Who receives reports
• How community members can raise concerns
• What happens if commitments are not met

Create a realistic timeline

Include:

• Start dates
• Major milestones
• Implementation periods
• Evaluation points
• Review dates

Some proposals may not have a final endpoint because the service or responsibility must continue.

In those cases, distinguish between:

• The point at which implementation is complete
• The ongoing work required to maintain the change

Revisiting the Pratt City example

After reviewing research, local data, available resources, and the experiences of people affected, the Pratt City planning group develops a proposal that addresses both immediate safety and longer-term housing stability.

Immediate safety

The community might consider:

• Expanding emergency shelter capacity
• Providing safe temporary indoor spaces during severe weather
• Conducting outreach to people sleeping outside
• Providing food, transportation, clothing, and other immediate necessities
• Coordinating with health and emergency-response organizations

Avoid encouraging people to construct informal shelters as a substitute for safe, lawful emergency housing.

Long-term housing stability

Longer-term strategies might include:

• Increasing affordable housing
• Permanent supportive housing
• Rental assistance
• Eviction prevention
• Housing navigation
• Employment and income supports
• Health and behavioral-health care
• Transportation
• Legal assistance

Housing support should not assume that people experiencing homelessness primarily need to develop better “personal skills” in order to remain housed.

Housing stability can also depend on rent levels, income, disability, discrimination, health, available housing, domestic violence, transportation, legal barriers, and other structural conditions.

Community connection and voluntary support

Some participants may value peer support, community navigation, mentoring, or other relationship-based programs.

These should be voluntary and designed with people experiencing homelessness rather than automatically assigning each person or family a volunteer who is expected to guide their lives.

Plan for implementation and sustainability

A proposal should explain how successful changes will continue.

Sustainability may involve:

• Ongoing funding
• Permanent staff responsibilities
• Integration into public systems
• Continued community participation
• Policy or legislative support
• Monitoring and evaluation

Sustainability does not mean that the original committee or advocacy campaign must remain active indefinitely.

A healthier goal is to build durable systems, responsibilities, and oversight so that change does not depend permanently on the same volunteers.

Present the proposal

Present the proposal early enough that it can contribute meaningfully to public and institutional decision-making.

Possible channels include:

• Public meetings
• Legislative or agency briefings
• Community forums
• Reports
• Websites
• Email
• Social media
• News organizations
• Public-comment processes

Personal networks can help obtain attention, but they should not be the only route into decision-making.

Make materials accessible to people who do not already have relationships with officials, journalists, funders, or institutional leaders.

Explain the evidence and limitations

A proposal should clearly identify:

• The problem
• The evidence
• The proposed response
• Costs
• Expected benefits
• Important uncertainties
• Possible unintended consequences
• Implementation responsibilities
• Evaluation plans

Revise the proposal when necessary

A proposal should not become fixed simply because advocates have already promoted it publicly.

Revise it when:

• New evidence emerges
• People directly affected identify important problems
• Implementation costs change
• Legal requirements change
• Early implementation reveals unintended consequences
• A better alternative becomes available

Changing the proposal in response to evidence is part of responsible planning, not a sign that the original advocacy failed.

Continue advocacy and monitoring as needed

Some proposals may be adopted quickly. Others may require sustained advocacy.

Persistence can matter, but organizations should periodically ask:

• Is this still the right proposal?
• Has the problem changed?
• What progress has occurred?
• Are people directly affected still supporting the approach?
• Are there better options?
• Is continued advocacy the best use of available resources?

The goal is not simply to keep advocating until the original proposal is adopted exactly as written.

The goal is to help create an effective, equitable, sustainable response to the community issue.

In Summary

A proposal for change turns a general concern into a specific set of possible actions.

Strong proposals are developed through research, community participation, practical expertise, and careful analysis.

Include people directly affected by the issue as meaningful planning partners.

Combine lived experience with professional, technical, legal, administrative, and research knowledge rather than treating one group as the sole authority.

Examine existing programs and resources before creating something new.

Consider several possible approaches and compare their effectiveness, cost, accessibility, equity, feasibility, sustainability, and potential unintended consequences.

Define a desired outcome and identify the actions, responsibilities, resources, timelines, and accountability mechanisms needed to reach it.

Develop plans for implementation, evaluation, and sustainability.

Present the proposal clearly and through channels that allow meaningful public and institutional participation.

Do not assume your proposal is automatically better because it was created by advocates rather than policymakers, funders, agencies, or other organizations.

Stay open to criticism, competing approaches, and new evidence.

Revise the proposal when circumstances or evidence change.

Finally, remember that the purpose of a proposal is not to control the debate or establish your organization as the authority.

It is to give communities and decision-makers a well-supported, practical option for creating meaningful change.

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

 

Imagine that community organizations serving residents with limited incomes have heard repeated concerns about access to routine health care.

Community members describe several barriers:

• Primary-care offices are difficult to reach without reliable transportation.
• Appointment times may conflict with work or caregiving responsibilities.
• Childcare may be unavailable.
• Long waits can make appointments difficult to manage.
• Some residents report disrespectful or dismissive treatment in health-care settings.
• Emergency departments may be closer or easier to access when an urgent problem arises.

These experiences may indicate gaps in access to preventive and ongoing care.

