| Community Tool Box

What is advocacy?

Before taking action, it is important to understand what advocacy is, what it can accomplish, and how it differs from other forms of community work.

• Advocacy is the active promotion of a cause, policy, principle, or community priority.
• Advocacy involves actions intended to move decision-makers, institutions, or the public toward a specific goal.
• Advocacy is one of many possible strategies for addressing a community problem.
• Advocacy can be one part of a broader community initiative that also includes services, education, organizing, research, or other activities.
• Advocacy is different from direct service, although the two can support one another.
• Advocacy does not necessarily involve confrontation or conflict.

Some examples can help clarify the difference between advocacy and direct service:

• Volunteering with an organization that builds or repairs housing for families facing housing barriers is direct service.
• Organizing residents and working with local officials to require or encourage affordable housing in a new development is advocacy.
• Helping sort materials at a community recycling center is direct service.
• Organizing community members to preserve a recycling center that is at risk of closing, or to secure a replacement site, is advocacy.

Advocacy often involves encouraging government agencies, businesses, schools, health systems, nonprofit organizations, or other institutions to change a policy, practice, funding decision, or condition affecting a community.

That change may be pursued through education, negotiation, public communication, community organizing, coalition building, administrative processes, elections, legal action, public demonstrations, or other strategies.

Advocacy can be collaborative or adversarial. The appropriate approach depends on the issue, the decision-makers involved, the level of urgency, the power relationships, and the needs and preferences of the people most affected.

Several factors can contribute to effective advocacy:

• A clearly defined issue and goal
• Meaningful participation by people affected by the issue
• Careful research on the issue, decision-making process, community conditions, and relevant institutions
• An understanding of who has influence and how decisions are made
• Strong relationships with allies and partners
• Skill in using available advocacy tools, including traditional and digital media
• Strategies and tactics that fit the goal and circumstances
• A plan for evaluating progress and adapting when conditions change

Advocacy may be a new role for some community members. Speaking publicly, challenging a policy, meeting with decision-makers, or participating in a campaign can feel unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

Other people may find advocacy more appealing than operating a direct-service program.

Advocacy can also be demanding. Public campaigns require time, organization, relationships, accurate information, and careful decisions about risk.

If an advocacy effort is poorly planned, it can reduce trust, strain partnerships, use limited resources without producing change, or unintentionally make conditions more difficult for the people the campaign is intended to support.

Does advocacy always involve confrontation?

No.

Advocacy can involve confrontation, but many campaigns begin with communication, relationship-building, education, negotiation, or participation in formal decision-making processes.

Before choosing a confrontational strategy, consider:

• Whether decision-makers understand the problem
• Whether there are existing administrative or policy processes available
• Whether negotiation is possible
• Whether people directly affected support the proposed tactic
• What risks participants may face
• Whether a more public or confrontational strategy is likely to move the campaign toward its goal

Confrontation can sometimes be appropriate, particularly when institutions refuse to address serious harm or when less public approaches have failed. It should be selected deliberately rather than treated as the defining feature of advocacy.

Why and when would you choose advocacy?

Advocacy may be useful when changing a community condition requires action by people or institutions with the authority to make decisions.

For example, direct services may help individuals respond to an immediate need, while advocacy may address the policy, funding, institutional practice, or other condition contributing to that need.

Consider advocacy when:

• A policy or institutional practice is contributing to the problem
• Resources are distributed in ways that do not adequately address community needs
• Decision-makers have authority to make a needed change
• Community members want greater influence over decisions affecting them
• Existing processes have not produced an adequate response
• Public education or organizing could build support for change

Advocacy does not need to be reserved only for situations in which every other strategy has failed.

In many community initiatives, advocacy, direct service, education, research, and organizing can occur at the same time.

However, an advocacy campaign requires sufficient capacity and a realistic understanding of what may be involved.

Before launching a major campaign, consider whether:

• The issue and desired change are clearly defined
• The group has or can build the capacity to carry out the campaign
• Participants can sustain the effort over the time it may require
• People directly affected by the issue have meaningful roles in shaping the campaign
• The likely benefits justify the costs and risks

This chapter provides an overview of advocacy planning, including understanding the issue, identifying allies and sources of resistance, developing strategy and tactics, involving community members, and evaluating the effort.

What are the basic components of advocacy?

Each component is addressed in greater depth in the following sections of this chapter. The following provides a broad overview.

Prepare for Public Advocacy

Once an advocacy campaign becomes public, its statements, actions, relationships, and use of information may receive greater scrutiny.

Preparation can help protect the credibility of the campaign and the people involved.

Important practices include:

• Verify factual claims before making them publicly
• Obtain permission before speaking in the name of partner organizations
• Clarify who is authorized to speak for the campaign
• Understand relevant laws, policies, and organizational requirements
• Protect confidential or sensitive information
• Develop realistic plans for events, media work, and public actions
• Prepare for disagreement or criticism

For example, imagine a campaign seeking better access to health care for people facing economic barriers.

• Before publicly accusing a hospital of refusing care, verify the facts and understand the relevant policies and circumstances.
• Before including a partner organization's name in a public statement, confirm that the organization has approved the wording and its involvement.
• Before announcing a public event or demonstration, make a realistic assessment of participation, logistics, accessibility, safety, and communication.

Good preparation strengthens credibility and allows advocates to spend more time advancing the issue and less time correcting preventable mistakes.

Understanding the Issue

Advocates may begin with direct knowledge of a community concern, but effective advocacy requires a deeper understanding of the issue.

Examples might include:

• An increase in homelessness or housing instability among families with children
• Concern about youth tobacco or nicotine use
• Concern that a proposed development may affect local water quality

Research should help advocates understand:

• The scope and causes of the issue
• Who is affected
• Existing policies and programs
• What has already been tried
• Who has authority to make changes
• Who has influence over those decision-makers
• What resources are available
• What forms of resistance may arise

Advocacy involves power. Understanding how decisions are made – and who can influence them – is therefore an important part of campaign planning.

Power should not be understood only as something held by an opposing institution. Residents, workers, voters, consumers, organizations, media, professional networks, funders, and community relationships may all provide different forms of influence.

Recognizing Allies

Advocacy is often strengthened by partnerships with people and organizations that share some or all of the campaign's goals.

Potential allies may include:

• People directly affected by the issue
• Neighborhood or community organizations
• Advocacy groups
• Service organizations
• Faith communities
• Businesses
• Professional associations
• Researchers
• Public officials
• Youth organizations
• Labor or worker organizations

A small group should not assume that its own members represent everyone affected by an issue.

Instead, ask:

• Who is affected?
• Who is already working on the issue?
• Who has relevant knowledge or relationships?
• Who has been missing from previous decisions?
• How can people directly affected participate in leadership?

Alliances can vary in form. Some organizations may become formal coalition partners, while others may provide information, endorsements, technical assistance, meeting space, public testimony, funding, or other support.

Before entering an alliance, discuss:

• Shared goals
• Areas of disagreement
• Roles
• Decision-making
• Public communications
• Risks
• Expectations about credit and visibility

Understanding Resistance and Opposition

Some advocacy efforts encounter organized opposition. Others face institutional inertia, competing priorities, limited resources, uncertainty, or disagreement over the proposed solution.

Before assuming that someone is an opponent, understand the source of the resistance.

Ask:

• What interests are involved?
• What concerns does the person or organization have?
• What authority or influence do they possess?
• Are there areas of shared interest?
• Is the disagreement about the goal, the strategy, the cost, the timing, or something else?
• Could additional information or a revised proposal change their position?

Avoid dividing the community too quickly into “good” and “bad” sides.

An organization expected to oppose your campaign may support part of it. An organization expected to support it may disagree with your strategy, feel excluded from planning, or have legal or institutional limits on what it can do.

Understanding those differences can improve strategy without requiring advocates to minimize genuine conflicts of interest or violations of rights.

Involving Potential Opponents as Well as Allies

In some campaigns, people or organizations that disagree with part of your position may still be able to contribute to a solution.

Once your goals and proposal are clear, consider whether discussion with people who have concerns could:

• Clarify misunderstandings
• Identify practical barriers
• Reveal shared interests
• Improve the proposal
• Produce a compromise consistent with the campaign's core goals
• Reduce unnecessary opposition

Engagement is not always appropriate. Groups should consider safety, power differences, legal strategy, the seriousness of the harm involved, and whether direct engagement would place an unreasonable burden on affected community members.

Developing a Plan for Advocacy

Advocacy planning can be complex because campaigns often involve multiple decision-makers, competing interests, public opinion, institutional procedures, and changing political or economic conditions.

A strong plan should identify:

• The desired long-term change
• Specific measurable objectives
• The decision-makers who can produce those changes
• People and organizations that can influence those decision-makers
• Allies and partners
• Sources of resistance
• Strategies and tactics
• Communication plans
• Resources and responsibilities
• A timeline
• Possible risks
• Measures of progress

One way to distinguish these elements is to think of a building project:

• Vision: The broader future you want to help create – for example, a community in which people have access to safe, stable housing.
• Objective: A specific change that moves toward that vision.
• Strategy: The overall approach for reaching the objective.
• Action plan: The specific tasks, responsibilities, timelines, and resources required to carry out the strategy.

These elements fit together into a broader advocacy plan.

In Summary

Advocacy is organized action intended to influence decisions, policies, practices, institutions, or public understanding in support of a community goal.

It differs from direct service, although both approaches may be part of the same community initiative.

Advocacy does not always require confrontation. It may involve education, negotiation, coalition building, public participation, media work, administrative processes, legal strategies, organizing, public demonstrations, or other approaches.

Effective advocacy begins with a clear understanding of the issue. Advocates should know who is affected, who has authority, how decisions are made, what previous efforts have occurred, what evidence is available, and what forms of influence exist.

People directly affected by the issue should have meaningful opportunities to help define goals, choose strategies, communicate the campaign's message, and evaluate progress.

Building alliances can strengthen an advocacy effort, but partnerships should be based on clear expectations about goals, roles, decision-making, and communication.

Resistance should also be understood carefully. Not every disagreement comes from hostility, and not everyone who supports the general goal will agree on the same strategy.

At the same time, advocates should not minimize genuine conflicts of interest, discrimination, violations of rights, or institutional practices that are causing harm.

Public advocacy requires preparation. Verify information, protect credibility, consider legal and ethical responsibilities, communicate accurately, and assess risks to the people involved.

Finally, advocacy is most effective when strategy remains connected to the community goal rather than to the excitement of a particular tactic.

Demonstrations, meetings, media campaigns, negotiations, legal action, and other tactics are tools. Their value depends on whether they help produce the change the community is seeking.

You understand how advocacy is different from other types of strategy:

___It involves actions that lead to a selected goal

___It usually involves getting government, an agency or private business to correct an unfair or harmful situation

___It is not the same as direct service

___It may or may not involve confrontation

You understand what you need for successful advocacy:

___Your cause needs to be right

___Your group should have some power in numbers and/or clout

___You should have thoroughly researched the issue, the opposition, and the climate of opinion in the community

___You should be skilled in using the tools available to you (including the media)

___You should pick your strategy and tactics carefully

When is advocacy appropriate?

___When a powerful agency, institution or company needs to change but will not

___When nothing else will work

___When you know you have the capacity to carry it through

Other sections of this chapter can help you with different aspects of preparation for advocacy

To understand the issue:

___Research the root cause of the problem

___Conduct an analysis of the power structure

To bring others into your campaign:

___Learn to recognize potential allies

___Choose them (and bring them on board) with care

To identify (and stand up to) opponents:

___Start with the cause for resistance, and from that identify the people or groups who are likely to oppose you

___Once you have identified opponents, prepare for opposition, and plan to counteract it

To make sure you conduct your advocacy campaign efficiently:

___Use the survival tips that will help you achieve your goals and stay out of trouble

To put it together:

___Make a master action plan that lets you consider all aspects of your campaign at once, so you can adjust different elements to fit

___Include your mission and objectives, your allies and opponents, your targets and agents of change, and your strategies and detailed action plan

When you look around for help:

___Check into groups that might normally be against you, but who may help with at least part of your goals

To make sure you are on track:

___Do a careful self-assessment to make sure you are reaching all your objectives and sticking to your timetable

___Check up on the process, to make sure your group is efficiently working together

 

In this section, we discuss practical guidelines that can help advocates carry out effective and sustainable campaigns. These guidelines draw on lessons from many advocacy efforts, but they are not a complete list or a formula for success.

Not every guideline will fit every campaign. Advocacy strategies should reflect the issue, the people affected, available resources, legal and political conditions, organizational values, and the risks participants may face.

What do you mean by survival skills for advocacy?

Advocacy survival skills are practical habits that can help individuals and organizations pursue change while protecting their credibility, relationships, resources, and capacity to continue the work.

They include careful research, clear communication, realistic planning, thoughtful use of tactics, attention to participant safety, and willingness to adapt when circumstances change.

Why do you need to use survival skills for advocacy?

Commitment to a cause is important, but commitment alone does not make a campaign effective.

Advocates also need to understand the issue, decision-making process, community conditions, available evidence, power relationships, and possible consequences of different actions.

These guidelines can help advocates pursue their goals while making responsible decisions about strategy, communication, partnerships, and risk.

How do you use survival skills in advocacy efforts?

None of these guidelines is fixed.

Adapt them to your goals, circumstances, resources, community, and the people participating in the campaign.

Recognize progress and contributions

Pay attention to meaningful progress in and around your advocacy effort.

• Recognize accomplishments, including smaller milestones that move the campaign toward its larger goals.
• Thank people for their contributions in ways they find appropriate.
• Recognize volunteers, community members, staff, partners, and people whose less visible work makes the campaign possible.

Not everyone wants public recognition. When possible, ask whether people prefer public acknowledgment, private appreciation, or another form of recognition.

Appreciation should not replace compensation, manageable workloads, or fair treatment.

Communicate your values, goals, and accomplishments

Explain clearly what your organization is working toward and why the issue matters.

Your goals might involve healthier communities, safer workplaces, cleaner environments, accessible services, affordable housing, or quality education.

Avoid assuming that everyone understands these goals in the same way or agrees about how they should be achieved.

• Connect the campaign's proposed actions with the values and outcomes it is trying to advance.
• Communicate accomplishments accurately, including programs, policies, practices, or other changes the campaign helped influence.

Give appropriate credit to partners and community members rather than claiming collective accomplishments solely for your organization.

Plan for achievable milestones

Major policy and systems changes can take time.

Intermediate goals can help participants understand whether the campaign is making progress and whether its strategy is working.

For example, if a long-term goal is to increase timely childhood immunization, an intermediate goal might be to reduce transportation, information, scheduling, or access barriers identified by families and health providers.

When milestones are reached, recognize the progress while also evaluating what still needs to be done.

Frame the issue accurately and intentionally

How an issue is described can influence how people understand both the problem and possible solutions.

Advocacy messages should avoid stereotypes or explanations that place responsibility entirely on individuals when policies, institutions, economic conditions, or other structural factors are relevant.

For example, a debate about housing instability might focus narrowly on individual financial decisions.

Advocates could broaden the frame by presenting evidence about housing costs, wages, eviction, disability, childcare, transportation, discrimination, or the availability of affordable housing.

Reframing does not mean ignoring evidence that complicates your position. Effective advocacy should accurately represent the issue rather than simply selecting the most favorable narrative.

Develop a clear public identity

If your organization is connected with a larger movement or national organization, clarify your local identity, goals, responsibilities, and decision-making structure.

Community members may associate your organization with positions taken by larger organizations or movements.

Be transparent about partnerships without allowing another organization's reputation or priorities to obscure your own work.

Check your facts

Understand the issue and your organization's claims thoroughly.

Public statements should be supported by reliable evidence.

• Document your claims. If you are raising concerns about marketing tobacco, nicotine, alcohol, or another regulated product to young people, document what you observed, when and where it occurred, and what standards or policies may apply.
• Collect relevant information. Use reliable public data, research, community experience, administrative records, expert knowledge, and other appropriate sources.
• Verify important information. Confirm significant claims before using them publicly.
• Understand the information you use. Be able to explain what the data show, what they do not show, and where they came from.
• Correct errors. If your organization communicates inaccurate information, correct it promptly and transparently.

Strong documentation can protect the campaign's credibility when its claims are challenged.

Use the simplest effective strategy

More complex or confrontational action is not automatically more effective.

When several approaches could achieve the same goal, consider whether a simpler strategy would require fewer resources or expose participants to less risk.

However, advocates do not always need to exhaust every less confrontational option before taking stronger action.

Urgent safety concerns, violations of rights, ongoing harm, or previous institutional inaction may justify immediate escalation.

For example, workers concerned about hazardous conditions might use internal reporting procedures, a regulatory complaint, union representation, collective action, or other lawful strategies depending on the severity and urgency of the risk.

Be committed and persistent

Many community changes require sustained work.

Persistence may help advocates maintain relationships, follow through on commitments, continue gathering evidence, and keep attention on an unresolved issue.

Persistence does not mean repeating the same tactic regardless of results.

Periodically ask:

• Is this strategy producing progress?
• Have conditions changed?
• What are we learning?
• Should we adapt our tactics?
• Can participants sustain the current pace of work?

Consider compromise carefully

Advocacy sometimes involves negotiation and compromise.

A compromise may be useful when it produces meaningful progress while preserving the campaign's essential goals and principles.

• Be open to alternative strategies or partial agreements that move the issue forward.
• Evaluate compromises based on their likely effects, not simply on whether they make the organization appear reasonable or strong.

People directly affected by the issue should have meaningful roles in determining which compromises are acceptable.

Some rights, safety protections, or core principles may not be appropriate subjects for compromise.

Be responsive to opportunities

Advocacy opportunities can arise when public attention, policy processes, research findings, elections, hearings, community events, or other developments make an issue especially relevant.

Prepare in advance so that your organization can respond effectively when those opportunities occur.

Avoid treating tragedies or people's personal experiences primarily as publicity opportunities.

If an individual story will be used publicly, obtain meaningful consent and consider privacy, dignity, safety, and the wishes of surviving family members where relevant.

Stay focused on the goal

Advocacy campaigns may involve powerful institutions or people with greater financial, political, legal, or communications resources.

Understand those differences without assuming that a campaign with fewer resources has no influence.

Community relationships, credible evidence, organized constituencies, legal rights, public participation, voting, professional expertise, media attention, and coalition support can all provide forms of influence.

Stay focused on the desired change rather than allowing intimidation or the visibility of another organization to determine your strategy.

Understand why people disagree

Do not assume that every person or organization opposing your proposal is acting in bad faith or simply lacks information.

Resistance may come from:

• Different values or priorities
• Different interpretations of the evidence
• Financial or institutional interests
• Legal limitations
• Concerns about implementation
• Competing community needs
• Misinformation
• A genuine conflict of interest

Understanding the source of disagreement can help determine whether education, negotiation, modification of the proposal, coalition-building, public pressure, or another strategy is appropriate.

Keep attention on the issue

Advocacy can become personal.

