Chapter 30. Principles of Advocacy | 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