Before assuming that one particular solution is best, advocates might examine whether the community would benefit most from a community health center, expanded clinic hours, mobile services, transportation assistance, childcare support, additional providers, or another combination of approaches.

Once a proposal has been developed, the next question is how to communicate with the people and organizations whose participation may help improve, implement, fund, evaluate, or support it.

This section discusses how to establish intentional communication, invite meaningful participation, and build collaborative relationships without treating people simply as sources of political influence or organizational credibility.

What do we mean by establishing communication and requesting participation?

Establishing communication means creating a clear and reliable way for individuals or organizations to exchange information and coordinate when necessary.

The relationship may be informal or structured.

Examples include:

• An identified contact person in each organization
• Periodic meetings
• An email or messaging group
• Regular project updates
• A memorandum of understanding
• Participation in a coalition, advisory group, or planning team

The appropriate level of formality depends on the relationship and the work involved.

A longtime community partner may need only a phone call or email.

A public agency, large institution, funder, professional organization, or elected official may have a defined process for requests, meetings, testimony, partnerships, or funding.

Respect those processes unless there is a legitimate reason to use another lawful and appropriate route.

Requesting participation means explaining:

• Who you are
• What the effort is trying to accomplish
• Why you are contacting this person or organization
• What kind of participation you are requesting
• What time, resources, or responsibilities may be involved
• How decisions will be made
• How their contribution could affect the effort

Participation should be voluntary and based on realistic expectations.

Why establish communication and request participation?

To include knowledge that your organization does not have

Different participants may contribute different forms of expertise.

People directly affected by an issue may understand barriers or unintended consequences that are not visible in formal data.

Service providers may understand implementation.

Researchers may contribute technical evidence.

Public officials or agency staff may understand legal authority, budgeting, regulation, or administrative processes.

No one group should automatically be treated as having all the necessary knowledge.

To involve people who will be affected by the advocacy effort

People directly affected should have meaningful opportunities to shape the work rather than being invited only after major decisions have already been made.

Participation may include:

• Identifying priorities
• Developing proposals
• Reviewing evidence
• Making decisions
• Communicating with decision-makers
• Evaluating progress

To coordinate responsibilities

Advocacy efforts may involve several organizations with overlapping roles.

Early communication can help clarify:

• Who is responsible for what
• Who has decision-making authority
• How funding will be handled
• How information will be shared
• How public statements will be coordinated
• How credit or recognition will be handled

This can reduce confusion and unnecessary competition.

To improve the proposal

Potential partners may identify:

• Missing evidence
• Legal concerns
• Implementation barriers
• Costs that were overlooked
• Populations that were not adequately included
• Better alternatives

Collaboration should therefore be more than a strategy for increasing support.

It should also create opportunities for the advocacy effort itself to change.

To build durable working relationships

Organizations that communicate clearly and work effectively together may be able to collaborate on future issues as well.

Strong relationships are based on trust, reliability, clear expectations, and mutual respect rather than simply the usefulness of a partner's name, influence, or contacts.

More partners are not always better

A large coalition can bring valuable knowledge and capacity, but the goal should not simply be to recruit as many organizations as possible.

Additional partners can also create:

• More complex decision-making
• Conflicting priorities
• Competition over funding
• Unequal power within the coalition
• Additional communication demands
• Confusion about public positions

Invite participation when there is a meaningful role or reason for the person or organization to be involved.

Do not pressure every potential partner to endorse every part of the effort.

Organizations may support one goal while disagreeing about another.

With whom should you establish communication?

The answer depends on the issue, the proposed change, and who has relevant knowledge, authority, responsibility, or experience.

People directly affected

People affected by the issue should often be among the first participants invited.

Their role should not be limited to providing emotional stories, increasing attendance, or demonstrating political strength.

They may contribute as:

• Planning partners
• Researchers
• Advisors
• Organizers
• Spokespeople, when they choose that role
• Decision-makers

Consider compensating people for substantial time, expertise, or leadership when resources allow.

Organizations already working on the issue

These organizations may have:

• Direct service experience
• Community relationships
• Data
• Research
• Policy expertise
• Organizing capacity

Before creating a new coalition or initiative, determine what work already exists and whether partnership would be more useful than duplication.

Public officials and public agencies

Relevant participants might include:

• Elected officials
• Legislative staff
• Agency staff
• Public-health departments
• Planning departments
• School systems
• Transportation agencies
• Other public bodies with relevant authority

Involve them when their authority, knowledge, funding responsibility, or implementation role is relevant.

Their participation should not be treated primarily as a way to give the advocacy effort political legitimacy.

Professional and technical organizations

Depending on the issue, useful partners may include:

• Medical or public-health organizations
• Engineering organizations
• Legal organizations
• Researchers
• Universities
• Professional associations

Evaluate expertise according to relevance and evidence rather than title or prestige alone.

Community-based organizations and organizers

Neighborhood organizations, tenant groups, disability organizations, immigrant and refugee organizations, youth organizations, labor organizations, faith communities, cultural organizations, and other community groups may bring relationships and knowledge that formal institutions lack.

Do not evaluate a potential partner primarily according to whether powerful people like or dislike them.