Critics may attack the organization, its leaders, or participants rather than addressing the substance of the issue.

Avoid unnecessary personal attacks in return.

When criticism contains misinformation that could materially damage the campaign or people involved, respond with accurate evidence and clear communication.

If harassment, threats, discrimination, or defamatory statements create safety or legal concerns, use appropriate organizational, platform, security, or legal processes rather than treating the issue simply as political disagreement.

Make issues locally relevant

Community members may understand an issue more clearly when advocates explain its local effects.

Useful approaches include:

• Local data
• Community testimony shared with consent
• Examples of local policies or conditions
• Information about costs, benefits, or risks to residents
• Stories from community organizations or people directly affected

If a development may affect land used for religious, cultural, or ceremonial purposes by an Indigenous Nation, work directly with that Nation and describe the specific community and significance of the site accurately.

Do not treat the protection of Indigenous sacred or cultural sites merely as another persuasive talking point for audiences who may care more about taxes, transportation costs, or another issue.

Youth-development campaigns can likewise involve young people directly in defining employment, education, mentoring, recreation, or other opportunities they consider useful.

Build broad and relevant support

Advocacy does not automatically place community organizations on one side and government agencies, elected officials, businesses, or established institutions on the other.

Potential partners may exist inside and outside formal systems.

Consider involving:

• People directly affected by the issue
• Community organizations
• Government staff or officials
• Service providers
• Businesses
• Professional associations
• Researchers
• Faith or cultural organizations
• Youth and student organizations
• Worker or labor organizations

People with institutional knowledge can help explain processes and identify possible pathways for change. Their involvement should complement, not replace, leadership by people directly affected.

Choose tactics that participants can safely and meaningfully undertake

Advocacy tactics should reflect participants' values, preferences, circumstances, and levels of risk.

Do not pressure people to take part in activities they do not feel comfortable or safe undertaking.

For higher-risk actions, discuss possible consequences in advance.

For example, if a demonstration could involve citation or arrest, participants should understand relevant legal risks and how those risks may differ depending on:

• Immigration status
• Disability
• Employment
• Caregiving responsibilities
• Previous justice-system involvement
• Age
• Other individual circumstances

Participation in higher-risk tactics should be informed and voluntary.

Use your campaign's strengths

Effective advocacy uses the skills, relationships, credibility, information, and resources available to the campaign.

Creative strategies can sometimes raise questions or perspectives that institutions have not previously considered.

The goal should not be to confuse or disorient opponents simply to make them weaker.

Instead, look for approaches that clarify the issue, expose overlooked consequences, broaden participation, or demonstrate a more effective alternative.

Use formal procedures and accountability mechanisms

Government agencies, schools, employers, regulatory bodies, and other institutions often have formal procedures governing decisions and complaints.

• Advocacy organizations can participate in required public hearings and comment processes.
• Community organizations and residents can use appropriate complaint, appeal, records-request, oversight, or regulatory processes.

Learn how these procedures work and use them strategically and responsibly.

Formal participation should not be treated as the only legitimate form of advocacy. Public organizing, coalition-building, demonstrations, media work, litigation, and other lawful approaches may also be appropriate.

Connect advocacy to relevant events responsibly

Public hearings, legislative sessions, community meetings, newly released research, awareness periods, anniversaries, elections, emergencies, or major policy announcements may create opportunities to communicate an advocacy message.

Make sure the connection is relevant and respectful.

Personal tragedies should not be used as campaign material without appropriate consent.

When an event reveals a broader community problem, advocates can discuss the policy or systems issue without exploiting the people who experienced the harm.

Make the work sustainable

Advocacy can be meaningful and energizing, but it can also be frustrating, stressful, or exhausting.

Participants do not need to enjoy every part of the work for the campaign to be healthy.

Sustainable advocacy may involve:

• Celebrating accomplishments
• Sharing responsibility
• Setting realistic expectations
• Allowing people to change roles or take time away
• Monitoring workload
• Protecting people from unnecessary harassment or risk
• Maintaining relationships beyond moments of crisis

A campaign is more sustainable when responsibility does not depend on a small number of people continually sacrificing their time, health, or financial security.

In Summary

Effective advocacy requires more than commitment to a cause.

Advocates need accurate information, realistic plans, sustainable participation, strong relationships, careful communication, and strategies that fit the issue and community.

Recognize progress and people's contributions, but do not use praise as a substitute for compensation, fair workloads, or meaningful influence.

Present issues clearly and accurately. Advocacy framing should help people understand the problem without relying on stereotypes, stigmatizing communities, or ignoring evidence that complicates the campaign's preferred explanation.

Verify claims before using them publicly and correct important errors when they occur.

Use the simplest strategy likely to be effective, but do not assume advocates must exhaust every less confrontational approach before taking stronger action. Urgency, rights, safety, previous institutional responses, and the views of people affected should shape that decision.

Persistence matters, but persistence should include learning and adaptation rather than repeating tactics that are not working.

Compromise can sometimes move a campaign forward, but decisions about compromise should be based on community goals, likely consequences, and core principles rather than on whether advocates appear sufficiently moderate or tough.

Understand the reasons for disagreement. Some resistance may come from misinformation, while other opposition may reflect genuine conflicts of interest, competing priorities, or institutional power.

Build support broadly, including relationships with people inside institutions where appropriate, while keeping people directly affected by the issue meaningfully involved in campaign leadership.

Protect participants. Higher-risk tactics should be voluntary, and people should understand possible legal, employment, immigration, financial, caregiving, disability-related, or other consequences before deciding whether to participate.

Use public processes, regulatory mechanisms, media, coalition-building, organizing, demonstrations, and other advocacy tools strategically rather than simply trying to confuse or overpower opponents.

Finally, connect advocacy to public events ethically. Community crises and personal tragedies can reveal important policy failures, but the people involved should not become publicity tools for a campaign.

Sustainable advocacy keeps its attention on the desired change while protecting the credibility, relationships, dignity, and capacity of the people doing the work.

Try these survival skills for advocacy:

___Accentuate the positive

___Emphasize your organization's accomplishments to the community

___Plan for small wins

___Present the issues in the way you want others to see them

___Develop your own public identity

___Check your facts

___Keep it simple

___Be passionate and persistent

___Be prepared to compromise

___Be opportunistic and creative

___Stay your course

___Look for the good in others

___Keep your eyes on the prize

___Make issues local and relevant

___Get broad based support from the start

___Work within the experiences of your group members

___Try to work outside the experiences of your opponents

___Make your opponents play by their own rules

___Tie your advocacy group's efforts to related events

___Enjoy yourself!

What is involved in understanding the issue?

You may already have a strong sense of why your issue matters. You may also know something about its history, the people affected, and the events that brought the issue to public attention.

Before developing an advocacy campaign, however, it is important to build a fuller understanding of the issue and the community conditions surrounding it.

That means learning not only the basic facts, but also:

• Who is affected and how
• What factors contribute to the issue
• What policies, institutions, or practices are involved
• What people in the community think about the issue
• What previous efforts have been made
• Who has authority or influence over possible changes
• What resources, barriers, and opportunities exist
• What evidence supports different explanations or proposed solutions

Good research does more than strengthen your public argument. It can help you determine whether your original understanding of the problem is accurate and whether the solution you initially had in mind is actually the best one.

Why do you need a thorough understanding of your issue?

A strong understanding of the issue can help your advocacy effort:

• Explain clearly why the issue matters and what change the campaign is seeking
• Provide potential allies and community members with credible information
• Understand why people or institutions may support, question, or oppose a proposed change
• Identify which changes are feasible in the short term and which may require longer-term work
• Choose advocacy strategies that fit the issue, the decision-making process, and the people involved
• Respond accurately to questions from community members, decision-makers, journalists, partners, or critics
• Support public statements with reliable evidence
• Establish a baseline that can later help you evaluate whether conditions changed

Research can also reveal that the issue is more complicated than it first appeared.

You may discover that:

• Several causes interact
• Different communities experience the issue differently
• A proposed solution has unintended effects
• Existing programs or policies already address part of the problem
• People directly affected prefer a different approach

Effective advocates should be willing to revise their assumptions when the evidence or community input points in another direction.

What sort of research is involved?

Facts and statistics are important, but understanding an advocacy issue usually requires several kinds of information.

You may need to know:

• How different community members understand the issue
• How the issue affects different populations, neighborhoods, organizations, or sectors
• Which people, institutions, policies, or interests influence current conditions
• What political, economic, organizational, or legal factors affect decision-making
• What might make a proposed change more or less feasible
• What values, beliefs, interests, or experiences shape disagreement about the issue
• What people directly affected identify as priorities
• What evidence exists about possible solutions

Try not to divide people too quickly into supporters and opponents.

Someone may agree that a problem exists but disagree about the proposed solution, cost, timing, authority, implementation, or possible unintended consequences.

Understanding those distinctions can improve both your research and your advocacy strategy.

Starting points for your research:

Who is affected by the issue?

• Who experiences the greatest effects?
• What harms, barriers, costs, or lost opportunities do people experience?
• Who benefits from current conditions, intentionally or unintentionally?
• Are some populations affected differently because of geography, income, disability, race, ethnicity, language, age, housing status, or other circumstances?

What are the consequences of the issue?

• What are the effects on people directly affected?
• What are the effects on families, caregivers, or social networks?
• What are the broader effects on organizations, neighborhoods, institutions, or the community?

What is the economic impact of the issue?

• What costs are associated with the current situation, and who bears them?
• Who may benefit economically from current policies or practices?
• What would proposed changes cost?
• What economic benefits or savings might result?

What is the social impact of the issue?

• How does the issue affect relationships, participation, health, education, safety, housing, mobility, or other areas of community life?
• Are some communities receiving benefits while others bear greater costs?

What are the barriers?

• What prevents the issue from being addressed?
• Which barriers can be changed, reduced, or worked around?
• Who has authority to change those barriers?

What are the resources and assets?

• What financial, organizational, professional, community, legal, or other resources are needed?
• What resources already exist?
• What community knowledge, relationships, organizations, leadership, or other assets can contribute?

What is the history of this issue?

• How did current conditions develop?
• What previous efforts were made to address the issue?
• What happened as a result?
• What did people involved in those efforts learn?

It may also be useful to identify the underlying causes and conditions that contribute to the issue rather than focusing only on its most visible effects.

What are the best sources of information?

Most advocacy research requires both background information and local information.

Background information can help you understand the broader issue, while local information can show how the issue is experienced in your community.

Gathering background information

Depending on the issue, you may need to develop substantial subject knowledge or involve people with relevant expertise.

For example, an advocacy effort concerning logging and water quality might need information about:

• Watersheds
• Wildlife and habitat
• Water quality
• Forestry practices
• Industry economics
• Environmental regulations
• Tribal, public, or private land interests
• Community livelihoods

An advocacy effort concerning health-care access for people facing economic barriers might need information about:

• Health-care financing
• Insurance coverage
• Public benefits
• Transportation
• Provider availability
• Medical debt
• Language and disability access
• State and federal policies

You do not need every member of the campaign to become an expert in every area.

Identify what knowledge is necessary and involve researchers, community members, professionals, people with lived experience, or other sources of expertise when appropriate.

Libraries and academic resources

Libraries remain valuable research partners.

Reference librarians can help locate:

• Books and reports
• Academic journal articles
• Historical newspapers
• Government publications
• Specialized databases
• Local archives
• Data sources

Public, university, law, medical, or specialized libraries may offer different resources depending on the issue.

Older print indexes, yearbooks, newspaper archives, microfilm, and similar materials can still be useful for historical research, but many current sources are available through searchable digital databases.

Government and public data

Government agencies can provide important information on topics such as:

• Population and demographics
• Health
• Employment and wages
• Education
• Housing
• Environment
• Transportation
• Public safety
• Budgets and public spending
• Regulations and enforcement

Whenever possible, identify:

• Who collected the data
• When it was collected
• How the measures were defined
• What populations were included or excluded
• Whether the data are preliminary, estimated, or final
• What limitations the source identifies

Academic and professional research

Universities, research institutes, professional associations, and peer-reviewed journals may provide useful evidence about causes, outcomes, and possible interventions.

Consider the strength and relevance of the evidence rather than relying on a study simply because it supports your preferred position.

Ask:

• Is the research recent enough for the issue?
• Does the study population resemble the community you are concerned with?
• Does the research show correlation or causation?
• Are the methods clearly described?
• Are there other studies with different findings?

The Internet

Online research can provide access to government data, research publications, public records, community organizations, news archives, policy documents, and many other sources.

The challenge is not simply finding information but evaluating its quality.

Before relying on an online source, consider:

• Who created it?
• What evidence supports the claims?
• When was it published or updated?
• Does the source have a financial, political, or organizational interest in the issue?
• Can the information be confirmed through other credible sources?
• Is the source reporting original data or repeating someone else's claim?

Search results, social-media posts, generated summaries, and widely repeated statistics should not automatically be treated as verified evidence.

Whenever possible, trace an important claim back to the original report, dataset, law, research article, or organization responsible for it.

Learning from other advocacy organizations

National, regional, and local advocacy organizations may already have researched the issue.

Their reports can provide useful leads, but advocacy organizations also have positions and goals of their own.

Review:

• The original sources behind their claims
• The date of the information
• How terms are defined
• Whether data from one location are being generalized to another
• Whether important limitations or competing evidence are acknowledged

Other organizations can also teach you about research methods.

If a neighboring community investigated industrial pollution, for example, ask what agencies, datasets, technical experts, public records, and community knowledge proved useful.

Organizing your research

A simple research plan can help your group identify what it needs to know.

Need to know	Possible sources	Status / notes
Effect of industrial wastewater on local fish populations	Environmental agency data University researchers Local watershed organizations Tribal environmental programs where relevant Company permits and monitoring reports	Identify current data Compare independent sources Note possible conflicts of interest

Gathering local information

Local information can help show how a broader issue affects your particular community.

It can also reveal circumstances that national or state-level data do not capture.

Local media

Local newspapers, television stations, radio outlets, nonprofit news organizations, community newsletters, podcasts, and online publications may contain useful information about the history of an issue.

Search their archives for:

• Previous controversies
• Public statements
• Elections
• Zoning or development decisions
• Community organizations
• Policy changes
• Earlier advocacy efforts

News reporting can provide valuable context but should not always be treated as the final source for technical or statistical claims. Follow important information back to public documents or original sources when possible.

Annual reports, budgets, and organizational documents

Businesses, nonprofit organizations, public agencies, schools, hospitals, universities, and other institutions may publish:

• Annual reports
• Budgets
• Strategic plans
• Audits
• Meeting minutes
• Policies
• Regulatory filings
• Environmental or social-impact reports

These materials can help advocates understand how an institution describes its own goals, resources, performance, and responsibilities.

Public and archival records

Local, state, Tribal, and federal agencies may maintain records that are useful to an advocacy effort.

Depending on the issue, these might include:

• Meeting minutes
• Budgets
• Contracts
• Property records
• Zoning decisions
• Inspection reports
• Permits
• Enforcement records
• Court records
• Correspondence

Public-records laws vary by level of government and jurisdiction.

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

Before submitting a request, identify which government body holds the record and which law or procedure applies.

Some records may be withheld or redacted because of privacy, security, legal privilege, law-enforcement, or other protections.

Businesses and economic organizations

Chambers of commerce, economic-development organizations, employers, labor organizations, industry associations, and businesses may collect information about:

• Employment
• Workforce needs
• Local industries
• Development
• Business conditions
• Population trends
• Housing and transportation

These sources can be valuable, but consider the interests and purposes for which the information was collected.

Community-generated information

Residents and community organizations may have knowledge that does not appear in administrative datasets or published research.

Examples include:

• Barriers to accessing services
• Informal support networks
• Experiences with institutions
• Changes in neighborhood conditions
• Places where people feel safe or unsafe
• Unmet needs
• Community assets and possible solutions

Treat lived experience as an important form of knowledge while distinguishing between individual experience and claims about an entire population.

Filling the gaps

Written and digital sources will rarely answer every question.

Interviews, surveys, listening sessions, focus groups, public meetings, observation, and other participatory methods can help fill important gaps.

Choose the method according to what you need to learn.

Interviews with community members and leaders

Speak with several people who understand different parts of the community.

Relevant contacts might include:

• Faith or spiritual leaders
• Youth leaders
• Local professionals
• Business owners or employer representatives
• Educators
• Neighborhood or tenant leaders
• Community organizers
• Service providers
• People directly affected by the issue
• Informal community connectors

No single person should be assumed to speak for an entire racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, disability, age, or other community.

Interview several people with different experiences and roles.

Prepare clear questions, but allow room for participants to raise issues you did not anticipate.

Be transparent about why you are collecting information and how it may be used.

Respect privacy and do not pressure people to discuss topics they do not want to discuss.

If someone is contributing substantial time or specialized community expertise, consider whether compensation is appropriate.

Surveys

Surveys can help gather information from a larger number of people when the questions and sampling approach fit the purpose.

Surveys may be conducted through:

• Online forms
• Telephone
• Text messaging
• Mail
• In-person outreach
• Paper forms distributed through community organizations

No method reaches everyone equally.

For example:

• Online surveys may miss people with limited internet access or digital literacy.
• Telephone surveys may have low response rates or exclude people without stable phone access.
• In-person surveys may overrepresent people who use particular locations.
• Surveys offered only in English may exclude people who use other languages.
• Inaccessible formats may exclude people with disabilities.

Before reporting survey percentages as representing the broader community, consider:

• Sample size
• How participants were selected
• How questions were worded
• How responses were coded and analyzed
• Who did not respond
• Whether particular populations were underrepresented
• The margin of error or other statistical limitations when applicable

If your survey is informal or not representative, describe it honestly.

For example, say that “most participants in our listening survey expressed support” rather than claiming that a particular percentage of the entire community agrees with you.

Focus groups

Focus groups can help explore:

• How participants understand an issue
• Reactions to proposed messages, programs, policies, or strategies
• Questions that should be explored further
• Differences in experience among participants

Focus groups are generally better for exploring ideas and experiences than for estimating how common a belief is across an entire community.

A small discussion group should not be used to claim that “the community thinks” a particular thing.

When the topic is sensitive, consider confidentiality, power differences, whether participants already know one another, and whether people will feel comfortable speaking honestly in a group.

Guided interviews and listening conversations

One-on-one or small-group conversations can provide detailed information that structured surveys may miss.

Interviewers can use a consistent set of questions while allowing participants to explain their experiences in their own words.

These conversations can be particularly useful for understanding:

• Why people hold particular views
• How policies affect everyday life
• Which barriers are most important
• What solutions people consider realistic
• What previous experiences affect trust

Record themes carefully and avoid presenting a few individual conversations as statistically representative of the entire community.

Evaluate the quality of your evidence

Advocacy research should not be judged only by whether it supports your campaign.

For every major claim, ask:

• What is the original source?
• How current is it?
• How was the information collected?
• What are its limitations?
• Does another credible source reach a different conclusion?
• Are we confusing correlation with causation?
• Does the evidence apply to our community?
• Are people directly affected describing something the available data do not capture?

