What are attacks? Why should you respond to attacks? When should you respond to them? How can you recognize these tactics? Working for community change can bring disagreement, criticism, and organized opposition. Some concerns can help improve your work; other actions may mislead the public, intimidate participants, or disrupt an initiative. Drawing on the framework in Public health advocacy: Creating community change to improve health, this section introduces common opposition tactics and ways to assess an appropriate response. What are attacks? In this section, attacks are actions intended to undermine an organization's work through intimidation, deception, harassment, or other harmful tactics. Disagreement, peaceful protest, requests for evidence, and criticism of a policy are not automatically attacks. For example, a community initiative seeking to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents might expand access to sexual health information and services. Community members may raise legitimate questions about the program. Deliberately spreading false claims about its staff, threatening participants, or misrepresenting its activities would require a different response. Focus on specific conduct and available evidence rather than assuming motives based on a person's beliefs or group membership. Why should you respond to attacks? A considered response can protect participants, clarify facts, and keep the work focused. Responding does not always mean issuing a public statement: documenting an incident, contacting a decision maker, or choosing not to amplify a minor provocation can also be part of a deliberate strategy. Consider how your actions may be perceived, but base decisions on likely effects rather than pressure to answer every criticism. Reviewing criticism can reveal legitimate concerns, mistakes, or unintended effects. Acknowledge valid points, correct errors, and involve affected community members in improvements, even when the criticism was expressed poorly. An accurate, proportionate, and respectful response can help maintain trust. Explain what happened, what you know, and what action you will take without making promises you cannot support. When should you respond to them? Assess the situation promptly, but do not assume every criticism requires an immediate public response. Consider the accuracy and reach of the claim, potential harm to people or services, upcoming decisions, and whether responding would spread misinformation further. Prioritize threats to safety, significant factual errors, and actions that could affect access, funding, or participation. Agree on who will assess incidents, communicate with those affected, and coordinate a response. Continue monitoring ongoing opposition without allowing it to consume all of your time and resources. How can you recognize these opposition tactics? The Ten "D's" The following framework describes patterns that may occur during advocacy campaigns. These labels are tools for examining conduct, not proof of bad intent. Requests for additional information, competing priorities, and proposals for compromise can be legitimate. Look at the evidence, the pattern over time, who has decision-making authority, and the practical effects on the community. Subsequent sections examine these tactics in more detail. Deflection Deflection shifts attention away from the issue or directs responsibility to someone unable to address it. For example, a discussion about transportation access might repeatedly move to unrelated complaints rather than the proposed service changes. An agency might also refer a request to an office that has no authority to act. Broader values and related concerns may deserve discussion, but they should not replace a clear answer about the decision at hand. Ask who is responsible, what decision is needed, and when a response can be expected. For example, residents ask a transit agency to explain how it will address repeated failures of accessibility equipment. The agency refers them to a general advisory group that cannot authorize repairs and provides no route back to the responsible department. Residents can ask for a named decision maker, a written response, and a timeline for addressing the documented problem. The referral itself is not necessarily deflection; the concern is whether it prevents the issue from reaching someone who can act. Delays Delays become a concern when repeated postponements prevent action without a clear explanation or useful next step. Additional study may be necessary, but open-ended reviews can also leave a community waiting while conditions remain unchanged. Ask what information is missing, how it will be gathered, who is responsible, and when a decision will occur. Document agreed milestones and distinguish avoidable delay from genuine resource, procedural, or evidence gaps. Denials Denial may involve rejecting credible evidence about: The existence or extent of a problem, such as dismissing documented reports that residents cannot access a public facility. The potential value of a proposed response without examining the supporting evidence, such as declaring that access improvements would benefit no one despite information showing unmet needs. An official may also say that they lack authority or resources. That explanation may be accurate, so verify responsibilities and constraints before treating it as a tactic. Ask what action is possible, who else has authority, and what resources would be required. Be equally willing to revise your own conclusions when the evidence changes. Discounting Discounting minimizes the significance of an issue or dismisses the people raising it without engaging with their concerns. Statements such as "Only a few people are affected" can overlook serious barriers experienced by a smaller group. Labels about a group's politics, identity, or reputation can also replace discussion of the evidence. Explain the nature and consequences of the concern, including who is affected and what they identify as priorities. For example, a school-community partnership proposes education about consent, healthy relationships, and sexual violence prevention. An administrator dismisses the proposal as relevant only to girls. The partnership can explain why students of all genders should be included in prevention efforts and discussions of respect, accountability, and support. The response should address the mistaken assumption without stereotyping any gender. Deception Deception involves intentionally misleading people, such as fabricating information, knowingly misrepresenting statistics, or concealing a fact that materially changes the meaning of a claim. An error or a complicated procedure is not automatically deception. Verify the information, request clarification, and correct the record using reliable evidence. If intent cannot be established, describe the statement as