Instead, consider:

• Whether their goals are compatible with the effort
• Whether their practices are consistent with the coalition's values
• Whether conflicts of interest exist
• Whether collaboration is likely to help the community goal

Businesses and worker organizations

Employers, business organizations, unions, worker centers, and other labor organizations may be relevant when an issue affects employment, wages, workforce development, economic conditions, transportation, health, or other areas connected with work.

Community leaders and trusted community members

Some individuals have strong community relationships and may help connect the effort with people who would otherwise be missed.

This may include:

• Neighborhood leaders
• Faith leaders
• Youth leaders
• Cultural-community leaders
• Local business owners
• Teachers
• Health professionals
• Longtime residents

No individual should be assumed to speak for an entire racial, ethnic, religious, age, disability, or neighborhood population.

Funders

Funders may be useful participants when they have a legitimate role in supporting implementation, research, capacity building, or evaluation.

Be transparent about how funding relationships may affect coalition decisions.

News organizations

Journalists and news organizations may help the public understand an issue, but they should not be treated as advocacy partners whose role is to be “on your side.”

Provide accurate information, evidence, appropriate contacts, and opportunities to ask questions.

Respect journalists' responsibility to evaluate claims independently.

When should you request participation?

Early enough for participation to matter

People should generally be invited before the major decisions affecting their role have already been made.

Early participation can help shape:

• Goals
• Research questions
• Strategies
• Proposed solutions
• Roles
• Evaluation

Asking someone to endorse a completed plan is different from asking them to help create it.

At important decision points

Additional participation may be useful when:

• Legislation is being developed
• A budget decision is approaching
• New research changes the issue
• Implementation is beginning
• The effort needs expertise it does not currently have
• New populations may be affected

When circumstances change

Coalitions do not have to remain fixed.

New organizations may become relevant, while others may complete their role or decide not to continue.

Do not recruit someone simply because an effort appears to be succeeding and their endorsement could make the coalition look larger.

How do you establish communication and request participation?

Identify the appropriate contact

Determine who has responsibility for the issue or authority to consider the request.

Depending on the organization, that may be:

• A program manager
• A policy director
• A community-engagement staff member
• A legislative staff member
• A board or committee
• An executive
• Another designated contact

Use public contact information, organizational directories, referral from a legitimate contact, or the organization's established communication process.

Respect communication boundaries

Do not use someone's private email address, personal phone number, home address, or private social-media account simply to bypass an official process.

Do not deliberately appear at someone's workplace, restaurant, recreational activity, home, or other location in order to create an unplanned personal encounter.

Personal introductions can be useful when the intermediary and recipient are comfortable with the introduction.

Relationships should facilitate communication, not be used to bypass reasonable privacy or professional boundaries.

Choose a communication method that fits the situation

Possible methods include:

• Email
• Phone
• Video meeting
• In-person meeting
• Formal letter
• Public meeting or comment process
• An organization's online contact or partnership form

Do not assume that an in-person meeting is always best.

Consider accessibility, distance, scheduling, technology, privacy, and the recipient's preferred communication method.

Communicate clearly and accessibly

Use language that the recipient can understand.

Provide:

• Plain-language materials when appropriate
• Translation or interpretation when needed
• Accessible digital documents
• Disability accommodations

Avoid making broad assumptions about communication preferences based on culture, race, ethnicity, nationality, disability, age, or another identity.

When you are unsure, ask people what communication approach works best for them.

Be clear about the request

Explain:

• The issue
• The proposed goal
• Why you are contacting them
• What participation would involve
• Expected time commitments
• Whether funding, staff time, public endorsement, data, or another resource is being requested
• What decisions participants can influence

Do not minimize the commitment in order to make participation appear easier than it really is.

Explain why their contribution is relevant

Tell the person or organization why their knowledge, authority, experience, community relationships, resources, or implementation role may be useful.

Avoid flattering someone primarily because their name or status would make the effort look more credible.

Explain the community benefit

It can be appropriate to discuss how participation relates to the person's or organization's mission, responsibilities, or interests.

But the invitation should not be based entirely on what political, financial, or reputational advantage the partner can gain.

Emphasize the actual community purpose and the contribution being requested.

Put important commitments in writing

A written agreement may be useful when participants are sharing:

• Funding
• Staff
• Data
• Equipment
• Facilities
• Services
• Public responsibilities

A written agreement might address:

• Roles
• Decision-making
• Funding
• Data sharing
• Confidentiality
• Public communication
• Credit and attribution
• Conflict resolution
• Duration of the agreement

Respect a decision not to participate

Follow-up is reasonable when a request may have been missed or when the recipient has asked for additional information.

Persistence should not become repeated unwanted contact.

If someone declines:

• Thank them for considering the request
• Clarify whether they would like future updates
• Leave open the possibility of future collaboration when appropriate

Managing collaboration

Clarify decision-making

Coalitions should know:

• Who can make which decisions
• Whether decisions require consensus, majority agreement, or another process
• Which organizations retain independent authority
• How disagreements will be handled

Address competition and conflicts openly

Organizations may compete for funding, staff, public attention, or responsibility.

Do not dismiss these tensions as simply “ego” or “turf.”

They may reflect legitimate questions about:

• Resources
• Organizational responsibility
• Community accountability
• Credit
• Decision-making power
• Conflicts of interest

Discuss those issues directly and establish clear expectations.