Strong advocacy does not require pretending that evidence is unanimous when it is not.

If research is mixed or uncertain, say so and explain why you still support a particular action.

Protect privacy and use community information ethically

Research for advocacy may involve sensitive information about health, immigration, housing, disability, employment, violence, legal problems, or other personal circumstances.

Before collecting information, consider:

• Why you need it
• Whether you need personally identifiable information
• Who will have access to it
• How it will be stored
• Whether participants understand how their information may be used
• What risks disclosure could create

Do not publicly share a person's story, photograph, name, or other identifying information simply because it would strengthen the campaign.

Obtain meaningful consent and explain where and how the information may appear.

Involve people directly affected by the issue

Community research should not treat residents only as sources of information for an advocacy organization.

Whenever possible, people affected by the issue should help:

• Decide what questions need to be researched
• Interpret the findings
• Identify possible solutions
• Determine which findings should be emphasized publicly
• Shape advocacy goals and strategy

This can improve the research and reduce the risk that outside advocates misinterpret community experience.

In Summary

Effective advocacy begins with understanding the issue.

That requires more than collecting statistics that support your position. Advocates should understand who is affected, how the issue developed, what consequences it produces, who benefits from current conditions, what barriers and resources exist, how decisions are made, and what previous efforts have accomplished.

Use multiple forms of evidence.

Government data, academic research, public records, news archives, organizational reports, community-generated information, interviews, surveys, focus groups, and lived experience can all contribute different forms of knowledge.

Evaluate sources carefully. Ask who produced the information, when it was collected, how it was measured, what limitations exist, and whether other credible evidence supports or challenges it.

The internet has made information easier to find but not necessarily easier to verify. Trace important claims back to original sources whenever possible.

Research should also be locally grounded. State or national information may describe the broader issue, while residents, local organizations, public records, and community data can show how the issue operates in a particular place.

Avoid assuming that one visible leader represents an entire community. Speak with people in different roles, including people directly affected by the issue.

Use surveys and focus groups appropriately. A small or nonrepresentative sample can provide useful insight without supporting statistical claims about the entire community.

Protect privacy and obtain meaningful consent when using personal stories or sensitive information.

Finally, approach research with enough openness to change your mind. Advocacy research should not simply gather ammunition for a position that has already been decided.

The strongest research helps a community understand the problem more accurately, choose better strategies, and determine whether the changes it seeks are actually improving people's lives.

Before you plan out the details of your campaign, you may need to fill gaps in your knowledge:

___You don't need to know everything, but a good understanding of the issue is essential

___It is important not only to know the facts, but to understand the beliefs of the people you serve, and of your opponents. It is also important to know how they came to those beliefs

A thorough understanding of the issue will help you to:

___Convince your members the issue is important

___Persuade allies to join your cause

___Understand your opponents

___Be precise in your planning

___Educate the public

You will need to know:

___How people in different segments of the community feel about the issue

___What makes the opponents tick

___What it will take for the political structure of the community to make and/or accept change

The information you need will probably be of two types:

___General background information

___Specific information about the issue as it affects your community

Getting general information to educate yourselves about the issue:

___May involve working in libraries

___May involve surfing on the Web

___May involve digging in archives, annual reports, and yearbooks

___May involve recruiting experts

Gathering information about the issue as it affects your own community may involve:

___Using media archives

___Using City Hall archives

___Getting information from local business interests

You can fill in the gaps by getting information from:

___Community leaders

___Representatives of the business community

___Educators (i.e. school board members, or school principals)

 If you need more information about the thoughts and feelings of local residents, you can make a start with:

___Surveys

___Focus groups

___Guided discussions

Tool: Investigation Worksheet

Use this table to list possible sources of information for investigating your topic, and determine how useful each source might be.

Information you need to know	Where to look	Useful?

 

 

What are allies?

Allies are people, organizations, networks, or institutions that share some of your goals or can contribute to progress on an issue.

Allies may bring different kinds of support, including:

• Lived experience
• Community relationships and trust
• Knowledge or technical expertise
• Staff or volunteers
• Funding or material resources
• Communications capacity
• Legal, policy, or research expertise
• Access to decision-makers
• Organizational or community influence
• Meeting space, transportation, translation, or other practical support

Allies do not need to agree with your organization on every issue.

A useful alliance may be based on one shared goal even when the organizations involved have different missions, values, constituencies, or preferred strategies.

People directly affected by an issue should not be treated merely as allies to recruit. Whenever possible, they should have meaningful roles in defining the issue, setting priorities, choosing strategies, and leading the work.

Why do you need allies?

Advocacy rarely succeeds through the work of one organization alone.

Allies can strengthen an effort by contributing knowledge, relationships, resources, credibility, participation, or influence that no single group possesses by itself.

Working with allies can also:

• Connect your campaign with people already affected by or working on the issue
• Reduce duplication of existing efforts
• Help organizations learn from one another
• Expand access to decision-makers and community networks
• Bring different forms of expertise to the same problem
• Share workload and responsibility
• Increase the number of people who can participate
• Strengthen the legitimacy of an effort when the partnership reflects the communities affected

More allies are not automatically better.

A large coalition can be difficult to coordinate if members do not share enough common purpose, understand their roles, or trust the decision-making process.

The goal is therefore not simply to recruit the greatest possible number of organizations. It is to build partnerships that are relevant, credible, mutually useful, and capable of contributing to the desired change.

How do you find allies?

Start by identifying people and organizations already involved with the issue or with closely related concerns.

For example, if your goal is to improve the nutritional quality and accessibility of school meals, potential partners might include:

• Students
• Families
• School nutrition staff
• Teachers and school administrators
• Parent or caregiver organizations
• Health organizations
• Food-access organizations
• Local farmers or food producers
• Disability or allergy advocacy organizations
• Public-health agencies

A community resource inventory or directory can help identify organizations, institutions, networks, and informal groups already active in the community.

Sources may include:

• Local libraries
• Community resource or referral services
• Chambers of commerce or business organizations
• Local government
• Community foundations
• Nonprofit directories
• Neighborhood associations
• Faith and interfaith organizations
• Schools, colleges, and universities
• Health and social-service organizations
• Worker or labor organizations
• Cultural organizations
• Online community networks

If no useful directory exists, create your own.

Questions to ask

• Who is already working on this issue?
• What are they doing?
• What have they learned?
• Which approaches appear useful?
• Are there areas where collaboration would make sense?
• Who else may care about the issue even if they are not currently working on it?
• Who is directly affected but has not been included in previous efforts?
• Who has relevant lived experience or community knowledge?
• Who has authority to make or influence the decisions involved?

Use relationship mapping

One useful method is sometimes called a snowball or referral technique.

Ask people you already know:

“Who else should we be speaking with about this issue?”

Continue asking that question as your network expands.

Be careful not to rely only on referrals from the same social or professional network. Doing so can reproduce existing exclusions.

Deliberately look for organizations and community members outside your usual circles.

Look across community sectors

It may also be useful to map different sectors of the community.

Depending on the issue, these might include:

• Residents
• Youth organizations
• Older-adult organizations
• Disability organizations
• Immigrant and refugee organizations
• Faith and interfaith organizations
• Businesses
• Health care
• Education
• Local government
• Labor
• Housing organizations
• Cultural organizations
• Environmental organizations
• Professional associations

Sector mapping can help reveal both existing relationships and important gaps.

Do you and your potential allies care about the same things?

Once you identify possible allies, learn what matters to them.

Potential partners may support the same general outcome for different reasons.

For example, a safer transportation system might matter to:

• Residents concerned about pedestrian safety
• Disability organizations concerned about accessibility
• Schools concerned about students traveling safely
• Businesses concerned about customer access
• Local government concerned about infrastructure and public safety

These organizations do not need identical motivations in order to work together.

At the same time, partnership should not be reduced to asking whether the benefits of helping you outweigh the costs.

Consider:

• What goals do we share?
• Where do our goals differ?
• What would participation require from each organization?
• What risks or constraints does each organization face?
• What responsibilities would each partner take on?
• What would each partner reasonably expect from the collaboration?
• Are there ethical or mission-related concerns?

An Ally Opportunities and Risks Table

A simple table can help your group understand potential partnerships.

For each potential ally, consider:

• What shared interests or goals exist?
• What could they contribute?
• What could they gain from collaboration?
• What risks or costs could participation create for them?
• What risks could their involvement create for the campaign or community?
• What concerns would need to be addressed openly?
• Who within that organization should participate in the decision?

Do not simply minimize or conceal possible risks when approaching an ally.

A strong partnership depends on informed expectations.

Discuss potential benefits and risks honestly so that organizations can decide whether participation fits their mission, capacity, and responsibilities.

Indirect and network allies

Some organizations may not work directly on your issue but may have relationships, knowledge, or responsibilities that make them relevant.

Think of your immediate partners as part of a larger network.

Ask:

• Who works with them?
• What other organizations are they connected with?
• Which communities do they have strong relationships with?
• Which decision-makers do they regularly interact with?
• Which professional, cultural, business, faith, labor, or civic networks do they participate in?

Network mapping can reveal possible connections, but respect privacy. Do not treat people's financial, personal, or organizational relationships as information to exploit.

Center people directly affected by the issue

Before evaluating which organizations can help your campaign, identify the people most directly affected.

They may have the strongest understanding of the problem and its consequences.

For example, if a school is experiencing increased violence or threats, begin by learning from students, families, educators, school staff, and others directly affected.

Do not begin by assuming that a particular solution – such as adding security personnel – is necessarily the correct response.

First ask:

• What kinds of violence or safety concerns are occurring?
• When and where are they occurring?
• What do students identify as the causes or contributing conditions?
• Which students experience the greatest risk?
• What approaches have already been tried?
• What evidence exists for possible responses?
• Could proposed strategies create unintended harms or disparities?

Potential responses might involve school climate, counseling, student support, conflict mediation, bullying prevention, physical safety, restorative practices, behavioral threat assessment, staffing, or other strategies depending on the problem.

The people who experience the problem should have meaningful influence over how it is defined and addressed.

Working with allies

Cooperation among organizations can increase resources, expand knowledge, strengthen relationships, and demonstrate that different parts of a community share an interest in the issue.

But the purpose of a coalition is not simply to create a “unified image.”

Healthy coalitions can contain disagreement.

Before beginning a joint effort, clarify:

• What goals are shared
• What goals are not shared
• Which strategies partners support
• Which strategies they do not support
• How decisions will be made
• How public statements will be approved
• How resources will be managed
• How credit will be shared
• How disagreements will be handled

Working together without requiring complete agreement

Organizations can sometimes collaborate on a goal even when they disagree about particular strategies.

For example, several organizations may share a goal of reducing pregnancies among adolescents while differing in their views about sexual-health education, contraception, parental involvement, or other policies.

Rather than asking one organization to give up its values simply to gain another organization's money or volunteers, identify whether there are areas of genuine agreement.

Possible shared activities might include:

• Supporting young people's access to accurate health information
• Strengthening communication between adolescents and trusted adults
• Supporting healthy relationships
• Connecting young people with appropriate health services
• Addressing educational, economic, or social conditions associated with adolescent pregnancy

Collaboration should not require misleading participants about what services, information, or policies each organization supports.

If partners cannot agree on an activity without compromising essential rights, evidence standards, or organizational responsibilities, separate advocacy may be more appropriate.

Which ally should you contact first?

You may need to prioritize potential allies when time or capacity is limited.

Do not rank partners only by how much power, money, publicity, or influence they can provide.

Consider which relationships are most important for the particular stage of your campaign.

A potential ally may be especially valuable because of:

• Lived experience
• Trust within an affected community
• Relevant expertise
• Relationships with decision-makers
• Organizing capacity
• Communications capacity
• Legal or policy knowledge
• Staff or volunteer capacity
• Financial or material resources
• Geographic reach
• Ability to reach populations your organization does not

The most influential organization is not necessarily the most important organization to contact first.

Trust, relevance, community legitimacy, and alignment with the campaign's goals may matter more.

Ally Contribution and Influence Grid

A grid can help your organization identify what different potential allies could contribute.

Type of contribution or influence	Questions to consider	Example
Lived experience and community knowledge	Does the group include people directly affected by the issue or people with substantial knowledge of how it operates locally?	A tenant organization helps define priorities for an affordable-housing campaign.
Community trust and relationships	Does the organization have trusted relationships with communities that need to be involved?	A neighborhood organization helps convene residents who have not previously participated in public meetings.
Participation and organizing capacity	Can the organization mobilize members or support sustained participation?	A membership organization helps residents participate in a public hearing.
Financial or material resources	Can the organization contribute funding, equipment, meeting space, transportation, or other resources?	A partner provides meeting space and translation services for community forums.
Expertise	Does the organization have relevant legal, technical, research, communications, policy, or professional knowledge?	A legal-services organization advises the coalition on tenant protections.
Decision-making access	Does the organization understand or have appropriate relationships with the institutions responsible for the decision?	A professional association helps advocates understand a regulatory process.
Communications reach	Can the organization reach audiences that need information about the issue?	A community media organization helps distribute multilingual information about a public meeting.
Institutional or public credibility	Does the organization have relevant experience or standing that may strengthen public understanding of the issue?	A local medical association provides evidence about the health effects of a proposed policy.

How do you use the grid?

• Use a separate grid for potential allies you want to understand more clearly.
• Identify which kinds of contribution or influence each potential ally may have.
• Compare those contributions with what the campaign actually needs at its current stage.
• Consider whether the partnership would also be appropriate from the ally's perspective.
• Identify any risks, conflicts, or expectations that should be discussed before beginning the partnership.

Example of an Ally Contribution and Influence Grid

Contribution or influence	Assessment	Example
Community participation	Strong	The organization has 200 active members and regular neighborhood meetings.
Community trust	Strong	Residents have worked with the organization on several successful neighborhood projects.
Technical expertise	Moderate	Several members have relevant planning and housing experience.

You do not need to complete a detailed grid for every organization.

It may be most useful when comparing several potential partners or when the campaign has a specific gap – such as community leadership, legal expertise, communications capacity, or relationships with decision-makers.

Approach potential allies as partners

Once you identify a potential ally, learn about the organization's work before asking for support.

An initial conversation might include:

• Why you are contacting them
• What your organization is trying to accomplish
• Why you believe your goals overlap
• What you have already learned about the issue
• What role, if any, they are interested in
• What concerns or limitations they have
• What they would need from your organization

Avoid approaching organizations only with a request for money, members, endorsements, publicity, or access to influential people.

Strong alliances are usually relationships rather than transactions.

Maintain healthy alliances

Partnerships require attention after they are formed.

Useful practices include:

• Communicate regularly
• Share relevant information
• Give partners appropriate credit
• Follow through on commitments
• Be transparent about changes in strategy
• Address disagreements rather than allowing them to build
• Respect each organization's limits
• Review whether the partnership is still useful to everyone involved

Partners may sometimes decide to work together on one objective while pursuing other aspects of the issue separately.

That does not necessarily mean the alliance has failed.

In Summary

Allies can strengthen advocacy by contributing knowledge, relationships, participation, resources, expertise, credibility, communications capacity, and influence.

Finding allies begins with understanding who is already working on the issue and who is directly affected by it.

People directly affected should not be treated simply as another source of support for an organization's campaign. They should have meaningful opportunities to define priorities and participate in leadership and decision-making.

Potential allies do not need to agree on everything. Organizations may collaborate effectively around a shared objective while remaining different in other important ways.

At the same time, partnerships should not be purely transactional. Do not evaluate organizations only according to how much money, publicity, membership, or political influence they can provide.

Consider community trust, lived experience, relationships, expertise, organizing capacity, access to decision-makers, communications reach, resources, and alignment with the campaign's goals.

Discuss risks and expectations honestly. A strong alliance does not depend on hiding the costs of participation or exaggerating its benefits.

Avoid selecting partners merely because they make the campaign look more appealing or prestigious. People and communities should not be used as symbols, endorsements, or emotional tools.

Coalitions also do not need to present an image of complete agreement. Healthy partnerships can acknowledge differences while maintaining clear shared goals.

Finally, treat allies as partners rather than resources to “use.” Successful alliances depend on trust, reciprocity, shared responsibility, clear communication, and respect for what each participant brings to the work.

What are allies?

___You understand that allies are people, or groups of people, who have the same interests as you, or the capacity or resources to help you

Why do you need allies?

___Allies can help you achieve your mission

___They can share their resources and information to achieve a common goal

___The community is more likely to pay attention if there are more people working towards that goal

How do you find allies?

___Use a community resource inventory/directory

___Use the Yellow pages 

___Use a local social service directory 

___Use neighborhood assistance services 

___Ask the Chamber of Commerce 

___Ask City hall 

___Ask your group members, friends, colleagues

___Use the "snowball technique," by asking your known allies to list other potential allies and then asking each of those groups to identify more potential allies

___Identify allies by examining various sectors of your community such as religious organizations, businesses and health care, and identifying organizations within each sector who might be potential allies

How do you choose which ally to contact first?

___You know if you and your allies care about the same things

___You know to consider your allies' risks vs. benefits

___You know how to use the Ally Power Grid to determine which allies you should contact first

___Contact Your Allies

Example: "Stoplights Don't Stop Us!"

“Stoplights Don’t Stop Us!” tells the story of how people with disabilities in Emporia, Kansas, living in a high-rise apartment complex near a dangerous intersection, came together as allies to advocate for change in their community. The changes they achieved enhanced their ability to more fully and safely participate in the community. (The video is also available with audio description.) To learn more about this process for making change to support independent living for all, visit the free publication: Your Action Planning Guide for Promoting Full Community Participation Among People with Disabilities: A Resource for Independent Living Centers and Other Community-based Initiatives.

Tool 1: Community resource inventory for recognizing allies

Completing this table will help you determine who your allies might be for your advocacy campaign and what they are doing, or could be doing, about the issue.

Sources of Allies	Potential Allies	What are they doing? (or what could they be doing on the issue)?	Contacted?
Who is already working on the issue in your community?
Possible other allies based on general information sources
Yellow pages
Social service directory
Neighborhood assistance groups
Chamber of Commerce
City Hall
Members of your own group, colleagues, and friends
Others

Tool 2: Potential allies risks vs. benefits exercise

This table will help you recognize the risks and benefits each potential ally faces when considering joining your group. Knowing these is important when contacting potential allies to join you.

The following table shows how a group of people who organized to reduce school violence might go about determining who cares about their issue.

The Problem: Increasing violence between students at Happy Valley High School. Your group wants to hire a security guard as a part of a program to reduce violence at the school.

Ask yourself:	Examples	What are the benefits? What do they gain if you win?	What are the risks?
Whose problem is it?	Students	- Safer schools - A better learning environment	- Stricter rules/codes at school - less freedom
	Teachers	- Safety for themselves and students - Increased job satisfaction	- Might get blamed for stricter rules
	Parents	- Children are safe - Better education for their children	- Might lead to a tax increase - Other financial costs
	Local education board	- Increased community support	- May be expensive, which might decrease political support, especially if the program is not successful

 A blank Potential Allies Risks vs Benefits form for you to fill out for your allies:

Ask yourself:	Examples	What are the benefits? What do they gain if you win?	Whar are the risks? What might they lose?
Whose problem is it?