inaccurate or misleading rather than asserting that someone deliberately lied. Dividing Dividing tactics seek to weaken a coalition by exploiting differences, spreading false information among members, or offering selective benefits in exchange for withdrawing support. Disagreement within a coalition is normal and should not itself be treated as sabotage. Clear decision-making processes, transparent communication, and agreed procedures for considering offers can help members address differences without losing trust. In a hypothetical example, two environmental groups work together to address documented pollution affecting a river and nearby wildlife. A business privately offers each group funding for an unrelated project if it withdraws from the campaign. The groups can disclose the offers through their agreed internal process, examine the conditions, and decide together whether accepting them would undermine their shared goals or obligations to the community. Dulcifying, or appeasing In this framework, dulcifying means offering a concession that appears responsive but does little to address the underlying concern. It can be difficult to distinguish a symbolic gesture from a useful first step. Assess what will actually change, who will benefit, what resources are committed, and how progress will be verified. A modest improvement may be worthwhile when it is meaningful, accountable, and connected to further action. Discrediting Discrediting attempts to undermine confidence in an organization or its members through unsupported accusations, personal attacks, or distorted accounts of their work. Questions about competence, funding, or methods can also be legitimate accountability questions. Separate those questions from misleading claims: provide relevant evidence, acknowledge real shortcomings, and avoid repeating inflammatory accusations more than necessary to correct them. Destroy The "destroy" tactic refers to efforts to shut down an initiative or make it unable to operate through intimidation or other harmful conduct. This may combine several tactics, such as threats, fabricated allegations, or pressure based on false information. Take legal threats seriously rather than assuming they are empty. Seek qualified legal assistance to assess them, preserve relevant records, and do not ignore formal legal documents such as subpoenas. A complaint or legal claim may also raise a genuine issue, so evaluate its substance rather than treating every challenge as intimidation. In a hypothetical example, an LGBTQ+ community organization establishes a peer-support program for young people. An opposing group circulates fabricated claims about the program, threatens staff, and pressures funders to withdraw support. The organization documents the conduct, addresses specific false claims with verifiable information, coordinates with funders and partners, and seeks appropriate assistance with threats. It protects young people's identities and does not expect them to appear publicly to defend the program. Concerns about program quality or safeguarding should still receive a substantive response through appropriate processes. Deal A deal is a negotiated agreement or compromise, and it is not inherently a harmful tactic. It may produce meaningful progress when the terms address community priorities and can be carried out. Involve the people affected, clarify which principles cannot be compromised, and assess who benefits, who bears costs, and what remains unresolved. Put responsibilities, timelines, resources, and ways to review implementation into the agreement. Do not judge a proposal only by whether it appears to be an equal exchange between organizations. In Summary Community change often involves disagreement, but not every disagreement is an attack. Examine specific conduct, verify claims, listen to legitimate concerns, and choose responses that protect people and advance shared goals. Clear communication, strong community relationships, documentation, and appropriate professional support can help an initiative respond to harmful tactics without losing its capacity to learn, collaborate, and make progress. Contributor Jenette Nagy Chris Hampton Resources Online Resources The ABCs of Negotiation is an advocate’s guide to negotiating with providers to improve access to healthcare services. Advocacy Skills: Tips for Selecting a Good Mediator provides a variety of criteria that need to be taken into consideration when selecting a mediator for an advocacy campaign. The Advocate's Mediation Checklist is an excellent resource with detailed information on mediation and advocacy. Gathering Support and Neutralizing Opposition is a module on the World Animal website with the intention of providing information for understanding the opposition’s weaknesses and neutralizing opposition. Responding to Opposition and Criticism: Dealing with Disagreement - Advocates for Youth is an article with extensive information on sources of opposition and strategies for addressing opposition. Print Resources Angelica, M. (1999). Resolving conflict in nonprofit organizations: The leader’s guide to finding constructive solutions. Fieldstone Alliance. This book provides conflict resolution advice within nonprofits for recognizing conflict before it becomes destructive. Altman, D., Balcazar, F., Fawcett, S., Seekins, T., & Young, J. (1994). Public health advocacy: Creating community change to improve health. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Center for Research in Disease Prevention. Beer, J., Packard, C., & Stief, C. (2012). The Mediator’s Handbook: Revised and Expanded Fourth Edition. New Society Publishers. This book provides a time-tested, adaptable model for helping people deal with conflict. Bisno, H. (1988). Managing conflict. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Brown, L. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Evarts, W., et al. (1983). Winning through accommodation: The mediator's handbook. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Fisher, R., & Sharp, A. (1998). Getting it Done: How to Lead When You’re Not in Charge. Harper Business. Fisher and Sharp provide an explanation as to why collaboration with others is difficult, and they suggest a new strategy to working with others. Rybacki, K., & Rybacki, J. (2011). Advocacy and opposition: An introduction to argumentation. This book provides a comprehensive approach to argumentation for individuals who need to construct and present arguments. Spence, G. (1996). How to Argue & Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Every Day. St. Martin’s Griffin. Spence offers advice on optimizing oral presentation of an argument through use of story-telling and visual imagery. Weeks, D. (1992). The eight essential steps to conflict resolution: Preserving relationships at work, at home, and in the community. Los Angeles, CA: Tarcher, Inc.