Allow different levels of participation

Not every organization needs to take the same role.

A participant might:

• Help lead the coalition
• Provide technical advice
• Supply data
• Host meetings
• Participate in one project
• Endorse a specific recommendation
• Observe without formally endorsing the effort

Flexible participation can make collaboration more realistic.

Maintain communication when it remains useful

Partners should receive the information they need to carry out their responsibilities.

Useful updates may include:

• Progress
• Decisions
• New evidence
• Upcoming meetings
• Changes in strategy
• Results

Communication should be relevant rather than constant.

Ask people how frequently they want updates and through which channel.

Do not continue indefinitely sending one-way advocacy messages to someone who has declined participation or indicated that they do not want updates.

In Summary

Advocacy often requires collaboration with people and organizations that bring different forms of knowledge, authority, experience, resources, and community connection.

Establish communication intentionally and choose the level of formality that fits the relationship.

Invite people early enough that their participation can actually affect the work.

People directly affected by the issue should be meaningful partners rather than being included mainly for their stories, numbers, votes, or symbolic value.

Recruit partners because they have a relevant role or contribution, not simply to make the coalition appear larger or more influential.

A coordinated effort can be useful, but broad participation does not require every organization to agree on every issue.

Be clear about the request, expected responsibilities, decision-making process, time commitment, and resources involved.

Use accessible communication and ask people about their communication needs rather than relying on cultural stereotypes.

Respect organizational processes and personal boundaries. Do not bypass them by using private contact information or deliberately creating unplanned encounters.

Personal introductions can help establish trust when everyone involved is comfortable with them.

Journalists should be treated as independent information professionals rather than recruited as advocacy allies.

Put significant commitments in writing when necessary, especially when money, personnel, data, or other resources are involved.

Respect a decision not to participate and avoid turning persistence into unwanted repeated contact.

Maintain communication when it continues to serve a useful purpose, but do not assume every relationship must remain active indefinitely.

The goal is not to build the largest possible network or accumulate political clout.

It is to build the relationships necessary for people to contribute meaningfully, coordinate effectively, and work together toward a community goal.

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 provide corrective feedback?

• When should you give corrective feedback?

• What are some methods of feedback?

• How do you give and receive corrective feedback?

• How can corrective feedback strengthen advocacy?

Giving and receiving feedback is part of working with other people.

Some feedback is vague, insulting, or intended mainly to express frustration. Other feedback provides useful information that can help a person, group, organization, or institution understand the effects of its actions and improve what it does.

Corrective feedback is feedback intended to support improvement.

In advocacy, corrective feedback can help:

• Advocates improve strategies, communication, and relationships
• Organizations understand how programs or policies affect people
• Public officials identify unintended consequences
• Coalitions improve how they work together
• People directly affected explain what is or is not working

Corrective feedback should not be used simply to make advocacy more persuasive or protect an organization's public image.

Its primary purpose is learning, accountability, and improvement.

What is corrective feedback?

Corrective feedback is information about how a person's or organization's actions, behavior, communication, policy, strategy, or practice is being experienced or what effects it appears to be producing.

Useful corrective feedback generally:

• Focuses on a specific action, behavior, decision, or pattern
• Explains the effect or concern clearly
• Distinguishes observation from interpretation
• Provides enough context to understand the issue
• Supports discussion about what might change

Feedback is not the same as a factual finding.

Some feedback describes a person's perception or experience. Other feedback may be supported by data, documentation, or evaluation.

Both can be useful, but they answer different questions.

Intent and impact are different

A person or organization may intend one thing while others experience something different.

For example:

• A message intended to sound urgent may be experienced as disrespectful.
• A policy intended to improve efficiency may create access barriers.
• An advocacy tactic intended to build attention may make some community members feel excluded.

Feedback can help identify these differences.

Understanding impact does not automatically establish what someone intended, and a good feedback process should leave room to clarify both.

Purposes of corrective feedback

Corrective feedback may help:

• Improve individual performance or communication
• Strengthen relationships
• Improve collaboration
• Identify barriers or unintended effects
• Improve organizational practices
• Improve advocacy strategy
• Improve public policy or service delivery
• Prevent recurring problems

Who should provide corrective feedback?

The most useful source depends on the question.

Feedback may come from:

• People directly affected
• Community members
• Colleagues
• Staff members
• Supervisors or organizational leaders
• Partner organizations
• Service providers
• Public officials
• Researchers or evaluators
• Members of the broader public

People directly affected

People affected by a policy, service, advocacy campaign, or institutional practice may be especially important sources because they can describe how it functions in practice.

They do not need to be professional advocates or subject-matter experts in order for their experiences to matter.

At the same time, no individual should be assumed to speak for an entire community or population.

People with technical or professional knowledge

Some questions require expertise.

For example, feedback about:

• Legal compliance
• Statistical analysis
• Clinical care
• Environmental risk
• Financial management

may require qualified professional or technical review.

Multiple perspectives

A single source may reveal an important problem without representing the full range of experience.

When appropriate, gather feedback from several groups whose relationships to the issue differ.