Tool 3: Ally Power Grid

This table will help clarify the power(s) a potential ally may bring to your group, and thereby help identify which allies will are the most valuable to your group.

Type of Power	Power Appraisal: Do they have a lot of it or not?	Give an example
Members: How many members does the group have?
Money: Will they donate money to your issue?
Credibility: Do they bring special credibility?
Appeal: Do they have special appeal?
Network: Are they part of a large, organized network?
Reputation: Do they have a reputation for toughness?
Skills: Do they have special skills?
Newsworthy: Are they particularly newsworthy?
Other:

 

 

Who may oppose or resist your advocacy effort?

Advocacy efforts often encounter disagreement, resistance, competing priorities, or organized opposition.

Some resistance is public and easy to identify. Other resistance may be less visible. An organization may express general support for your goal while disagreeing with a particular strategy, delaying action, or deciding not to participate.

It is therefore useful to understand not only who may oppose your proposal, but also:

• What they disagree with
• What interests or responsibilities shape their position
• What authority or influence they have
• Whether their position could change
• Whether there are areas of shared interest

Not every disagreement should be treated as opposition.

People or organizations may agree that a problem exists while disagreeing about:

• The proposed solution
• Cost
• Timing
• Implementation
• Legal authority
• Potential unintended consequences
• Competing community priorities

Understanding those distinctions can help advocates choose more effective and appropriate responses.

Why identify possible sources of opposition or resistance?

Understanding resistance before implementing a campaign can help you:

• Anticipate questions, criticism, or competing proposals
• Understand what interests and concerns are involved
• Identify misinformation or misunderstandings that may need to be addressed
• Recognize genuine conflicts of interest
• Prepare accurate evidence and communications
• Identify opportunities for negotiation or collaboration
• Assess risks to participants
• Use campaign resources strategically

The goal is not to eliminate every person who disagrees with you.

It is to understand the advocacy environment well enough to respond effectively while remaining focused on the change your campaign is seeking.

How do you identify possible opposition or resistance?

Begin by asking:

• Who is affected by the proposed change?
• Who benefits from current conditions?
• Who may face financial, operational, political, legal, or organizational costs if the proposal is adopted?
• Who has responsibilities that may conflict with your proposal?
• Who has publicly opposed similar changes in the past?
• Who may support the overall goal but object to the proposed strategy?

For example, imagine an advocacy effort seeking restrictions on the sale or placement of tobacco or nicotine products in settings frequented by young people.

Different organizations may raise different concerns:

• Retailers may be concerned about revenue or implementation.
• Public-health organizations may support stronger restrictions.
• Regulators may be concerned about legal authority or enforcement.
• Manufacturers or industry organizations may oppose the proposal because it affects sales or marketing.

Understanding these interests is more useful than assuming that everyone who raises a concern is motivated by the same thing.

How do you assess the influence of people or organizations that resist your proposal?

Once you identify important sources of resistance, consider what forms of influence they possess.

These may include:

• Financial resources
• Legal authority
• Relationships with decision-makers
• Public credibility
• Membership or organizing capacity
• Media or communications reach
• Technical expertise
• Institutional authority
• Ability to delay or influence implementation

The purpose of this analysis is to prepare your campaign, not to assume that every organization will use all available power against you.

Ask:

• What actions are realistically available to them?
• Which actions have they used in similar situations?
• What legal or procedural limits apply?
• How should our campaign prepare?

How do you recognize different forms of resistance?

Advocacy groups may encounter several patterns of response.

Do not assume intent without evidence. A delay may reflect strategic obstruction, but it may also result from limited staffing, legal review, disagreement within an institution, competing priorities, or uncertainty.

Common patterns may include:

• Deflection: Attention shifts from the main issue to another question or to a person who lacks authority to make the necessary decision.
• Delay: A decision or response is repeatedly postponed.
• Denial: The existence, seriousness, cause, or proposed solution to the problem is challenged.
• Minimization: The importance or scale of the issue is characterized as smaller than advocates believe the evidence shows.
• Challenge to credibility: Questions are raised about the campaign's evidence, motives, methods, expertise, or representativeness.
• Internal division: Differences within the coalition become more significant or are amplified by outside pressure.
• Partial response: An institution offers a limited change that addresses some but not all of the campaign's concerns.
• Legal or administrative response: An organization uses litigation, regulation, procedural requirements, or other formal mechanisms.
• Negotiation: Participants explore whether an agreement or revised proposal can address important interests on several sides.
• Acceptance: Decision-makers agree to the proposed change or a substantially similar one.

A useful response depends on what is actually happening.

Gather evidence before describing another organization's actions publicly as deceptive, obstructive, or intentionally divisive.

How can you respond to opposition or resistance?

Match your response to the seriousness, type, and source of the resistance.

A misunderstanding may call for clearer information. A disagreement about implementation may call for negotiation. A violation of rights or an ongoing harmful practice may require formal complaints, organizing, legal action, public pressure, or another stronger response.

Prepare early

One of the best ways to respond to opposition is to anticipate important concerns before the campaign becomes public.

Ask potential partners, affected residents, decision-makers, and knowledgeable organizations:

• What concerns do you expect?
• What evidence will people want to see?
• What legal or operational barriers exist?
• Which parts of the proposal are likely to generate disagreement?
• What alternatives might address those concerns?

Early consultation does not mean giving others veto power over your campaign.

It means understanding the environment well enough to make informed strategic choices.

Meet with people who disagree when appropriate

Direct conversation may reveal that some resistance is based on misunderstanding, incomplete information, implementation concerns, or assumptions that can be clarified.

For example, community members may have inaccurate or incomplete information about a proposed comprehensive sexuality education program.

Advocates can explain:

• What the curriculum actually includes
• Which age groups it serves
• What educational standards apply
• How families are informed
• What evidence supports the program

Discussion will not eliminate every disagreement, but it can ensure that debate centers on the actual proposal.

Look for shared interests

People who disagree about a proposed solution may still share an underlying goal.

For example, a food retailer and a public-health coalition may both want customers to have access to nutritious foods, even if they initially disagree about pricing, product placement, or promotion.

Shared interests can sometimes support a revised proposal or pilot project.

A “win-win” outcome is not always possible, and advocates should not compromise away essential rights, safety protections, or core goals simply to avoid disagreement.

Respond to legal or organizational challenges responsibly

If your campaign faces litigation, regulatory action, formal complaints, or other legal challenges, obtain qualified legal advice where appropriate.

Do not assume that filing a counterclaim or escalating a legal dispute is automatically the best response.

Consider:

• The legal merits
• Costs
• Risks to participants
• The campaign's goals
• Possible alternatives

Public communications about the dispute should remain accurate and should not exaggerate the situation simply to generate sympathy.

Describe resistance accurately

It can be useful to explain a pattern of delay, deflection, misinformation, or partial action when the evidence supports that description.

Focus on the behavior and its effects rather than trying to generate anger toward an individual or organization.

For example:

“The agency has postponed the decision three times over six months, and no new timeline has been provided.”

This is more useful than simply labeling the agency as obstructive.

Evaluate partial concessions on their merits

An institution may offer a partial change.

Do not automatically accept it as sufficient, but do not automatically dismiss it as a “token” either.

Ask:

• What does the proposal actually change?
• Who benefits?
• What concerns remain unresolved?
• Is the change temporary or permanent?
• Is there a clear implementation timeline?
• Can it serve as a meaningful step toward the broader goal?

Frame the issue clearly and accurately

Advocates should communicate the issue through a clear explanation of the problem, the evidence, who is affected, and the proposed change.

Do not allow your campaign to spend all of its time responding to another organization's framing.

At the same time, framing should not distort evidence or hide legitimate tradeoffs.

For example, an indoor smoke-free policy can be discussed in terms of reducing exposure to secondhand smoke and protecting health, while still acknowledging the concerns that businesses or individuals may raise about implementation.

Be strategic without relying on deception

Advocacy campaigns do not need to disclose every internal strategy in advance.

However, deliberately misleading another party about your intentions simply to keep them off-balance can damage trust and credibility.

Strategic advocacy can instead involve:

• Varying tactics when conditions change
• Preparing several possible responses
• Choosing the right time for public action
• Using different messengers for different audiences
• Keeping internal planning confidential when appropriate

Understand interests, constraints, and incentives

Rather than trying to manipulate an opponent's psychology, understand the interests and constraints influencing their behavior.

An organization may:

• Agree that a problem exists but lack technical expertise
• Face budget or staffing limits
• Need approval from another decision-maker
• Fear legal or political consequences
• Have different priorities
• Benefit financially from existing conditions

That analysis can help you determine whether technical assistance, negotiation, public pressure, policy change, litigation, or another strategy is appropriate.

Use public action safely and intentionally

Demonstrations, pickets, boycotts, public testimony, and other forms of nonviolent direct action can be legitimate advocacy strategies.

The purpose should be to communicate a demand, mobilize participation, influence decision-makers, or bring public attention to an issue – not to provoke an unnecessarily harsh response so that the campaign gains sympathy.

Before organizing higher-risk public action, consider:

• Participant safety
• Applicable laws and policies
• Accessibility
• Transportation
• Communication plans
• Possible police or security response
• Legal support
• Risks that may differ among participants

Document institutional responses accurately if they become relevant to the campaign.

Use your strongest evidence and capabilities where they matter most

Every advocacy campaign has strengths and limitations.

One campaign may have strong scientific evidence. Another may have broad resident participation, legal expertise, persuasive personal testimony, policy knowledge, or strong relationships with decision-makers.

Identify the strengths that are most relevant to the decision you are trying to influence.

Similarly, understand weaknesses in competing arguments without exaggerating them or dismissing evidence simply because it comes from an organization you oppose.

Know when to negotiate

Negotiation may become useful when:

• Both sides recognize that the issue will not disappear
• There are areas of shared interest
• Decision-makers indicate willingness to consider alternatives
• A partial agreement could produce meaningful progress
• Continued conflict creates costs or risks that all sides would prefer to reduce

Do not reject negotiation merely because initiating it might be perceived as weakness.

Evaluate negotiation according to whether it can advance the campaign's goals and whether people directly affected by the issue consider the possible agreement acceptable.

When should you engage, escalate, or disengage?

Not every source of resistance requires the same response.

Consider three broad options:

Engage

Engagement may be useful when:

• Misunderstanding appears to be a major source of disagreement
• There are meaningful shared interests
• The other party has shown willingness to discuss the issue
• A policy or proposal could be improved through negotiation

Escalate

Stronger advocacy may be appropriate when:

• Harm is ongoing
• Rights are being violated
• Decision-makers repeatedly refuse to respond
• Evidence is being ignored or misrepresented
• Formal processes have not produced an adequate response

Escalation might involve additional organizing, public testimony, media advocacy, formal complaints, litigation, demonstrations, boycotts, or other lawful strategies.

Disengage or limit contact

Direct engagement may not be productive when:

• Participation creates significant safety risks
• A person or organization repeatedly acts in bad faith
• Meetings are being used mainly to delay action
• Harassment or threats are occurring
• Another formal process is more appropriate

Advocacy does not require endless dialogue.

Avoid unnecessary polarization

Strong advocacy can challenge powerful institutions without turning every disagreement into a struggle between morally good and bad people.

Avoid:

• Personal attacks
• Dehumanizing labels
• Public claims about motives that you cannot support
• Treating compromise as betrayal
• Treating all criticism as evidence of bad faith
• Assuming every institution is internally unified

At the same time, avoiding polarization does not mean minimizing serious wrongdoing.

Discrimination, corruption, abuse, deliberate misinformation, violations of rights, and other harmful practices should be named accurately when evidence supports those conclusions.

In Summary

Advocacy efforts often encounter resistance or organized opposition.

Understanding that resistance can help advocates choose better strategies, protect participants, prepare accurate communications, and identify opportunities for negotiation or escalation.

Begin by identifying who is affected by the proposed change, who may bear costs, who benefits from current conditions, and who has authority or influence over the issue.

Do not assume that everyone who disagrees is an opponent. Some people may share the goal while disagreeing about strategy, implementation, cost, timing, or tradeoffs.

When opposition is organized, assess the forms of influence involved – including legal authority, money, relationships, public credibility, organizing capacity, expertise, and communications reach.

Recognize patterns such as delay, deflection, denial, minimization, credibility challenges, partial responses, negotiation, and legal or administrative action. But do not assume deceptive intent without evidence.

Respond proportionately. Misunderstanding may call for explanation; implementation concerns may call for negotiation; ongoing harm or violations of rights may require stronger organizing, formal complaints, litigation, public pressure, or other forms of escalation.

Use framing strategically but accurately. Advocacy should communicate a clear understanding of the issue without distorting evidence or hiding legitimate tradeoffs.

Do not rely on deception simply to confuse or destabilize people who disagree with you. Strategic planning, timing, evidence, organizing, coalition-building, and creative tactics can provide influence without sacrificing credibility.

Nonviolent direct action can be an important advocacy tool, but participant safety should come first. The purpose is to advance the campaign's goals, not to provoke a harsh response for publicity.

Negotiation is not necessarily a sign of weakness, and escalation is not necessarily a sign of strength. Evaluate each according to the desired outcome, risks, evidence, and the priorities of people directly affected.

Finally, strong advocacy does not require turning every conflict into a permanent battle.

The goal is to understand resistance well enough to respond effectively while maintaining accuracy, participant safety, community trust, and focus on the change the campaign is seeking.

___You know why it is important to identify your opponents

___You know how to identify your opponents

___You know how to discover what your opponents might lose

___You know how to determine your opponents' power

You can recognize the following tactics your opponents may use:

___Deflect

___Delay

___Deny

___Discount

___Deceive

___Divide

___Dulcify

___Discredit

___Destroy

___Deal

___Surrender

You know how to use the following tactics to deal with your opponents:

___Prevention

___Meeting with opponents

___Develop win-win solutions

___Turn negatives into positives

___Label your opponents' tactics

___Frame the debate on your terms

___Balance and illusion

___Consider your opponents psychology

___Turn your opponents' assets into liabilities

___Concentrate strengths against weaknesses

___Know when to negotiate

Tool 1: Worksheet for identifying potential opponents

Completing this table will help you determine who might oppose your advocacy campaign and what they have at stake. This is an important first step to developing strategies for your advocacy campaign.

Example: Violence has been increasing between students at Happy Valley High School. Your group wants to implement a youth education program, along with hiring a security guard and an extra counselor trained in conflict resolution.

Ask yourself:	Potential Opponents	What might they lose if you win?
Who might lose something if you win?	Taxpayers Association	Money - higher taxes
	Chamber of Commerce	Image - recognition of the problem may give the community a bad reputation
	Students	Respect, dignity
	School Administration Staff	Loss of image for the school

 

A blank Potential Opponents form for you to fill out:

Ask yourself:	Potential Opponents	What might they lose if you win?
Who might lose something if you win?

Tool 2: Worksheet for Recognizing Your Opponent's Power

This table will not only help you recognize what power your opponents have, but also how they might use that power against you.

Example: How can you determine the potential powers of possible opponents to a group wanting to ban transporting chemical waste through their community? Just fill in the table.

Potential opponent	What's at stake for them?	Power the opponent has:	Potential strategies your opponent may use:
Casey Jones' Rail Transport Company	- Money - very expensive to re-route trains - Jobs	- They have lots of financial and legal resources - Strong lobbying group	- Tie you up in a long, costly legal battle
Karl's Carcinogens, Inc.	- Money - Time - Jobs	- Financial resources - Newsworthy (major regional employer) - Credibility - several scientific "experts" who say their products aren't "that toxic"	- Try to portray your group as extremists to the media

 

 A blank Worksheet for Recognizing your Opponent's Power and Potential Strategies for you to fill out:

Potential Opponent	What's at stake for them?	Power the opponent has:	Potential strategies your opponent may use:

 

What do we mean by involving people who disagree with your advocacy effort?

Advocacy groups often work closely with people and organizations that already support their goals.

It can also be useful, in some circumstances, to communicate or collaborate with people who disagree with part or all of a proposal.

These people should not automatically be treated as opponents.

They may:

• Share the same overall goal but prefer a different strategy
• Have concerns about cost, implementation, timing, or unintended effects
• Have responsibilities or institutional constraints that shape their position
• Lack information about the proposal
• Represent communities or interests that have not yet been included
• Strongly oppose the proposed change

Involving people with different views can sometimes improve understanding, identify practical problems, reduce unnecessary conflict, strengthen a proposal, or reveal areas where cooperation is possible.

Collaboration is not appropriate in every situation. Safety, power differences, rights, ongoing harm, organizational responsibilities, and the wishes of people directly affected should all be considered.

Why might you involve people who disagree with you?

Constructive engagement may help your group:

• Better understand the concerns and interests shaping disagreement
• Identify misunderstandings or gaps in information
• Learn about implementation challenges your group may have overlooked
• Identify areas of shared interest
• Develop possible compromises or alternative solutions
• Build relationships that may be useful for future community work
• Reduce unnecessary polarization
• Create opportunities for collaborative problem-solving

The purpose should not be to “neutralize” critics, gather information about them for strategic advantage, or gain access to their networks without their knowledge.

Engagement works best when participants understand why the conversation is happening and what each side hopes to accomplish.

Are they really opponents?

Before deciding that someone is an opponent, ask what they actually disagree with.

A person or organization may oppose one proposal while supporting another.

They may disagree with:

• The goal
• The proposed strategy
• The cost
• The timeline
• The evidence
• The organization responsible for implementation
• The likely effects on another community or interest

Positions can also change over time.

Maintaining respectful communication can therefore be valuable even when substantial disagreement remains.

Someone who disagrees with you is not necessarily an opponent.

When might engagement be useful?

Engagement may be worth considering when:

• Communication remains possible
• Participants are willing to listen and respond
• There appear to be shared interests or overlapping goals
• Better information could clarify the disagreement
• A practical or policy problem may benefit from joint problem-solving
• Negotiation could produce meaningful progress
• The people directly affected consider engagement useful

When might engagement be inappropriate?

Not every conflict should be approached through collaboration.

Direct engagement may be inappropriate or require additional safeguards when:

• There are credible threats, harassment, intimidation, or violence
• Harm is ongoing
• Significant power differences make voluntary participation difficult
• One party controls another participant's employment, housing, services, legal status, education, or safety
• There is a documented pattern of bad-faith participation or deliberate deception
• Participation would expose people to unnecessary retaliation or trauma
• Legal, regulatory, or formal complaint procedures are more appropriate
• The people most affected do not want direct engagement
• The time and resource demands would outweigh the likely benefit

Respectful disagreement can sometimes be the appropriate outcome.

Collaboration should not be treated as a measure of whether advocates are reasonable or willing to compromise.

How can you involve people who disagree with you?