For example, an advocacy organization might seek feedback from:

• People directly affected
• Coalition partners
• Staff
• Community organizations
• Policymakers or agency staff
• People who disagree with the organization's strategy

The purpose is not to create a popularity score.

It is to understand how the work is being experienced from several relevant perspectives.

When should you give corrective feedback?

When feedback is requested

Feedback is often easier to hear and use when people or organizations have actively requested it.

Advocacy organizations can build regular opportunities for feedback into:

• Staff meetings
• Coalition meetings
• Program reviews
• Community advisory processes
• Surveys
• Evaluations

During planning

Early feedback may identify problems before a campaign, policy, or program is fully implemented.

It may reveal:

• Confusing language
• Accessibility barriers
• Missing populations
• Unrealistic assumptions
• Possible unintended consequences
• Problems with the proposed strategy

During implementation

Once a campaign or policy is underway, feedback can help determine whether implementation is matching the plan.

Ask:

• What appears to be working?
• What is not working?
• Who is being reached?
• Who is being missed?
• What unexpected effects are occurring?
• What should change?

When unintended consequences appear

Policies and advocacy strategies can produce effects that were not anticipated.

Corrective feedback can help identify those effects early.

Avoid reducing complex policy outcomes to a single failure to listen.

Unintended consequences may result from:

• Incomplete information
• Limited resources
• Implementation failures
• Competing policy goals
• Changes in economic or social conditions
• Incorrect assumptions
• People or communities being left out of planning

When harm or conflict has already occurred

Feedback may help explain what happened, identify what can still be repaired, and reduce the chance that the problem will happen again.

In serious situations, feedback alone may not be enough.

Formal accountability, investigation, grievance, disciplinary, regulatory, or legal processes may also be appropriate.

During monitoring and evaluation

Feedback should be one source of information in monitoring and evaluation.

Combine it with other relevant evidence when determining whether a campaign, policy, or program is working.

What are some methods of feedback?

One-to-one feedback

One person may provide feedback directly to another.

This can allow detailed discussion and clarification.

Power differences matter.

Feedback between a supervisor and employee, public official and resident, service provider and participant, or other unequal relationship may involve concerns about:

• Retaliation
• Employment consequences
• Access to services
• Social or professional relationships

Create conditions that make honest feedback reasonably safe.

Group feedback

A team or coalition may review its own performance together.

Group feedback can help identify shared problems and solutions.

Avoid turning a group discussion into a situation where several people criticize one individual at once.

Sensitive individual concerns may require a separate process.

Organization-to-organization feedback

Partner organizations may provide feedback to one another about:

• Communication
• Division of responsibilities
• Decision-making
• Public messaging
• Resource sharing
• Implementation

Organizations with competing positions may also exchange feedback when they are willing to discuss specific effects or concerns.

Consultative feedback

An organization may invite an external consultant, evaluator, advisory group, or community panel to review its work.

A useful consultant should have:

• Relevant expertise
• A clear scope
• Access to enough information to understand the issue
• Appropriate independence
• Transparent methods

Written, anonymous, and digital feedback

Written or anonymous feedback is not automatically less useful than face-to-face feedback.

It may be especially important when:

• Power differences are significant
• Participants fear retaliation
• People need time to think before responding
• Accessibility makes live discussion difficult
• A large number of people need to contribute

Possible methods include:

• Anonymous surveys
• Online forms
• Written evaluations
• Email
• Comment systems
• Confidential interviews

Each method has limitations.

Anonymous feedback may reduce the ability to ask follow-up questions, while identified feedback may discourage people from speaking candidly.

Multi-source or 360-degree feedback

Multi-source feedback gathers perspectives from people who interact with a person or organization in different ways.

In a workplace, that might include:

• Supervisors
• Peers
• Staff members
• People who receive services
• Other colleagues

In advocacy, it might include:

• People directly affected
• Coalition partners
• Staff and volunteers
• Community organizations
• Public officials
• Members of the broader public

Multi-source feedback can reveal differences in how the same actions are experienced by different groups.

It should not be treated as a complete or automatically accurate picture.

Its value depends on:

• Who was included
• Who was missing
• How people were selected
• Whether they could respond honestly
• How questions were worded
• How results were interpreted

Protect people from retaliation

Some people may risk employment, services, professional relationships, or community standing when they provide critical feedback.

Consider:

• Anonymous or confidential options
• Who can access raw responses
• How identifying information will be protected
• Whether results will be reported only in aggregate
• What retaliation protections exist

Do not promise anonymity or confidentiality unless you can actually provide it.

How do you give corrective feedback?

Focus on improvement

Describe what could be improved rather than making broad judgments about the recipient's character, intelligence, motives, or worth.

For example:

Instead of:

Your outreach is terrible.

try:

Several residents told us they did not know the meeting was happening because the notice was posted only online. Could we add text, print, and community-partner outreach next time?

Be specific

Useful feedback identifies:

• The behavior, action, decision, or policy being discussed
• When or where it occurred
• The effect that was observed or experienced
• What change might help

Distinguish observation from interpretation

For example:

Observation:

Three participants tried to ask questions, but the meeting moved to the next agenda item before they were recognized.

Interpretation:

It seemed as though participant questions were not being treated as important.

Both may be worth discussing, but separating them makes the feedback clearer.

Do not require praise before raising a serious concern

Positive feedback can be valuable when it is genuine.

However, do not force every concern into a “positive-negative-positive” structure or delay a serious issue simply to make the recipient more comfortable.

Urgent safety, discrimination, harassment, fraud, abuse, or rights concerns may need to be stated directly.

Focus on impact without assuming motive

Instead of telling someone what they intended, describe:

• What occurred
• How it affected you or others
• Why it matters

First-person statements can sometimes help:

I had difficulty following the discussion because several technical terms were not explained.

But “I-statements” are a communication tool, not a rule.

Some concerns are appropriately stated as direct factual claims:

The entrance is not wheelchair accessible.

Be honest about seriousness

Being respectful does not require minimizing a problem.

State clearly when:

• Harm has occurred
• A policy creates a significant barrier
• A practice may violate a requirement
• Immediate action is needed

Invite a response

Give the recipient an opportunity to explain:

• What happened
• What constraints were involved
• What information may be missing
• Whether they agree with the concern
• What changes they believe are possible

Listening does not require accepting every explanation.

Identify next steps

When appropriate, turn feedback into a plan.

A useful plan may identify:

• What will change
• Who is responsible
• What support is needed
• When the change will occur
• How progress will be reviewed

How do you receive corrective feedback?

Listen before responding

Try to understand what the person is saying before deciding whether you agree.

Ask clarifying questions when necessary.

Separate discomfort from accuracy

Feedback can feel unpleasant even when it is useful.

On the other hand, uncomfortable feedback is not automatically correct.

Ask:

• What specific evidence or experience supports this feedback?
• Is this one person's experience or a broader pattern?
• Is there information I am missing?
• Do other sources report something similar?
• What part of this feedback can help improve the work?

Discuss disagreement respectfully

If you believe the feedback is inaccurate, explain why and ask what led to the person's conclusion.

The goal is not to force agreement.

Sometimes the result may be:

• A change in behavior
• A clearer explanation
• Additional research
• A change in policy
• Recognition that perspectives genuinely differ

Protect people who give difficult feedback

Leaders and organizations should not retaliate against staff, volunteers, participants, residents, or partners for raising concerns in good faith.

If people consistently fear consequences for giving honest feedback, the organization should examine the feedback system itself.

How can corrective feedback strengthen advocacy?

It can reveal errors early

Feedback may identify:

• Incorrect assumptions
• Confusing messages
• Weak evidence
• Accessibility problems
• Missing perspectives
• Implementation barriers

It can identify people being excluded or harmed

Advocacy organizations may believe they are helping a community while some people affected experience the strategy differently.

Feedback can reveal:

• Whose voices are missing
• Which groups are not being reached
• Whether language or tactics are stigmatizing
• Whether participation feels meaningful
• Whether unintended burdens are being created

It can improve relationships

Coalition partners can use feedback to address:

• Communication problems
• Unequal decision-making power
• Confusion about roles
• Disagreements over strategy
• Credit or recognition

It can improve policy and institutional decisions

Policymakers, agencies, businesses, schools, health systems, and other institutions may receive feedback about the real-world effects of their decisions.

Useful feedback can help identify:

• Unintended consequences
• Barriers to access
• Differences between policy and practice
• Unequal effects across populations
• Areas where implementation needs to change

It can improve credibility through responsiveness

Credibility should not be treated primarily as a public-relations goal.

Organizations build trust when they:

• Ask for feedback
• Make it reasonably safe to provide
• Respond honestly
• Explain when they disagree
• Make changes when change is warranted

Feedback is not always enough

Some situations involve more than a need for improvement.

Complaints involving:

• Harassment
• Discrimination
• Abuse
• Fraud
• Retaliation
• Serious safety risks
• Legal or ethical violations

may require a formal complaint, investigation, regulatory process, disciplinary process, or other accountability mechanism.

Do not use a general feedback conversation as a substitute for a process designed to address serious misconduct.

Evaluate your feedback process

Periodically ask:

• Who is regularly asked for feedback?
• Who is rarely asked?
• Who feels safe giving honest feedback?
• Who may fear retaliation?
• Are feedback methods accessible?
• Are language needs addressed?
• Are anonymous options available when appropriate?
• Does feedback actually lead to decisions or changes?
• Are people told what happened after they provided feedback?

A feedback system is weak if people are repeatedly asked for input but never see evidence that anyone considered it.

In Summary

Corrective feedback is information intended to help a person, organization, advocacy effort, policy, or practice improve.

Useful feedback is specific, relevant, honest, and connected to an observable action, experience, or effect.

Feedback may come from people directly affected, staff, colleagues, community members, partner organizations, public officials, researchers, or other relevant sources.

No single source automatically provides the complete picture.

Feedback is particularly useful during planning, implementation, evaluation, and when unintended consequences or conflict emerge.

It may be provided one-to-one, in groups, between organizations, through consultants, anonymously, in writing, or through multi-source feedback processes.

Written and anonymous feedback can be especially valuable when power differences or retaliation concerns make direct conversation difficult.

Multi-source feedback can provide useful perspective, but it should not be treated as perfectly representative or automatically accurate.

When giving feedback, focus on specific actions and effects, distinguish observation from interpretation, avoid unnecessary judgments about character or motive, and explain what change may help.