Clarify why you are considering engagement

Before making contact, decide what you hope the conversation will accomplish.

Possible goals include:

• Understanding concerns more clearly
• Correcting misunderstandings
• Sharing information
• Identifying areas of agreement
• Exploring a pilot program
• Negotiating a specific policy or implementation question
• Agreeing to work together on a related issue
• Establishing a process for continued communication

Avoid treating silence or a promise not to oppose you publicly as the only meaningful form of success.

A clearer understanding of why agreement is not possible can also be useful.

Identify appropriate participants

Decide who actually needs to be involved.

Consider people or organizations that:

• Have relevant authority or responsibility
• Are directly affected by the issue
• Have useful knowledge or expertise
• Have worked with your group before
• Share at least some goals or concerns
• Represent perspectives that have not yet been included
• Can participate constructively in the discussion

Do not select participants only because they have enough power to help your organization achieve what it wants.

Ask whose participation is necessary for a fair and workable process.

Include people directly affected

A disagreement between two organizations may affect many people who are not represented by either organization.

Those people should not be treated merely as “stakeholders” whose cooperation is needed to prevent disruption.

They may have legitimate rights, knowledge, interests, and decision-making roles.

Ask:

• Who will live with the consequences of the decision?
• Who experiences the current problem?
• Who may experience unintended effects of a proposed solution?
• Who has historically been left out of similar decisions?
• How can those people participate meaningfully?

Make contact transparently

Explain:

• Why you are requesting the conversation
• What issue you want to discuss
• Who will participate
• Whether any decisions are expected
• Whether the meeting will be confidential or public

Avoid presenting a meeting as informal relationship-building if your group actually intends to negotiate commitments or gather information for a public campaign.

Establish ground rules when useful

Ground rules can help reduce confusion and clarify expectations.

Depending on the meeting, they may address:

• Participants
• Meeting location
• Accessibility
• Language and interpretation
• Time limits
• Confidentiality
• Media communication
• Recording or note-taking
• Outside experts
• Decision-making authority
• Procedures for ending or pausing the meeting

Set a clear agenda

A shared agenda can clarify:

• What questions will be discussed
• Which questions are outside the scope of the meeting
• Whether the meeting is exploratory or intended to reach decisions
• What information participants should review in advance
• What will happen after the meeting

Use working groups when the issue is complex

A broad issue may be easier to address through smaller working groups focused on particular questions.

Working groups should include people with relevant knowledge and perspectives.

Avoid using subgroup processes to move controversial decisions out of public view or exclude people who should have a voice.

Review evidence together

Some disagreements involve different understandings of the facts.

Participants may benefit from reviewing:

• Public data
• Research
• Legal or policy requirements
• Community-generated information
• Lived experience
• Technical analysis

In some cases, participants may agree to jointly identify questions that need additional research.

Be cautious with the idea of an “unbiased expert.” Every source has a perspective, methodology, and set of assumptions.

Instead, agree in advance on criteria for credible evidence and disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Consider an independent facilitator or mediator

A trained facilitator or mediator may be useful when:

• Trust is limited
• Meetings repeatedly become unproductive
• Participants have difficulty communicating directly
• Power differences require additional procedural safeguards
• Several organizations are involved

Make sure the facilitator's role is clear.

Mediation is not appropriate when it creates pressure to compromise on safety, rights, or accountability.

Begin with exploratory conversations when appropriate

Some groups may benefit from an initial meeting focused on understanding the issue rather than reaching an agreement.

Participants can discuss:

• How each group understands the problem
• Their concerns
• What they need from a future process
• Which questions require more information
• Whether continued engagement appears useful

People should not be required to disclose personal emotions or experiences simply because the meeting is exploratory.

Expect more than one conversation

Complex disagreements are rarely resolved in one meeting.

If progress appears possible, agree on:

• Next steps
• Responsibilities
• Additional information needed
• Who else should be involved
• When participants will meet again

Guidelines for constructive engagement

The following practices may help:

• Understand interests and values. Identify where goals overlap and where they differ.
• Enter the conversation with realistic expectations. Collaboration may be possible, but agreement is not guaranteed.
• Be respectful. Treat people with dignity while remaining able to challenge harmful policies or conduct.
• Communicate your own goals clearly. Do not hide the outcomes your organization is seeking.
• Listen carefully. Ask questions and check whether you understood another participant correctly.
• Consider several options. Avoid treating the first proposal from either side as the only possible solution.
• Evaluate compromises carefully. Consider effects on the people most directly affected.
• Maintain alternatives. Your organization may need another strategy if negotiations do not produce an acceptable result.

Compromise is not always required

Being willing to communicate does not mean being required to compromise on every issue.

Some matters involving:

• Legal rights
• Safety
• Discrimination
• Accessibility
• Professional or ethical obligations
• Basic program integrity

may not allow a middle-ground solution.

The relevant question is not simply, “What's in it for each side?”

Ask instead whether a proposed agreement is fair, lawful, workable, evidence-informed, and consistent with the needs and rights of the people affected.

Reaching an agreement

If participants reach agreement, clarify exactly what has been decided.

An agreement may involve:

• A specific action
• A pilot project
• A change in policy or practice
• Joint research
• Continued negotiation
• Cooperation on one part of the issue
• Agreement on general goals while details remain unresolved

Do not describe neutrality or silence from another organization as a partnership unless that is how all parties understand it.

Put important agreements in writing

Written agreements can reduce misunderstanding.

Depending on the situation, the document might be:

• Meeting notes
• A letter of agreement
• A memorandum of understanding
• A formal contract
• An implementation plan

The agreement should identify:

• What each party has committed to do
• Who is responsible
• Timelines
• Resources
• How progress will be measured
• How disagreements will be addressed
• Whether and how the agreement can be changed

Do not assume that handshakes, physical contact, or other gestures are appropriate or culturally universal.

Communicate the agreement to people affected by it

Do not wait until after an agreement is finalized to involve people whose lives or work will be affected.

Meaningful participation should occur earlier in the process whenever possible.

Once an agreement has been reached, explain:

• What was decided
• Why
• What tradeoffs were made
• What remains unresolved
• Who is responsible for implementation
• How community members can provide feedback

The goal should not be to “sell” an agreement or obtain “buy-in” after decisions have already been made.

People should be able to understand, question, and where appropriate influence the agreement.

Use current, specific language when discussing equity commitments

For example, rather than referring broadly to “minority hiring targets,” identify the actual issue involved.

Depending on context, this might include:

• Racial or ethnic disparities in hiring
• Equal employment opportunity
• Local hiring
• Disability inclusion
• Language access
• Workforce diversity

Use terminology that accurately reflects the population, legal context, and policy being discussed.

Build implementation and accountability into the agreement

Agreements are more useful when there is a clear plan for implementation.

Consider including:

• Regular progress meetings
• Public reporting where appropriate
• Defined performance measures
• A review date
• A process for addressing complaints or disagreements
• Independent review when appropriate
• Community participation in evaluation

Monitor commitments from all participants

Accountability should apply to every organization involved, including your own.

Instead of simply “watching your former opponent,” establish transparent measures that allow everyone to determine whether commitments are being fulfilled.

Document:

• Actions completed
• Deadlines met or missed
• Resources provided
• Problems encountered
• Outcomes
• Necessary changes

In Summary

People and organizations that disagree with an advocacy effort may sometimes be appropriate partners in discussion, negotiation, research, or limited collaboration.

Someone who disagrees with you is not automatically an opponent. They may share the overall goal while disagreeing about strategy, cost, implementation, evidence, timing, or competing priorities.

Engagement can help clarify disagreements, identify shared interests, improve proposals, and sometimes produce workable agreements.

Collaboration should not be pursued simply to neutralize critics, gain strategic information, or obtain access to another organization's relationships or resources.

Begin by clarifying why engagement is useful, who should participate, what the risks are, and what people directly affected by the issue want from the process.

Direct engagement is not always appropriate. Safety concerns, rights violations, harassment, serious power differences, or repeated bad-faith participation may require formal procedures, stronger advocacy, limited contact, or another approach.

When meetings occur, use clear ground rules, accessible processes, transparent goals, reliable evidence, and independent facilitation where appropriate.

Compromise can be useful, but it is not automatically the goal. Some rights, safety standards, and ethical obligations should not be negotiated away simply to obtain agreement.

People affected by the outcome should be involved before decisions are finalized. Do not treat them merely as audiences who need to be persuaded to “buy in” afterward.

If an agreement is reached, document responsibilities, timelines, implementation, evaluation, and accountability.

Finally, accountability should apply to all participants. Former opponents do not need special surveillance; all organizations should be evaluated according to whether they fulfill the commitments they made.

Constructive engagement is most valuable when it helps people understand one another more accurately and produces fairer, more workable community decisions – not simply when one side succeeds in bringing the other into its campaign.

You understand reasons why you should want to involve an opponent:

___To remove or neutralize a potentially harmful critic

___To gain insight into the workings of your opponent

___To gain access to a group that has previously been closed to you

___To acquire new resources to solve a common problem

___To find common values and beliefs you didn't know were there

___To get to know your opponents as people

___To build a base of trust that might be helpful in to you in the future

___To help you make progress

___Because involving opponents can help you (and them) in unexpected ways

You understand when you should involve opponents:

___When the lines of communication are still relatively open, and you believe your opponent is willing to talk with you

___When you see common values and opportunities

___When the cost of getting involved with each other is not too great

You understand when you shouldn't involve your opponents:

___When there is a history of distrust or deception between you and your opponent

___When your respective positions are strongly held, deeply entrenched, and completely opposed to each other

___When your opponents are unwilling to talk with you

___When the time and energy costs in collaborating with your opponent would be too great

You understand how to involve opponents:

___You have decided that you want to involve them

___You have narrowed your targets

___You have clarified your goals

___You have made the commitment

___You have identified the stakeholders

___You have made contact with your opponent

___You have established ground rules

___You have set an agenda

___You have organized subgroups

___You have searched for information

___You have found a mediator

___You have involved other stakeholders

___You have held an exploratory meeting

___You have met again

___You understand the twelve "talking points"

___You have closed the deal

___You have sold the deal to your supporters, other stakeholders, and the general public

___You have structured the agreement

___You have monitored the agreement

Example: Finding a common goal to work towards with opponents

One excellent example of how opposing groups can work together comes from a famous study in social psychology by Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues. At a summer camp, two groups of boys were intense competitors for trophies and prizes. Their opposition became so strong that the "Eagles" burned the "Rattlers'" flag; the Rattlers retaliated by vandalizing the Eagles' cabin. Matters might have gotten out of hand, except that the camp truck broke down on a trip; both groups had to join forces to get it started. The common goal ("superordinate goal" was the technical term used) helped restore harmony between the two groups.

The moral of the story is to look for things you have in common with your opponents, rather than on the differences you have.

Tool: Collaboration Self-Assessment

This is a worksheet to help guide your collaboration efforts with your opponents, adapted from materials from the Work Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas.

Your group:	Yes	No	Collaborator	Yes	No
Problem Setting
1. Common definition of the problem  Do the parties define the problem in overlapping terms? Is the definition of the problem sufficiently broad to incorporate the interests of the opponents? Outcomes are rooted in interdependence?			Is your definition included? Can you reach your goals with the others?
2. Parties are committed to collaborate Does the present situation fail to serve each party's interest? Will collaboration produce positive outcomes? Is it possible to reach a fair agreement? Is there parity among the opponents? Will all sides agree to collaborate?			Does the present situation fail to serve my interests? Will collaboration produce positive outcomes for me? Is an agreement possible that is fair to me? Am I an equal player? Will the other side agree to collaborate?
3. Opponents are identified Have those who have a right or capacity to participate, have important expertise, or can disrupt the process been identified? Have disputes about legitimacy been settled? Is the process open? Have size and manageability of the group been determined? Has the internal legitimacy of groups been determined? Are the interests of those not at the table represented by those who are?			I am affected by the problem, have the capacity to participate, have important expertise, or can disrupt the process.I view the others as legitimate stakeholders. The size of the group allows my active participation.  I will participate at an appropriate level. My group has consensus.
4. Convenor is appropriate Is there an already existing umbrella organization? Can the convenor bring opponents to the table? Does the convenor have a reputation of trust? Is the convenor an unbiased expert on the problem? Does the convenor have appropriate skills? Is (s)he perceived as having authority to organize collaboration? Does (s)he have a vision of purpose and appreciates collaboration? Can (s)he create and sustain a process of bringing opponents together?			I will meet with the convenor. I trust the convenor. I believe the convenor has appropriate skills and no bias. I agree with the vision of purpose and collaborative process. I will work with the convenor.
5. Resources have been identified and are adequate. Are resources available? Can adequate resources to allow everyone to participate equally be secured?			I have available resources.
Direction Setting
1. Ground rules have been established. Are all parties are involved in outlining acceptable and unacceptable behavior? Do all parties agree on ground rules?			I was involved in developing ground rules. I agree to abide by the ground rules.
2. Agenda is set. Does the agenda reflect the interests of all parties? Are there rules for adding or deleting items of special concern?			The agenda reflects my interests. I am able to influence the agenda.
3. Subgroups are formed if necessary. Should subgroups be formed to address distinct issues (particularly if more than enough people are available)?  Is membership on subgroups diverse enough to get a wide range of input?			I will work with a subgroup.
4. Information is sought jointly. Do parties agree on facts supporting problem definition? Do parties search for facts together? Do parties mutually examine data? Are technical experts and expert witnesses used for controversial issues?			I agree with the facts supporting problem definition. I worked with others to find the facts. I examined the facts with others.
5. Multiple options are explored. Have multiple options been explored before choosing alternatives? Are subgroups used to examine options more closely? If appropriate, are outside experts used to generate options?			I have examined multiple options.
6. Reaching final agreement. Are all parties committed to a single option or package of options?			I am committed to the final option(s).
Implementation
1. Dealing with constituencies. Do opponents' constituencies understand the rationale for tradeoffs and ultimately support the agreement?			Does my constituency understand the rationale for tradeoffs? Does my constituency support the agreement?
2. Do those needed to implement the agreement support it? Do all parties support the agreement? Will all parties work to implement the agreement?			I support the agreement and will implement it if necessary.
3. Extent of effort is determined. Is a structure in place to permit a gradual institutionalization of the agreement reached? Are there long-term structures to support collective effort? Is there an ongoing forum for future problem-solving? Is there a framework for regulating the group's efforts?
4. Compliance is monitored. Are the opponents following through with the agreements? Are there opportunities available to work through cultural differences, historical conflicts, and others barriers to implementation? Are monitoring responsibilities clearly spelled out? Are sanctions needed?

 

• Option A: How would you use this information to become an effective collaborator?
• Option B: How would you use this information to ensure more effective collaboration?

 

What's a plan for advocacy?

Advocacy planning is the process of identifying the change you want, understanding the conditions surrounding the issue, determining who has authority or influence, choosing strategies, and organizing the actions and resources needed to move toward the goal.

Advocacy planning shares many features with other forms of strategic planning, but several considerations may require particular attention.

Advocacy often:

• Seeks changes in policies, practices, funding, institutions, or public decisions
• Involves people or organizations with different interests and levels of authority
• Takes place partly in public
• Requires careful communication and evidence
• May involve political, legal, organizational, reputational, or personal risks
• Requires adaptation as circumstances change

Planning helps advocates:

• Clarify goals
• Understand the issue and people affected
• Identify decision-makers and sources of influence
• Select appropriate strategies and tactics
• Use resources effectively
• Anticipate risks and barriers
• Establish measures of progress
• Adjust the campaign when new information becomes available

When should you create a plan for advocacy?

Begin planning before launching major public advocacy activities, but treat the plan as something that can change.

Different parts of the plan affect one another.

For example, your group may begin with a goal of closing an industrial facility because of environmental harm. During planning, you may learn that many residents depend on the facility for employment and that workers also want stronger environmental protections.

That information could lead the group to consider several possible goals, such as:

• Requiring safer production practices
• Strengthening environmental monitoring
• Increasing community oversight
• Requiring cleanup or remediation
• Developing a transition plan if closure remains necessary

The purpose of planning is not simply to make the original idea more persuasive. It is also to test whether the original goal is appropriate.

Making your plans

Advocacy planning is usually stronger when people with different forms of knowledge participate.

Depending on the issue, this may include:

• People directly affected
• Community organizations
• Staff and volunteers
• People with legal, policy, technical, or research expertise
• Community leaders
• People responsible for implementing a proposed change

Use whatever planning format works for the group.

Options may include:

• Shared digital documents
• Spreadsheets
• Project-management tools
• Whiteboards or flip charts
• Printed planning worksheets

The important point is that the plan is documented, accessible to the people responsible for carrying it out, and updated when circumstances change.

Goals and objectives

Begin by clarifying the broader change your group wants to achieve.

A broad goal might be:

• Increase access to affordable housing
• Improve health-care access
• Reduce environmental contamination
• Improve transportation safety
• Expand educational opportunities

For planning purposes, divide broad goals into more specific objectives.

Long-term goals

Long-term goals describe the larger outcome your campaign hopes to influence.

Examples might include:

• Increase the supply of affordable housing over the next five years
• Reduce pregnancies among adolescents through evidence-informed prevention and access to appropriate health services
• Eliminate unlawful toxic discharges into a local watershed

Long-term goals should be ambitious enough to matter while recognizing that advocacy groups may not control every factor affecting the outcome.

Intermediate goals

Intermediate goals identify policy, practice, funding, program, or institutional changes that move the campaign toward the longer-term result.

They can:

• Provide measurable evidence of progress
• Help the group evaluate whether its strategy is working
• Create opportunities to recognize meaningful accomplishments
• Clarify what still needs to change

Examples include:

• The city adopts an incentive or requirement supporting additional affordable housing units
• A health clinic extends hours based on community-identified access barriers
• Major employers adopt scheduling practices that improve employees' ability to manage caregiving responsibilities

Short-term objectives and action milestones

Short-term objectives identify actions or near-term results that help move the campaign forward.

Examples might include:

• Recruit additional community participants
• Hold a public listening session
• Meet with key decision-makers
• Publish a research brief
• Submit public comments
• Mobilize eligible voters around an issue

Writing out your goals

SMART goals can be a useful planning tool.

Goals are often most useful when they are:

• Specific: Clear about what change is being sought.
• Measurable: Defined well enough that progress can be assessed.
• Achievable: Realistic given available authority, resources, and conditions.
• Relevant: Connected to the campaign's broader purpose.
• Time-bound: Associated with a reasonable timeframe.

Goals can also be ambitious, but avoid creating targets simply because they sound impressive.

A challenging goal should still be grounded in evidence, available capacity, and community priorities.

For example:

Instead of:

“We'll hold a meeting.”

Consider:

“By June, we will hold an accessible community meeting for families and young people to identify priorities for the initiative.”

Resources and assets

Once goals are clearer, identify the resources the campaign already has and the resources it will need.