Respectful feedback does not require minimizing serious problems.

When receiving feedback, listen carefully, ask questions, examine the evidence, and remain open to changing your understanding or approach.

Protect people who provide critical feedback from retaliation.

Feedback should lead to appropriate action when change is needed.

Serious misconduct may require formal accountability processes rather than an ordinary feedback conversation.

Finally, evaluate the feedback process itself.

The goal is not simply to make criticism easier to accept or advocacy more persuasive. It is to create reliable ways for people to identify problems, learn from experience, and improve decisions, relationships, policies, and practice.

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 an issue?

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

• When should you consider framing or reframing an issue?

• How do you frame an issue?

• How do you reframe an issue?

What does it mean to frame an issue?

Framing is the process of deciding how to describe and organize information about an issue so people can understand what is happening, why it matters, what may be contributing to it, and what responses should be considered.

Every explanation emphasizes some information and gives less attention to other information.

For that reason, framing can strongly influence how people understand:

• What the issue is
• Who is affected
• What factors contribute to the issue
• What responsibilities different people or institutions have
• What solutions appear possible

Framing should help people understand an issue rather than manipulate them into accepting a predetermined conclusion.

A strong frame is accurate, supported by evidence, clear about uncertainty, and appropriate to the audience without changing the underlying facts from one audience to another.

Framing is not the same as spin

Advocacy organizations naturally want people to understand why an issue matters.

However, framing should not involve:

• Hiding important evidence
• Exaggerating the severity of a problem
• Assigning blame without evidence
• Using stigmatizing labels
• Presenting uncertainty as certainty
• Describing the same facts inconsistently simply to appeal to different audiences

Persuasive communication and accurate communication do not have to conflict.

Why should you think about how an issue is framed?

The way an issue is described affects which questions people ask and which solutions they consider.

For example, a transportation problem framed only as individual inconvenience may lead people to think primarily about personal transportation choices.

The same situation examined as a community-access issue may also raise questions about:

• Public transportation routes
• Disability access
• Job locations
• Housing patterns
• Service locations
• Transportation costs

Neither frame should be selected simply because it produces the political response advocates prefer.

The better frame is one that accurately represents the dimensions of the issue relevant to the decision being made.

Frames can reveal or hide important context

A narrow frame may focus attention on one behavior, institution, or event.

A broader frame may show how several conditions interact.

Both can be useful.

Problems arise when a frame excludes information necessary for understanding the issue fairly.

Frames can affect responsibility

Framing often communicates an idea about responsibility.

Be careful not to turn complex community conditions into simple stories about who is to blame.

Responsibility may be distributed across:

• Individual decisions
• Organizational practices
• Public policy
• Economic conditions
• Historical patterns
• Availability of services or resources
• Several interacting factors

When should you consider framing or reframing an issue?

Consider framing whenever you are explaining an issue to others.

Revisit the frame when:

• New evidence changes your understanding
• Community members identify an important perspective that was missing
• The existing frame stigmatizes or stereotypes people
• The frame focuses on symptoms while ignoring important contributing conditions
• People consistently misunderstand what you mean
• An opposing or competing frame leaves out important evidence
• Circumstances or policies change

Do not reframe simply because the evidence is inconvenient for your advocacy position.

If new information changes what the issue actually appears to be, change the frame accordingly.

How do you frame an issue?

Begin with several basic questions:

• What is the issue?
• Who is affected?
• Who has relevant responsibilities or decision-making authority?
• What evidence describes the issue?
• What factors contribute to it?
• What possible responses exist?
• What important uncertainty remains?

What is the issue?

Describe the issue specifically enough that people understand what is being discussed.

Avoid labels that already assume:

• Who caused the problem
• Which solution is correct
• Which people are responsible
• What motives people have

For example, instead of beginning with:

Parents are failing to get children to school.

you might begin with:

Student attendance has declined, and the community wants to understand the factors contributing to missed school days.

The second frame leaves room to examine transportation, health, housing instability, school climate, caregiving responsibilities, family circumstances, and other possible factors.

Broad frames and focused frames

Issues can often be described at different levels.

Broad framing

A broad frame identifies the larger community problem and allows several contributing factors or solutions to be considered.

For example:

Young people in the community need reliable access to accurate sexual-health information and appropriate health services.

This frame allows discussion of:

• Health education
• Access to clinical services
• Communication with parents and caregivers
• Contraceptive access
• STI prevention
• Healthy relationships
• Other relevant supports

Focused framing

A focused frame emphasizes one part of a broader issue when that part is the subject of the decision being made.

For example:

The community is examining whether adolescents have adequate access to confidential sexual-health services.

This narrower frame may be appropriate when the specific policy question concerns health-service access.

Focused framing should not imply that the selected factor is the only cause or solution unless evidence supports that conclusion.

Choose the level of framing carefully

A broad frame may be useful when:

• Several causes or solutions need to be considered
• Participants disagree about strategy but share a broader goal
• The problem involves several systems

A focused frame may be useful when:

• A particular policy decision is being considered
• One clearly documented factor requires attention
• A specific organization has authority over only one part of the issue

Do not assume that one approach is always best for a “diverse” audience and another for a particular type of group.

Choose the frame according to the issue and purpose.

Who is affected and involved?

Identify the people and organizations connected with the issue.

These may include:

• People directly affected
• Families and caregivers
• Community organizations
• Service providers
• Schools
• Businesses
• Public agencies
• Elected officials
• Other institutions with relevant responsibility or authority

Avoid describing people primarily as “targets” whose behavior advocates need to change.

People directly affected may be participants, leaders, decision-makers, researchers, organizers, or partners in developing solutions.

Know your audience without changing the facts

Different audiences may need different levels of explanation.

For example:

• Community members may want clear examples of how the issue affects daily life.
• Policymakers may need information about costs, implementation, legal authority, and population effects.
• Technical professionals may need detailed methods and data.
• Journalists may need concise findings, sources, and context.

Tailoring the level, format, or examples is appropriate.

Changing or withholding material facts in order to gain support is not.

What contributes to the problem?

Use evidence to identify contributing factors.

Avoid assuming that one factor is the cause simply because it fits the advocacy message.

Contributing factors may operate at several levels:

• Individual
• Family or household
• Organizational
• Neighborhood
• Economic
• Policy
• Social or cultural
• Historical

Complex community problems often involve several interacting conditions rather than one simple cause.

What contributes to the solution?

Once contributing factors are understood, consider possible responses.

Depending on the issue, strategies may include:

• Education and skill development
• Improving access to services or resources
• Reducing unnecessary barriers
• Changing organizational practice
• Providing appropriate incentives or supports
• Changing public policy
• Improving enforcement of existing policy
• Expanding community resources

Avoid presenting a solution as inevitable merely because it fits the frame you selected.

Compare alternatives according to evidence, feasibility, community priorities, equity, cost, and possible unintended consequences.

Framing and values

Many public issues involve legitimate differences in values as well as disagreements about evidence.

Be clear about which parts of an argument are:

• Factual claims
• Interpretations
• Predictions
• Ethical or value judgments
• Policy preferences

Do not present a value judgment as though it were a scientific finding.

Likewise, do not dismiss evidence simply because it complicates a preferred moral or political position.

Avoid stigmatizing frames

Frames can unintentionally suggest that a population itself is the problem.

Review language carefully when describing:

• Poverty
• Homelessness
• Disability
• Substance use
• Immigration
• Race or ethnicity
• Adolescence
• Mental health
• Criminal-justice involvement

Describe the condition, barrier, policy, or behavior as specifically as possible rather than turning an entire group into a label.

How should you reframe an issue?

Reframing means changing the way an issue is described because another frame provides a more accurate, complete, useful, or less stigmatizing understanding.

Reframing may be appropriate when:

• New evidence changes what is known
• An existing frame leaves out important context
• A frame incorrectly assigns responsibility
• A frame stigmatizes people
• A debate has become artificially limited to only two choices
• A competing frame contains misleading or incomplete claims

Respond to competing frames with evidence

When another organization frames an issue differently:

• Identify what its frame emphasizes
• Identify what it leaves out
• Check whether its factual claims are supported
• Explain the relevant evidence
• Present a more complete alternative when appropriate

Do not assume that every competing frame is simply “opposition” that must be defeated.

Another frame may reveal a legitimate concern that your original framing missed.

Example: Reframing tobacco use

Tobacco use can be framed as an issue involving individual choice.

A broader public-health frame may also consider:

• Nicotine dependence
• Marketing practices
• Exposure to secondhand smoke
• Product regulation
• Access to cessation support
• Population-level health effects

The purpose of reframing is not to replace one slogan with another.

It is to make relevant evidence and context visible.

Test your frame

Before using a frame widely, ask:

• Is it accurate?
• Is it supported by current evidence?
• What important information does it leave out?
• Does it stigmatize anyone?
• Does it imply causation that has not been established?
• Does it oversimplify responsibility?
• Would people directly affected recognize their experience in it?
• Does it leave room to consider evidence that challenges our preferred solution?

Ask people directly affected and others with relevant knowledge to review the frame when practical.

In Summary

Framing is the process of organizing and presenting information so people can understand what an issue is, who is affected, what contributes to it, and what responses may be possible.

Framing matters because the way an issue is described influences what people notice, what questions they ask, how they understand responsibility, and which solutions they consider.

Advocacy organizations should frame issues clearly and persuasively without sacrificing accuracy.

Begin by defining the issue, identifying people affected and institutions with relevant responsibilities, examining contributing factors, and considering possible solutions.

Use broad framing when several dimensions of an issue need to be considered and focused framing when a particular decision or factor is the subject of attention.

Know your audience, but tailor the level and format of communication rather than changing the underlying facts.

Avoid reducing complex problems to one cause or assigning responsibility without evidence.

Distinguish factual claims, interpretations, values, predictions, and policy preferences.

Review frames for stigmatizing language and involve people directly affected in determining whether the description reflects their experiences.

Reframe when evidence, community input, or changing conditions show that a different description is more accurate or complete.

When competing frames exist, evaluate them rather than simply trying to defeat them.

Finally, remember that framing should clarify an issue, not manipulate the audience.

The strongest frame is one that helps people understand the evidence, recognize the relevant context, and evaluate possible solutions more thoughtfully.

___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.