Advocacy resources may include:

• Funding
• Staff time
• Volunteers
• Community leadership
• Research and data
• Legal or policy expertise
• Communications capacity
• Relationships with community organizations
• Relationships with decision-makers
• Meeting space
• Transportation
• Technology
• Translation and interpretation
• Disability access

Do not assume that advocacy is inexpensive or that funders generally will not support it.

Funding rules and funder priorities vary.

Organizations should understand the legal and funding requirements that apply to their own advocacy and lobbying activities.

Also examine internal capacity.

Ask:

• Are workloads realistic?
• Are responsibilities clear?
• Are staff and volunteers working well together?
• Are financial decisions transparent?
• Are community members receiving appropriate support to participate?

Community support and resistance

Advocacy planning should include an assessment of likely support, uncertainty, and resistance.

Avoid assuming that groups will automatically support or oppose your proposal because of their identity, profession, industry, or previous positions.

For example, a business affected by an environmental proposal may have concerns about cost while also supporting stronger protections for local water.

A labor organization may support environmental improvements while also raising concerns about job security.

A public agency may agree with the goal but question whether it has sufficient legal authority or funding.

Consider creating a map that identifies:

• Strong supporters
• Potential supporters
• Undecided or uncertain participants
• People or organizations with specific concerns
• Organized opposition

Include people directly affected even if they are not formally organized.

Decision-makers and sources of influence

Advocacy usually seeks a change that someone has authority to make.

Identify the people or institutions responsible for the relevant decision.

Examples include:

• Elected officials
• Agency leaders
• School boards
• Employers
• Regulatory bodies
• Corporate leaders
• Funding organizations

Then identify people or organizations that may influence those decision-makers.

These may include:

• Residents
• Voters
• Employees
• Community organizations
• Professional associations
• Researchers
• Legal advocates
• Business organizations
• Faith or cultural organizations
• Media organizations

The terms targets of change and agents of change are sometimes used in advocacy planning. When possible, more specific terms such as decision-maker, implementing organization, community partner, or source of influence may be clearer.

Focus on the authority or behavior that needs to change rather than labeling the person themselves as a “target.”

Planning your strategy

A strategy is the overall approach the campaign will use to reach its goal.

Advocacy strategies may include:

• Public education
• Community organizing
• Coalition-building
• Administrative advocacy
• Legislative advocacy
• Negotiation
• Regulatory complaints
• Litigation
• Media advocacy
• Economic pressure
• Nonviolent direct action

Strategies should:

• Advance the campaign's goals
• Reflect the priorities of people affected
• Fit the available evidence
• Use resources responsibly
• Consider likely support and resistance
• Protect participants from unnecessary risk
• Be consistent with legal and ethical obligations
• Be adaptable when circumstances change

Choosing a strategic approach

Advocacy strategies vary in how collaborative or confrontational they are.

Rather than placing every tactic on a simple ladder from “friendly” to “confrontational,” ask what is appropriate for the situation.

Possible approaches might include:

Education and engagement

• Provide accurate public information
• Meet with decision-makers
• Work with organizations responsible for implementation
• Gather and present data
• Participate in hearings or public-comment processes
• Build coalitions

Public pressure and organizing

• Petition
• Organize public testimony
• Conduct a media campaign
• Organize demonstrations
• Use boycotts or other forms of economic pressure where appropriate

Higher-risk direct action

Some campaigns may consider civil disobedience or other higher-risk forms of nonviolent direct action.

Such actions should involve careful planning, informed participation, legal guidance where appropriate, and attention to the fact that consequences can differ substantially among participants.

Avoid involving children or young people in higher-risk actions without strong safeguarding, clear consent processes, and age-appropriate consideration of the risks involved.

Staying flexible

Advocacy conditions change.

New legislation may be introduced. A partner may change position. New evidence may emerge. An institution may make a partial policy change. A new risk may become apparent.

Review the campaign regularly and decide whether new developments require:

• Reinforcing positive changes
• Verifying new information
• Addressing newly identified needs
• Responding to harmful developments
• Changing strategy
• Revising the goal

Avoid acting on rumors without verification.

If you hear that a promised affordable housing component has been removed from a development proposal, confirm the information before making a public claim or changing strategy.

Evaluating possible strategies

A strategy-planning table can help a group compare different approaches.

Strategy	Questions to consider
Meet with elected officials to seek funding for school-linked health services	Does this move us toward the goal? Does it reflect community priorities? Do we have enough evidence? Who should participate? What resources are required? What resistance or concerns should we anticipate? What risks or unintended effects should we consider?

Tactics and action steps

Tactics are the specific actions used to carry out a strategy.

Examples include:

• Letters or emails
• Meetings
• Public testimony
• Administrative complaints
• Surveys
• Public forums
• Media outreach
• Negotiation
• Demonstrations
• Petitions

As you evaluate a tactic, ask whether it:

• Advances the strategy
• Fits the campaign's values and goals
• Is lawful or appropriately risk-assessed
• Is realistic within available resources
• Is accessible to participants
• Includes appropriate safeguards
• Uses people's time responsibly
• Has a reasonable chance of contributing to the desired change

Helpful questions

• What will the action involve?
• Who will carry it out?
• Who should help design it?
• When will it happen?
• What resources are required?
• What accessibility needs should be addressed?
• What partners should be involved?
• What concerns or resistance may arise?
• What risks may participants face?
• How will we know whether the action was useful?

Planning tactics

A simple action-planning table can connect goals with specific responsibilities.

Goal	Action	Responsible person or group	Timeline	Resources and support needed	Potential concerns or resistance
Improve understanding of young people's sexual-health needs	Conduct an anonymous, age-appropriate survey developed with students, families, health professionals, and school staff	School-community working group	Current school year	Survey expertise, accessibility review, appropriate consent or assent procedures, language access, data protections	Privacy concerns, family concerns, survey design, participation rates

Research or surveys involving minors require particular attention to privacy, ethics, school policy, consent or assent requirements, and the sensitivity of the information being collected.

Avoid treating young people merely as subjects of research. They can also help identify appropriate questions and interpret findings.

Putting the plan together

The final advocacy plan should connect the main elements of the campaign in one place.

A planning chart might include:

• Goals
• Community priorities
• Resources and assets
• Support and resistance
• Decision-makers
• Sources of influence
• Strategies
• Action steps
• Responsibilities
• Timelines
• Risks
• Measures of progress

For example, imagine that proposed budget reductions threaten a community health clinic serving residents who face economic and geographic barriers to care.

A planning chart might identify:

Goals	Resources and assets	Support / resistance	Decision-makers / influence	Strategies	Action steps
Maintain and expand access to community health services	Staff and volunteers Community organizations Patient and resident experience Health-care data Medical and policy expertise	Community residents Health organizations Elected officials with differing budget priorities	County commissioners Health department leadership Medical associations Community organizations	Community education Meetings with decision-makers Public testimony Budget advocacy	Document service needs Hold community listening sessions Develop a policy and budget brief Meet with relevant officials

Review and update the plan

An advocacy plan should not remain unchanged simply because it has been formally written.

Review it regularly.

Ask:

• Are our goals still appropriate?
• What progress has occurred?
• What have we learned?
• Have community priorities changed?
• Have new partners or sources of resistance emerged?
• Have laws, policies, funding, or political conditions changed?
• Are participants able to sustain the work?
• Are our tactics producing the intended effect?
• Are there unintended consequences?

Revising a plan in response to evidence is a strength, not a failure.

In Summary

Advocacy planning connects a desired community change with the people, resources, strategies, and actions required to pursue it.

Begin with clear goals, but remain willing to revise them as you learn more about the issue and the people affected.

Include people directly affected by the issue in planning whenever possible.

Identify available resources and organizational limits, including staff capacity, funding, expertise, accessibility, community relationships, and participant well-being.

Map support and resistance without assuming that people fall permanently into simple categories of allies and opponents.

Identify who actually has authority to make the desired change and who may influence those decisions.

Choose strategies according to the issue rather than assuming that effective advocacy must be confrontational.

Public education, organizing, negotiation, administrative advocacy, litigation, media work, demonstrations, and other approaches are tools whose value depends on context.

Higher-risk tactics require careful consideration of legal, safety, accessibility, and participant-specific consequences.

Tactics should serve the strategy rather than becoming goals in themselves.

Finally, treat the plan as a working document.

Advocacy conditions change, and a strong campaign uses new evidence and community feedback to revise its goals, strategies, and actions when needed.

What's the best way to plan?

___Planning is done as a group

___Plans are recorded in a way that is easy to get at and use later

What should we plan?

___Planning is done under six headings: goals; resources and assets; supporters /opponents; targets and agents of change; strategy; and tactics

How do we plan for goals or objectives?

___Planning is done for long-term, intermediate, and short-term

___Objectives are SMART + C: Specific; Measurable; Achievable; Relevant; Timed; and Challenging

How should resources and assets be included in the plan?

___The following resources are included: funds; people currently available, and likely to be available in the future; important contacts; and facilities

How should degrees of community support be included in the plan?

___Make an inventory of allies and opponents

___Check to see if people who are normally opposed to you may support you and if those who normally support you may oppose this goal

Which specific people or agencies should be included as targets or agents of change?

___Refer to your work in digging up the root causes of the problem

___Identify the person (or agency) who absolutely needs to make a change if your goals are to be achieved

___Think about people who can be agents of change - include those who at first sight might look like targets for change, but may be able to be "turned," so they become agents for the group's goals

How should you plan your strategy?

___Decide on your strategy

___Prepare to be flexible, reacting to changing needs and conditions

___Make sure that each strategy you consider will help reach your goals; will suit your style; will use your allies appropriately; and will work

How should you plan your tactics?

___Pick those that best carry out your strategy

___As you plan each tactic, decide who will do it, when, with what resources, using which allies, and ponder what opposition and resistance it might meet

How should you put it all together?

___You have a loose-leaf binder or computer file in which to store the separate sections

___Or make big charts showing the plans for each action across different sections

___Or both

Tool 1: Strategy Checklist

Strategy	Does it:	Yes or No
1.	Help us reach our goals? Use our allies? Minimize our opposition? Suit our style?
2.	Help us reach our goals? Use our allies? Minimize our opposition? Suit our style?
3.	Help us reach our goals? Use our allies? Minimize our opposition? Suit our style?
4.	Help us reach our goals? Use our allies? Minimize our opposition? Suit our style?
5.	Help us reach our goals? Use our allies? Minimize our opposition? Suit our style?

 Tool 2: Turning goals into action steps

Goal	Action Steps
	By __________
	By __________
	By __________

Tool 3: Planning Tactics

Goal:

Strategy:

Action	By whom	By when	Resources and support needed	Possible opponents

Tool 4: Campaign Planning Chart

Goals	Resources and Assets	Support / Opposition	Targets / Agents of Change	Strategies	Action Steps

 

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

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

You may need to know:

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

Research can help answer those questions.

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

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

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

What do we mean by conducting research?

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

The question may be relatively straightforward:

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

Or it may be more complex:

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

Different questions require different forms of evidence.

For example:

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

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

Why do research?

Research can strengthen advocacy in several ways.

Research helps establish what is happening

Advocacy often begins because community members have observed a problem.

Research can help determine:

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

Research can challenge your assumptions

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

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

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

Research can help identify effective strategies

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

When reviewing an intervention, ask:

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

Research can support cost and resource analysis

Advocacy decisions often involve costs as well as benefits.

Cost analysis may consider:

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

Use current and locally relevant data whenever possible.

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

Research can improve credibility

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

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

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

Research can help evaluate competing claims

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

Research can help determine which factual claims are well supported.

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

Evaluate the quality of the evidence itself.

Research can help your organization become a trusted resource

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

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

Strong advocacy often combines several forms of expertise.

When should you do advocacy research?

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

When seeking legislation or policy change

Research can help demonstrate:

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

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

When increasing community understanding of an issue

Local data can help people understand changes in their community.

Examples might include:

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

Numbers require context.

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

Whenever possible, explain:

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

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

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

When programs, services, or communities are being mischaracterized

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

For example, public debates may include claims about:

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

Avoid responding to stereotypes with different stereotypes.

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

When investigating possible misconduct or misuse of public resources

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

Useful sources may include:

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

Do not assume wrongdoing before the evidence establishes it.

Describe allegations, findings, and confirmed facts accurately.

When public statements may be misleading or unsupported

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

Research can help compare those claims with:

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

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

When trying to prevent harm

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

Depending on the issue, researchers may examine:

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

When determining what the community needs

Advocacy groups sometimes begin research without a predetermined policy solution.

Community health advocates, for example, may first investigate:

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

Research can then inform what the advocacy effort should seek.

How do you do research?

No single research method works for every advocacy question.

The following principles apply broadly.

Ask for help

Advocacy research often benefits from collaboration.

Useful partners may include:

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

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

Protect people who provide sensitive information

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

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

Consider:

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

Find out what research already exists

Before collecting new information, review what is already available.

Existing sources may include:

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

Existing research can save time and help identify unanswered questions.

Learn enough about the issue to evaluate what you find

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

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

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

Know why you are collecting the information

Before gathering data, identify how it will be used.

Research might be intended to:

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

Collect only information that has a clear purpose.

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

Do not gather evidence only to confirm what you already believe

Advocacy organizations can experience confirmation bias just like anyone else.

Before using a finding, ask:

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

Evaluate sources rather than relying on reputation alone

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

Evaluate:

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

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

Be persistent, but work ethically

Research can take time.

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

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

Types of research and some suggestions for each

Background and documentary research

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

Useful sources may include:

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

Libraries

Libraries remain important research resources.

Librarians can help locate:

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

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

Public records

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

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

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

Before filing a request:

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

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

Government data

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

When using government data, check:

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

Online research

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

The main challenge is evaluating quality.

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

When using online sources:

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

Interviews and conversations

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

Interview participants may include:

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

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

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

Structured interviews

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

When developing interviews:

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

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

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

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

Surveys

Surveys can help gather information from larger groups.

They may be conducted through:

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

No survey method reaches everyone equally.

Consider:

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

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

Translate surveys when needed and make formats accessible.

Sampling and representativeness

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

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

Before making population-wide claims, consider:

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

Describe the sample honestly.

Focus groups

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

They can help identify:

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

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

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

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

Studies

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

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

They may examine:

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

If your organization plans to conduct a study:

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

Correlation is not necessarily causation

Two things can occur together without one causing the other.

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

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

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

Good study design attempts to account for alternative explanations.

Direct observation and investigative research

Sometimes important information can be obtained by observing conditions directly.

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

Direct observation should respect:

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

Do not trespass or put researchers at unnecessary risk.

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

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

Use public records and documentation carefully

Investigative advocacy may involve reviewing large amounts of documentation.

Useful materials might include:

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

Keep careful records of where evidence came from.

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

Using personal stories ethically

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

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

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

Before using a personal story publicly:

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

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

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

Community members as research partners

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

They can help:

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

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

Keep track of your evidence

Advocacy groups should maintain organized records of important sources.

For major claims, record:

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

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

In Summary

Effective advocacy depends on reliable research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do we mean by conducting research?

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

Why should you do advocacy research?

___It gives your advocacy substance

___It gives you new information to help make your case

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

___It can provide you with anecdotes and examples to use

___It can confirm what you were already sure of

___It allows you to make cost-benefit arguments

___It gives you credibility

___It can short-circuit the opposition

___It sets you up as the expert on the issue

When should you do advocacy research?

___When you're trying to get legislation passed

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

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

___When you want to expose corrupt officials

___When government or some other entity is lying to the public

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

___To further the public interest

How do you conduct research?

___You ask for help

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

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

___You determine clearly what you'll use the information for

___You check all your facts carefully

___You're persistent

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

___You do "academic" research

___You gain information from conversations and interviews

___You construct and administer surveys

___You design and conduct studies

___You do detective work

___You find people with personal anecdotes and stories to tell

Tool 1: Specific research tips

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

Laws and regulations

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

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

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

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

Information about the past and current activities of government and corporations

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

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

General information

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

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

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

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

Tool 2: Some sources to use if you have opponents

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

Corporate registrations

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

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

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

Real Estate Records

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

Voting records

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

Court records

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

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

U.S. agencies

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

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

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

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

The Federal Reserve System

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

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

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

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

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

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

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

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

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

• How do you conduct studies of the issue?

What do we mean by conducting studies of the issue?

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

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

Depending on your question, a study may involve:

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

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

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

Why would you want to conduct studies of the issue?

Additional research may help your group:

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

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

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

How do you conduct studies of the issue?

Two broad approaches are common:

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

Many advocacy efforts use both approaches.

Documenting the issue using existing information

Before collecting new data, find out what already exists.

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

Ask:

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

Learn from other communities

Other communities may already have addressed a similar problem.

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

Ask:

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

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

Potential sources of existing information

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

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

Evaluate the quality of the evidence itself.

Evaluate existing sources carefully

For each important source, ask:

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

Generating new data

Existing sources may not answer every question.

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

Before collecting new data, define:

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

Interviews with community members and leaders

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

Do not limit interviews to formal community leaders.

Depending on the issue, include:

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

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

Community surveys

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

Surveys may be distributed through:

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

No method is automatically inexpensive, representative, or accessible.

Consider:

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

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

Personal or semi-structured interviews

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

They are particularly useful for understanding:

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

Interviews require time to conduct, document, and analyze.

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

Focus groups

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

Focus groups can be useful for:

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

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

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

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

Guided discussions and listening sessions

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

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

Discussions may occur in person or remotely.

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

Guidelines for collecting and using data

Use credible sources, not only official sources

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

Reliable evidence may also come from:

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

Use the strongest source available for the particular claim.

Verify important numbers and claims

Errors can damage credibility.

For major statistics:

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

Correct significant errors promptly if they are discovered.

Use qualified expertise when needed

Community organizations do not need to analyze every dataset themselves.

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

If outside experts are involved, ask them to explain:

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

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

Communicate data clearly without oversimplifying it

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

Simplicity is useful when it does not remove important context.

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

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

Show change over time when it is relevant

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

The appropriate timeframe depends on the issue.

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

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

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

Use current data when current conditions matter

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

Older data may still be appropriate for:

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

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

Do not select data only because they motivate people

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

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

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

Keep the scope realistic

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

Before beginning, consider:

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

Get help with survey design and statistics

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

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

Use graphs carefully

Charts and graphs can help people understand patterns.

Make sure:

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

Use personal stories ethically

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

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

Before sharing someone's story:

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

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

Protect privacy and use data ethically

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

Before collecting information, ask:

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

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

In Summary

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

Begin with existing information before collecting new data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___You know what it means to conduct studies of the issue

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

___You know how to conduct studies of the issue

___You know how to document the issue using existing data

___You understand what other communities have done

___You know how to generate new data

___You know the guidelines for collecting data

Example: Interview with Catie Heaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Why do you want to know what people think?

• What kind of information are you looking for?

• Whose opinions are you trying to measure?

• What are you going to do with the information?

• How do you gather data on public opinion?

What does it mean to gather data on public opinion?

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

Public-opinion data can help community organizations understand:

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

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

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

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

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

Before collecting information, ask:

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

Why do you want to know what people think?

Begin by defining the purpose of the research.

Community organizations may gather opinion data to:

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

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

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

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

Example: A neighborhood recreation project

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

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

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

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

What kind of information are you looking for?

Be specific about what you want to learn.

Public-opinion research may examine:

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

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

For example, someone may:

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

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

Avoid treating opinion as fact

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

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

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

Whose opinions are you trying to measure?

Define the population carefully.

The relevant population might be:

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

Different populations may need to be studied separately.

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

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

Their perspectives answer different questions.

Avoid overly broad demographic categories

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

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

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

Ask the population directly when possible

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

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

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

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

What are you going to do with the information?

Decide in advance how the information may influence decisions.

Public-opinion findings might be used to:

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

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

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

Decide what would cause you to change course

Before collecting data, ask:

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

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

Majority opinion is not the only consideration

A majority preference may be important without being decisive.

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

Community decisions may also need to consider:

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

How do you gather data on public opinion?

Begin by looking for existing information before collecting new data.

Existing sources

Useful sources may include:

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

When using existing opinion data, check:

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

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

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

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

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

Surveys

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

Surveys may be conducted through:

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

Each mode reaches people differently.

Consider:

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

Sampling matters

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

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

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

When reporting results, describe:

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

Question wording matters

Questions can influence responses.

Avoid wording that:

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

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

Interviews

Interviews can help explain why people hold particular views.

They can explore:

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

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

Focus groups and listening sessions

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

They are useful for understanding:

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

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

Public meetings

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

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

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

Digital and social-media information

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

It should be interpreted cautiously.

Online activity may be affected by:

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

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

What roles do community leaders and specialists play?

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

Community leaders

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

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

Compare leadership perspectives with information gathered directly from community members.

Specialists

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

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

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

Public opinion and factual evidence are different

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

Differences may indicate:

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

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

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

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

Gathering opinions from children and young people

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

Research involving minors requires additional care.

Consider:

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

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

Use opinion data ethically

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

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

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

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

Anticipate common obstacles

Public-opinion research may encounter:

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

Plan for these limitations and report them honestly.

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

In Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___You know what gathering information on opinion is

___You know why you want to know what people think

___You know what kind of information you are looking for

___You know whose opinions you are trying to measure

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

___You know how do you gather information on opinions

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

Example 1: What you should ask yourself

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

Why do I want to know what people think?

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

What kind of information am I looking for?

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

Whose opinions am I trying to measure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do I gather information on opinions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Example 2: Report of an opinion poll

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

Citizen Opinion Report on Child Safety Legislation

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

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

The results indicated overall:

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

This can be further broken down into:

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

Of the 27% who opposed the proposed legislation:

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

Tool: Opinion Poll

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

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

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

___Economy (go to 2)

___Agriculture (go to 4)

___Environment (go to 4)

___Don't know (go to 4)

___Other - specify __________(go to 4)

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

___Unemployment

___Interest rates

___Taxation

___Budget deficit

___Inflation

___Other - specify__________

___Don't know

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

___Excellent

___Good

___Fair

___Poor

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

___Favor (go to 5)

___Oppose (go to 6)

___Don't know (go to 6)

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

___Yes

___No

___Don't know

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

___Hinders growth a great deal

___Somewhat hinders growth

___Has no effect

___Helps growth somewhat

___Helps growth a great deal

___Don't know

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

___Greatly concerned

___Moderately concerned

___Slightly concerned

___Not concerned at all

___Don't know

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

___Independent (go to 9)

___Democrat (go to 10)

___Republican (go to 10)

___Don't know (go to 10)

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

___Democratic

___Republican

___Neither

___Still don't know

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

___Television

___Newspaper

___Radio

___Other - specify __________

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

___Some high school

___High school diploma or GED

___Some college

___Bachelor's Degree

___Other - specify __________

12. What year were you born? __________

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

___Under $25,000

___Between $25,000 and $40,000

___Over $40,000

• What does it mean to understand opposition and resistance?

• What can you learn from studying opposition?

• When should you study opposition?

• How should you study opposition?

• What ethical and legal boundaries should guide your research?

What does it mean to understand opposition and resistance?

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

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

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

Some may:

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

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

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

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

Who may oppose or resist your proposal?

Sometimes organized opposition is easy to identify.

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

Ask:

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

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

What can you learn from studying opposition?

Careful research can help your group:

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

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

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

Look for shared interests

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

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

Shared interests may create opportunities for:

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

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

When should you study opposition?

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

Continue updating that information as the campaign develops.

Positions may change because of:

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

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

How should you study opposition?

Start with publicly available, issue-relevant information.

Useful questions include:

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

Public and organizational information

Useful sources may include:

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

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

Conversations with knowledgeable people

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

Ask about:

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

Avoid soliciting confidential, private, or improperly obtained information.

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

Study institutions, not private lives

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

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

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

Formal research into institutions or public conduct

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

This can be appropriate when the issue involves:

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

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

Develop a research plan

A structured plan can help keep the investigation focused.

Ask:

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

Example research worksheet

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

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

Public records and transparency laws

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

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

Before making a request:

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

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

Business and organizational records

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

Depending on the issue, relevant information might include:

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

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

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

Understand interests, constraints, and likely responses

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

Ask:

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

This does not mean agreeing with their position.

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

Use the information responsibly

Opposition research should improve the quality of your advocacy.

It can help you:

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

Focus public criticism on conduct and evidence

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

Make sure the claim is:

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

Avoid threatening exposure merely to pressure someone into compliance.

Accountability should focus on the issue rather than personal humiliation.

If you uncover possible illegal conduct

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

Distinguish clearly between:

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

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

Ethical and legal boundaries

Advocacy does not justify unlimited investigation.

Do not:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoid stereotyping ideological or religious disagreement

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

Evaluate individuals and organizations according to their actual conduct.

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

Keep people directly affected at the center

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

Periodically ask:

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

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

In Summary

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

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

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

Focus on information connected to the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studying your opponents:

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

___Tells you why the opponent is taking those positions

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

Knowledge about opponents is useful to:

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

___Help you find ways to negotiate

___Help you develop successful strategies and tactics

With regard to the timing of research:

___Studying the opponent should be an ongoing process

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

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

___Keeping your eyes and ears open

___Looking at your opponent's previous activities and campaigns

___Reading their in-house publications and annual reports

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

Studying individuals may involve:

___Finding out where they live and work

___Finding out how and where they manage financial transactions

___Identifying their advisors

Studying agencies, companies or organizations may involve:

___Finding out their past records and tactics

___Finding out about their resources, strengths, and weaknesses

___Identifying their principle decision makers

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

A formal, tactical investigation may be necessary:

___If the opponent is powerful

___If the opponent may be willing to act forcefully

A formal investigation may involve the following steps:

___Develop an investigation plan

___Gather the information

___Think like your opponent

___Use the information

Information can be gathered:

___Through informants with an interest in the issue

___Through "freedom of information" laws

___Through published sources of information

Among published sources of information are:

___Business and trade publications

___Clipping files

___Reference works

___Government files on businesses

___Voting records

___Court records

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

___Their own sense of what is ethically permissible

___The risk of getting caught

___The risk that the opponent would also adopt hardball tactics

Thinking like the opponent will help a group:

___Predict what that opponent will do next

___Predict how the opponent would react to specific tactics

Studying their opponent can help advocacy groups:

___Plan actions that will be most effective

___Publicize the opponent's weaknesses

___Perhaps act as whistle-blower, and seek legal redress

Example: Investigation worksheet

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

 

Tool: Investigation Worksheet

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

 

 

• What is accountability?

• Why might you seek accountability?

• When might you seek accountability?

• Who is accountable, and to whom?

• How do you seek accountability?

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

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

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

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

What is accountability?

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

Accountability usually includes several elements:

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

Accountability does not mean that every mistake requires punishment.

Depending on the circumstances, accountability may involve:

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

Accountability and transparency are related but different

Transparency provides information.

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

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

Who may be accountable?

Accountability can apply to many individuals and institutions.

Examples include:

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

Accountability should be connected to actual responsibility.

Ask:

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

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

To whom are organizations and individuals accountable?

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

For example:

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

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

Why might you seek accountability?

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

To make sure essential responsibilities are being met

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

Examples might include:

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

To protect people from harm

Accountability mechanisms can help prevent or address:

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

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

To protect the public's right to information

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

Depending on the issue, this may include information about:

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

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

To protect people who report wrongdoing

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

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

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

To obtain repair or compensation

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

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

To protect public funds

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

Accountability may be needed when there are credible concerns involving:

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

To protect consumers

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

Accountability may involve:

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

To address unethical or abusive conduct

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

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

To support fairness and justice

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

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

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

When might you seek accountability?

Accountability may be especially important when:

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

Accountability should be based on evidence rather than suspicion alone.

Accountability in public decision-making

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

Useful accountability questions include:

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

Law enforcement and justice institutions

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

Accountability may involve:

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

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

Government contractors

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

Evaluation should take context into account.

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

Accountability should distinguish between:

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

Nonprofit organizations

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

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

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

Consider:

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

Businesses and corporations

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

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

Appropriate accountability questions include:

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

People who influence public policy

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

Advocacy itself is legitimate.

Accountability becomes particularly important when there are concerns about:

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

Individuals in positions of authority

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

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

How do you seek accountability?

Do the necessary research

Start with facts.

Before making serious public allegations or demanding consequences, understand:

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

Useful sources may include:

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

Verify important claims and distinguish allegations from established findings.

Seek qualified help when needed

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

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

Protect sensitive information

Accountability research may involve confidential or sensitive information.

Consider:

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

Decide what kind of accountability you want

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

Possible forms of accountability include:

Greater transparency

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

Examples include:

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

Changes in internal policy or practice

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

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

Regular reporting

Reporting may be appropriate when ongoing oversight is needed.

A reporting requirement should specify:

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

Regulatory or independent oversight

Some accountability requires ongoing oversight by:

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

Community oversight

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

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

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

Stronger enforcement

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

Accountability may therefore require:

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

New laws, regulations, or policies

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

Before seeking a new law or policy, ask:

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

Repair or compensation

Accountability may also require action to address harm already done.

This could include:

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

Start with the appropriate process

Not every accountability issue needs the same level of escalation.

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

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

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

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

Appeal directly to the organization

Direct communication can sometimes resolve an accountability problem.

A written request or meeting may:

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

State clearly:

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

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

Use regulatory or oversight processes

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

Submit accurate documentation and follow the requirements of the process.

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

Communicate publicly when appropriate

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

Public communication may involve:

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

Make sure public claims are:

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

The goal should be accountability, not personal humiliation.

Use nonviolent direct action when appropriate

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

Consider:

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

Advocate for changes in law or policy

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

Useful steps include:

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

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

Consider legal action

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

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

Whether litigation is appropriate depends on:

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

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

Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate.

Make accountability proportional

Effective accountability should fit the seriousness of the problem.

Ask:

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

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

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

Include the people affected

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

They may help:

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

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

Monitor follow-through

Accountability does not end when an organization promises change.

Follow-up may include:

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

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

In Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is accountability?

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

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

Why might you seek accountability?

___Ensure that citizens get what they need

___Protect the public from harm

___Protect the public's right to know

___Protect the rights and information of whistleblowers

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

___Guard against the misuse of public money

___Ensure that consumers get what they pay for

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

___Procure simple justice

When might you seek accountability?

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

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

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

___A business wants to locate in a community

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

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

___A blatant injustice is about to be done

Who might be held accountable?

___Elected and appointed government officials

___Law enforcement

___Government agencies

___Government contractors

___Nonprofits that seek money directly from the public

___Corporations and businesses

___Individuals and entities seeking to influence public policy

___Individuals whose positions within an organization give them power

How do you request accountability?

___You do the necessary research

___You decide what kind of accountability you want

___You appeal directly to the entity

___You go to the appropriate regulatory agency

___You go public

___You institute direct action

___You engage in legislative advocacy

___You initiate a lawsuit

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

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

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

What do we mean by economic benefit and harm?

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

These effects may include:

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

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

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

Community economic benefit or harm

Communities need resources to provide public services and maintain infrastructure.

Depending on the jurisdiction, those resources may come from:

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

Community economic health can be influenced by:

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

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

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

Employment and workforce opportunities

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

When evaluating employment effects, ask:

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

Health and environmental conditions

Health and environmental conditions can have significant economic consequences.

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

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

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

Quality of life

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

These may include:

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

Commercial economic benefit or harm

Businesses may be affected by:

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

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

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

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

Why demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

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

It can be especially useful when a proposal involves:

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

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

Different audiences may weigh these considerations differently.

When should you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

Economic analysis may be particularly useful:

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

Prevention and early intervention

Some preventive programs can reduce later public and private costs.

For example, effective programs related to:

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

may reduce more expensive needs later.

Do not assume that prevention always saves money.

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

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

How do you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

A useful process includes:

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

Do the research

Economic advocacy should be based on credible and current information.

Depending on the question, useful sources may include:

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

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

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

Learn from other communities

Experience elsewhere can provide useful information about possible outcomes.

Ask:

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

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

Determine short- and long-term consequences

Economic effects may unfold over very different timeframes.

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

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

Consider unintended consequences

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

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

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

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

Analyze who benefits and who bears the costs

Economic effects are rarely distributed equally.

Ask:

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

Consider distribution, not only totals

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

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

A complete analysis should therefore consider:

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

Make the economic connections

Several areas may help reveal economic consequences.

Public revenue

Consider whether a proposal may affect:

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

Include both possible increases and possible reductions in public revenue.

Public expenditures

Consider:

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

Employment

Look beyond the number of jobs.

Consider:

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

Effects on businesses

Consider whether a proposal may:

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

Household effects

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

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

Quality of life and community assets

Some outcomes may not have a simple market price.

Examples include:

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

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

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

Evaluate uncertainty

Economic forecasts are estimates, not guarantees.

Predictions may depend on assumptions about:

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

State those assumptions clearly.

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

For example:

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

Be careful with return-on-investment claims

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

Before repeating such a figure, check:

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

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

Economic analysis and fairness

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

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

Consider:

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

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

Identify the audiences that need the information

Different audiences may need different levels of detail.

Depending on the issue, audiences may include:

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

Avoid thinking of audiences simply as people to persuade.

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

Communicate economic findings clearly

Use language that is understandable without oversimplifying the analysis.

Helpful practices include:

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

Use relevant communication channels

Depending on the audience, communication may occur through:

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

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

Use trusted messengers appropriately

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

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

Messengers should understand the evidence and participate voluntarily.

In Summary

Economic consequences are an important part of many community decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, communicate findings clearly and transparently.

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

What do we mean by economic benefit and harm?

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

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

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

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

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

Why should you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

___Economic arguments are the most powerful for most people and organizations

___Economic issues affect everyone in the community

___Economic arguments are usually straightforward and realtively easy to understand

When should you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

___You are advocating for a new law or change of policy

___You are opposing a new law or change of policy

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

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

___Your advocacy involves controversial issues

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

___You are engaged in community planning

How do you demonstrate economic benefit or harm?

___You do the research

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

___You analyze those consequences

___You make the economic connections

___You define your audience

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

 

• What is documenting a complaint?

• Why should you document a complaint?

• Who should document complaints?

• When should you document a complaint?

• How do you document a complaint?

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

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

The person begins keeping records of:

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

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

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

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

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

What is documenting a complaint?

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

Documentation may include:

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

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

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

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

What might you need to document?

Depending on the issue, useful documentation may help establish:

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

Not every complaint requires proof of intent.

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

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

Why should you document a complaint?

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

It can also help distinguish:

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

Documentation may help establish credibility

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

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

Documentation may determine whether a complaint can be investigated

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

This may include:

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

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

Documentation may affect how a complaint is resolved

Accurate records can help determine:

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

Documentation may reduce risks when communicating publicly

Public accusations can create legal and reputational risks.

Before making serious public claims:

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

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

Who should document complaints?

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

Different people may contribute different types of documentation.

People directly affected

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

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

Witnesses

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

Subject-matter experts

Technical complaints may benefit from qualified expertise.

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

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

Employees and others with direct organizational knowledge

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

Protect confidentiality and retaliation concerns.

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

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

Community members and organizations

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

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

When should you document complaints?

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

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

Early documentation can help preserve details.

When considering a formal complaint

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

Complaint and filing deadlines may apply.

When advocating for policy change

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

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

When seeking organizational change

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

When alleging misconduct or poor performance

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

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

Other complaints may depend on establishing a repeated pattern.

When you suspect consumer fraud

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

Useful documentation may include:

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

When another complaint or allegation may arise from the same conflict

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

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

How do you document complaints?

Start by identifying:

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

Complaining to an official body

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

Review the current instructions carefully.

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

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

Keep records of:

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

Complaining directly to the organization involved

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

Present the concern clearly and provide enough documentation to explain:

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

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

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

Communicating with news organizations

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

Three useful principles are:

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

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

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

Provide evidence and allow the journalist to evaluate it independently.

Making a complaint public yourself

Advocacy organizations may also communicate complaints through:

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

Before publishing allegations:

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

Collect the actual documentation

Record information as soon as practical

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

Include:

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

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

Do the background research you need

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

Depending on the complaint, this may include:

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

Seek qualified help when specialized interpretation is necessary.

Get the basic facts

Record details that may help identify and verify the incident.

These may include:

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

Collect personal contact information only when it is genuinely relevant.

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

Describe clearly what the complaint is about

Explain:

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

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

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

Document what happened

Record each incident as accurately as possible.

Useful details may include:

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

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

Document conversations

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

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

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

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

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

Document the effects

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

Possible effects may include:

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

Be careful about causation.

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

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

Human and psychological effects

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

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

Public-health effects

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

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

Economic effects

Relevant economic effects may include:

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

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

Environmental effects

Documentation may involve:

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

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

Institutional or civic effects

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

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

Types of supporting documentation

Depending on the complaint, useful evidence may include:

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

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

Document intent only when it matters

Whether intention matters depends on the complaint.

It may be important to distinguish between:

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

Do not assume intent from the result alone.

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

Preserve and organize your documentation

Keep documentation organized from the beginning.

A simple record might include:

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

Preserve originals

Keep original documents and files whenever practical.

Provide copies when copies are acceptable.

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

Back up important records

Maintain secure backups of important digital files.

Depending on sensitivity, consider:

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

Protect confidential and personally identifiable information.

Preserve context and metadata when relevant

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

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

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

Presenting your documentation

Documentation may need to be presented to:

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

Organize the material so another person can understand:

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

Prepare to explain the information accurately

Know the major facts and be able to locate the supporting records.

You do not need to memorize every detail.

An organized timeline, index, or set of notes can make it easier to answer questions accurately.

In formal legal settings

If you are testifying, giving a deposition, or participating in another formal legal process:

• Tell the truth
• Listen carefully to each question
• Answer accurately
• Say when you do not know or do not remember
• Avoid guessing
• Follow instructions from the court or hearing officer
• Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate

General advocacy guidance should not substitute for individualized legal advice about testimony or litigation strategy.

Protect privacy and safety

Documentation may contain sensitive information about:

• Health
• Disability
• Employment
• Housing
• Immigration status
• Finances
• Education
• Family circumstances

Collect only the information you need.

Before sharing documentation, consider:

• Who needs access
• Whether names or identifying information can be removed
• Whether consent is needed
• Whether disclosure could create retaliation or safety risks
• Whether confidentiality laws or organizational policies apply

In Summary

Documenting a complaint means creating and preserving an accurate record of the events, communications, policies, conditions, and effects involved.

Strong documentation can help organizations, regulators, courts, employers, journalists, and community members understand what happened and decide what response is appropriate.

A complainant does not necessarily have to prove every element of a case before reporting a concern. Different complaint systems have different responsibilities and evidentiary requirements.

Begin documenting as early as practical.

Record dates, times, locations, participants, communications, actions, and effects. Distinguish what you observed directly from what you heard from someone else or inferred.

Preserve relevant emails, photographs, records, receipts, reports, public documents, and other lawfully obtained evidence.

Intent is not always required. Determine whether the particular complaint depends on intent, knowledge, negligence, impact, or another standard.

Follow the complaint procedure that applies, including filing deadlines and required forms.

Protect privacy and sensitive information, and do not encourage people to obtain documents unlawfully or violate legitimate confidentiality obligations.

Recording laws vary, so determine what consent or notice is required before making audio or video recordings.

Public communication should distinguish allegations from established facts and avoid exaggeration.

Store documentation securely, preserve originals where possible, and keep backups.

Finally, good documentation should make the complaint easier to evaluate, not simply more forceful.

The goal is to create a clear, accurate, well-supported record that helps the appropriate people determine what happened and what should be done about it.

To document a complaint:

___Determine whom you're filing the complaint with, and document accordingly

___Develop a plan for documentation

___Research all necessary background information

___Obtain the basic facts

___Describe in writing exactly what the complaint is about

___Describe in writing, as clearly as possible, exactly what happened for as many incidents as possible

___Record conversations, in exact words where possible

___Document the consequences of each incident or policy and/or of the overall series of incidents or policies you're complaining about

___Provide as much actual proof of the substance and details of your complaint as possible

___Present your complaint, with its documentation

Other considerations:

___Your documentation establishes you as a credible witness

___You established your concern by paying attention to and recording the details of the situation

___You have determined whether or not your complaint is taken seriously

___You have used the proper documentation so that it might make a difference as to whether or not the complaint can be acted on by a regulator or court

___You know how you want the complaint acted on and have the proper documentation to support that action

___Your documentation will protect you against libel or slander charges if you make public accusations

___You established the moral advantage through the use of your proof

___You encouraged anyone who has a complaint to document it, and did so yourself

___You asked experts in the field to document the situation

___You asked people directly affected by the actions or policies at which the complaint is directed o document the situation

___You asked people on the inside of the entity at which the complaint is directed to document the situation

___You asked community leaders or other respected individuals to document the situation

 

• What is documenting a complaint?

• Why should you document a complaint?

• Who should document complaints?

• When should you document a complaint?

• How do you document a complaint?

Imagine that a prospective homebuyer believes real estate professionals are treating them differently because of race.

The person notices a pattern: homes described as available by phone are suddenly unavailable when they appear in person, while they are repeatedly directed toward another neighborhood.

The person begins keeping records of:

• Dates and times of calls and meetings
• Properties discussed
• What each person said
• Emails, listings, or other written communication
• Changes in what was represented as available

They then contact an appropriate fair-housing organization or enforcement agency to learn what additional documentation may be useful and how to file a complaint.

Careful documentation may help an agency determine whether further investigation is appropriate.

Complaints can concern many issues, including discrimination, environmental conditions, consumer protection, workplace practices, public services, professional conduct, or treatment by a community organization.

In each case, preserving accurate information can make it easier to understand what happened and determine what response is appropriate.

What is documenting a complaint?

Documenting a complaint means creating and preserving an accurate record of the events, conditions, policies, communications, and effects related to the complaint.

Documentation may include:

• Notes
• Emails or letters
• Photographs
• Public records
• Receipts or invoices
• Policies or contracts
• Witness accounts
• Reports
• Relevant data
• Other lawfully obtained records

The amount and type of documentation needed will depend on the complaint and the organization or process reviewing it.

Filing a complaint does not always require you to prove the entire case yourself. Regulators, courts, employers, schools, professional bodies, and other organizations may have their own authority to investigate.

Your responsibility is generally to provide the most accurate and relevant information you reasonably can and to follow the applicable complaint process.

What might you need to document?

Depending on the issue, useful documentation may help establish:

• That the action, condition, event, or policy occurred
• What the people or organizations involved knew or reasonably could have known, when that is relevant
• Which individual, organization, department, or institution had responsibility
• What conversations, communications, or interactions occurred
• Whether people experienced harm, loss, exclusion, delay, or another negative effect
• The physical, social, economic, health, psychological, environmental, or other effects involved
• The qualifications or relevant experience of experts whose analysis you rely on

Not every complaint requires proof of intent.

Some laws, policies, or complaint processes focus on what happened or what effect a practice had, while others may require evidence about knowledge, intent, negligence, or another legal standard.

Determine what is relevant to the particular complaint rather than assuming the same elements apply in every case.

Why should you document a complaint?

Careful documentation can help the person or organization reviewing a complaint understand what happened.

It can also help distinguish:

• Facts from assumptions
• Individual incidents from patterns
• Direct observations from secondhand information
• Confirmed effects from possible effects

Documentation may help establish credibility

Consistent, detailed records can show that you paid attention to the circumstances and preserved information close to the time events occurred.

Documentation does not automatically prove that one person is truthful and another is not, but it can make the facts easier to evaluate.

Documentation may determine whether a complaint can be investigated

Some agencies or organizations require specific information before they can act.

This may include:

• The date of the incident
• The identity of the organization involved
• A description of what happened
• Supporting records
• Information showing that the complaint falls within the organization's authority

Requirements vary, so check the current procedure that applies to your complaint.

Documentation may affect how a complaint is resolved

Accurate records can help determine:

• Whether a policy or law may have been violated
• Whether the issue appears isolated or repeated
• How serious the effects were
• Whether corrective action has already occurred
• What remedy may be appropriate

Documentation may reduce risks when communicating publicly

Public accusations can create legal and reputational risks.

Before making serious public claims:

• Verify the facts
• Distinguish allegations from established findings
• Avoid exaggeration
• Preserve the sources supporting the statement
• Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate

Defamation law varies by jurisdiction and circumstance, so this section should not be treated as legal advice about whether a particular public statement is protected.

Who should document complaints?

Anyone directly involved in a complaint can preserve information that may later be useful.

Different people may contribute different types of documentation.

People directly affected

People who experienced the conduct or condition can document what they personally observed or experienced.

Their accounts should not be treated as less credible merely because they are directly affected.

Witnesses

Other people who observed relevant events may be able to confirm details or provide additional context.

Subject-matter experts

Technical complaints may benefit from qualified expertise.

For example, environmental, medical, engineering, financial, statistical, or legal questions may require professional analysis.

Experts should be used for questions within their expertise, and their qualifications and possible conflicts of interest should be clear.

Employees and others with direct organizational knowledge

Employees, former employees, contractors, or others with direct knowledge may sometimes have information relevant to a complaint.

Protect confidentiality and retaliation concerns.

Do not encourage anyone to unlawfully access records, disclose legally protected information, or violate legitimate professional obligations.

When whistleblower protections may apply, seek appropriate guidance about reporting channels and confidentiality.

Community members and organizations

Community organizations or respected community members may help identify patterns or provide context.

Their status alone should not make their evidence more important than information from people directly affected.

When should you document complaints?

When possible, begin documenting as soon as you recognize that an incident or pattern may become important.

Memories fade, websites change, records can be deleted under ordinary retention schedules, and physical conditions may change.

Early documentation can help preserve details.

When considering a formal complaint

If you may submit information to a regulator, employer, school, licensing body, court, union, or other formal process, determine the documentation requirements as early as possible.

Complaint and filing deadlines may apply.

When advocating for policy change

Documentation can help show whether a community concern is based on isolated events or reflects a broader pattern.

Historical evidence of discrimination, exclusion, unsafe conditions, or unequal treatment has often played an important role in policy and civil-rights reform.

When seeking organizational change

For example, if people receiving public assistance repeatedly report disrespectful treatment, long delays, inaccessible procedures, or other problems, records of specific experiences may help administrators identify what needs to change.

When alleging misconduct or poor performance

Serious allegations should be based on the strongest evidence reasonably available.

One incident may be sufficient when the incident itself is serious or violates a clear rule.

Other complaints may depend on establishing a repeated pattern.

When you suspect consumer fraud

Consumer fraud may affect people of any age, although some scams are deliberately designed to target older adults or other populations perceived as vulnerable.

Useful documentation may include:

• Emails or text messages
• Advertisements
• Contracts
• Receipts
• Account statements
• Caller information
• Screenshots
• Written notes of conversations

When another complaint or allegation may arise from the same conflict

If a dispute becomes complicated, preserve records of your own conduct and communications as well as the information supporting your complaint.

The purpose is to create an accurate record, not to prove another person's “true colors.”

How do you document complaints?

Start by identifying:

• Where the complaint will be submitted
• What authority that organization has
• What information it requires
• What deadlines apply
• What forms or procedures must be followed

Complaining to an official body

Regulatory agencies, employers, schools, unions, professional boards, government agencies, and other institutions may have formal complaint or grievance procedures.

Review the current instructions carefully.

• Submit the complaint to the organization or office that has authority over the issue.
• Pay attention to filing deadlines and other time limits.
• Use the required form or submission process when one exists.
• Provide the documentation the process requests and any other relevant information the process allows.
• Keep confirmation that the complaint was submitted.

If instructions are unclear, contact the appropriate office and ask what is required.

Keep records of:

• The date submitted
• Confirmation or case number
• Contact information for the office
• Any follow-up deadlines

Complaining directly to the organization involved

In some situations, contacting the organization directly may resolve the issue.

Present the concern clearly and provide enough documentation to explain:

• What happened
• When it happened
• Who or what was involved
• What effect it had
• What response or correction you are requesting

A cooperative approach may be useful when the organization appears willing and able to correct the problem.

Stronger advocacy, regulatory action, or another process may be appropriate when serious harm is occurring, rights are being violated, retaliation is possible, or previous attempts have failed.

Communicating with news organizations

Journalists may ask for documentation before reporting on a complaint, particularly when serious allegations are involved.

Three useful principles are:

• Clarity: Be able to explain what happened and why it matters.
• Consequences: Explain the effects on the people or community involved without suggesting that an individual complaint matters only if large numbers of people are affected.
• Confirmation: Be prepared to identify documents, witnesses, public records, or other sources that can help a journalist independently verify important facts.

Never exaggerate or invent details to make a story more compelling.

A journalist's responsibility is to report accurately, not to act as an advocate for your position.

Provide evidence and allow the journalist to evaluate it independently.

Making a complaint public yourself

Advocacy organizations may also communicate complaints through:

• Public meetings
• Reports
• Websites
• Social media
• Public testimony
• Demonstrations
• Community forums

Before publishing allegations:

• Verify important facts
• Protect private or confidential information
• Distinguish what you observed from what you infer
• Distinguish allegations from official findings
• Consider whether public identification of individuals is necessary
• Seek legal guidance when significant legal risk exists

Collect the actual documentation

Record information as soon as practical

Contemporary notes – records made close to the time an event occurred – can be especially useful.

Include:

• Date
• Time
• Location
• People involved
• What you personally observed
• What someone else told you
• Actions taken afterward

Distinguish clearly between direct observation, memory, interpretation, and information received from another source.

Do the background research you need

Learn enough about the issue to understand what information is relevant.

Depending on the complaint, this may include:

• Laws
• Regulations
• Contracts
• Professional standards
• Organizational policies
• Scientific or technical information
• Historical context

Seek qualified help when specialized interpretation is necessary.

Get the basic facts

Record details that may help identify and verify the incident.

These may include:

• Date and time
• Location
• People, organizations, departments, or agencies involved
• Relevant professional or organizational contact information
• Number of incidents or duration of an ongoing problem

Collect personal contact information only when it is genuinely relevant.

Avoid unnecessarily collecting or circulating home addresses, personal phone numbers, or other sensitive personal information.

Describe clearly what the complaint is about

Explain:

• What happened
• Why it is a concern
• Which policy, law, contract, standard, or expectation may apply
• What outcome you are seeking

Avoid stating that a law was violated unless you have a reasonable basis for that conclusion.

When uncertain, describe the facts and identify the rule you believe may apply.

Document what happened

Record each incident as accurately as possible.

Useful details may include:

• Sequence of events
• People present
• Documents exchanged
• Statements made
• Actions taken
• Follow-up communication

If your memory is uncertain about a detail, say so rather than filling in the gap.

Document conversations

After an important conversation, make a written record that includes:

• Date and time
• Participants
• Main points discussed
• Commitments made
• Any follow-up steps

A follow-up email summarizing an important conversation can sometimes create a useful written record and allow others to correct misunderstandings.

Audio or video recording laws vary by jurisdiction, and organizational rules may also apply.

Before recording a conversation, determine what consent or notice is required.

Document the effects

A complaint may involve one incident, repeated incidents, or an ongoing policy or condition.

Possible effects may include:

• Physical harm
• Mental or emotional effects
• Financial loss
• Housing instability
• Loss of services
• Employment consequences
• Educational consequences
• Public-health effects
• Environmental effects
• Loss of access or participation

Be careful about causation.

The fact that an effect occurred after an incident does not by itself prove that the incident caused it.

Medical, environmental, economic, or other technical claims may require additional evidence or qualified analysis.

Human and psychological effects

Policies or treatment by institutions can affect stress, dignity, financial stability, housing, health, or participation.

When documenting these effects, describe what people actually experienced rather than making clinical or causal claims that the evidence cannot support.

Public-health effects

Complaints may involve contamination, unsafe conditions, infectious disease, failures of care, or other health concerns.

Use qualified public-health, medical, environmental, or scientific evidence when connecting an incident or condition to broader health outcomes.

Economic effects

Relevant economic effects may include:

• Financial loss to individuals
• Unnecessary public spending
• Fraud
• Loss of employment
• Property damage
• Costs resulting from service failure

Avoid assuming corruption, favoritism, or fraud unless evidence supports those conclusions.

Environmental effects

Documentation may involve:

• Air or water contamination
• Hazardous waste
• Wildlife impacts
• Damage to land or natural resources
• Permit violations

Environmental sampling or technical measurements should use appropriate methods and qualified expertise where necessary.

Institutional or civic effects

Misconduct or repeated institutional failure can reduce public trust, weaken participation, or interfere with effective government and community institutions.

Describe those effects carefully and avoid broad claims that go beyond the evidence.

Types of supporting documentation

Depending on the complaint, useful evidence may include:

• Photographs or video collected lawfully and safely
• Witness accounts
• Accounts from people directly affected
• Lawfully obtained emails, letters, memos, records, or other documents
• Logs or legally made audio or video recordings
• Public records, credible news reports, or other published material
• Relevant research or technical studies
• Qualified expert analysis

News reports can help establish context or identify potential sources, but use original records whenever they are available for important factual claims.

Document intent only when it matters

Whether intention matters depends on the complaint.

It may be important to distinguish between:

• An accident
• Negligence
• Knowledge of a problem without action
• Deliberate misconduct

Do not assume intent from the result alone.

Emails, policies, warnings, prior complaints, meeting records, or other evidence may help establish what an organization knew and when it knew it.

Preserve and organize your documentation

Keep documentation organized from the beginning.

A simple record might include:

• Date
• Source
• Description
• Where the original is stored
• Why the item is relevant

Preserve originals

Keep original documents and files whenever practical.

Provide copies when copies are acceptable.

Avoid altering original photographs, documents, screenshots, recordings, or electronic files used as evidence.

Back up important records

Maintain secure backups of important digital files.

Depending on sensitivity, consider:

• Access controls
• Secure cloud or organizational storage
• Encrypted storage
• A separate backup location

Protect confidential and personally identifiable information.

Preserve context and metadata when relevant

Screenshots alone may omit important information such as dates, URLs, senders, or document history.

When practical, preserve the original email, webpage, file, or record along with the screenshot.

For evidence likely to be used in a formal legal or regulatory process, ask the relevant authority or qualified professional whether additional preservation or chain-of-custody procedures are needed.

Presenting your documentation

Documentation may need to be presented to:

• Supervisors or organizational leaders
• Regulatory agencies
• Licensing boards
• Unions
• Administrative hearing officers
• Legislative committees
• Courts
• News organizations
• Community members

Organize the material so another person can understand:

• What happened
• What evidence supports the complaint
• What remains uncertain
• What effect occurred
• What response you are requesting

Prepare to explain the information accurately

Know the major facts and be able to locate the supporting records.

You do not need to memorize every detail.

An organized timeline, index, or set of notes can make it easier to answer questions accurately.

In formal legal settings

If you are testifying, giving a deposition, or participating in another formal legal process:

• Tell the truth
• Listen carefully to each question
• Answer accurately
• Say when you do not know or do not remember
• Avoid guessing
• Follow instructions from the court or hearing officer
• Seek qualified legal advice when appropriate

General advocacy guidance should not substitute for individualized legal advice about testimony or litigation strategy.

Protect privacy and safety

Documentation may contain sensitive information about:

• Health
• Disability
• Employment
• Housing
• Immigration status
• Finances
• Education
• Family circumstances

Collect only the information you need.

Before sharing documentation, consider:

• Who needs access
• Whether names or identifying information can be removed
• Whether consent is needed
• Whether disclosure could create retaliation or safety risks
• Whether confidentiality laws or organizational policies apply

In Summary

Documenting a complaint means creating and preserving an accurate record of the events, communications, policies, conditions, and effects involved.

Strong documentation can help organizations, regulators, courts, employers, journalists, and community members understand what happened and decide what response is appropriate.

A complainant does not necessarily have to prove every element of a case before reporting a concern. Different complaint systems have different responsibilities and evidentiary requirements.

Begin documenting as early as practical.

Record dates, times, locations, participants, communications, actions, and effects. Distinguish what you observed directly from what you heard from someone else or inferred.

Preserve relevant emails, photographs, records, receipts, reports, public documents, and other lawfully obtained evidence.

Intent is not always required. Determine whether the particular complaint depends on intent, knowledge, negligence, impact, or another standard.

Follow the complaint procedure that applies, including filing deadlines and required forms.

Protect privacy and sensitive information, and do not encourage people to obtain documents unlawfully or violate legitimate confidentiality obligations.

Recording laws vary, so determine what consent or notice is required before making audio or video recordings.

Public communication should distinguish allegations from established facts and avoid exaggeration.

Store documentation securely, preserve originals where possible, and keep backups.

Finally, good documentation should make the complaint easier to evaluate, not simply more forceful.

The goal is to create a clear, accurate, well-supported record that helps the appropriate people determine what happened and what should be done about it.