Improving Evidence based Policy Engagement in South Asia

Improving Evidence based Policy Engagement in South Asia
17-21 September, 2007 Shimla, India Naved Chowdhury Rijit Sengupta

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
Development Think Tank 60 researchers Research / Advice / Public Debate Rural / Humanitarian / Poverty & Aid / Economics / Policy Processes DFID, Parliament, WB, EC Civil Society For more information see:

Promoting the use of research-based evidence in development policy
RAPID Group Promoting the use of research-based evidence in development policy Research / Advice / Public Affairs & Capacity-building Programmes: Research for Policy Progressive Policymakers Parliamentarians Southern Think Tanks for further information see:

Detailed: Summary Case Studies Sustainable Livelihoods
Poverty Reductions Strategy Processes Ethical Principles in Humanitarian Aid Animal Health Care in Kenya Dairy Policy in Kenya Plant Genetic Resources Summary GDN x 50 CSPP x 20 Good news case studies x 5 Mental health in the UK

ODI and Global Civil Society Civil Society Partnerships Programme
Aim: Strengthened role of southern CSOs in development policy processes Outcomes: CSOs better understand evidence-policy process Capacity development to support CSOs’ policy influencing efforts Improved knowledge base for CSOs on policy influencing Global collaboration and experience sharing about research/policy/practice linkages CSOs understand how research → policy: Collaborative research on bridging research and policy issues Collaboration with Government and CSOs in the UK to identify useful lessons from evidence-based policy making in the UK Synthesis of results into demand-driven, user-tested information and training materials for CSOs CSOs actively participate & link N & S Networks: A collaborative study to identify CSOs and CSO networks in the North and South interested in improving their use of research-based evidence in pro-poor policy work; A series of virtual and real meetings through ODI’s own and other policy-research networks to identify and discuss common policy issues; A joint programme of analysis and action on one policy issue each year to build capacity and learn how local and international CSOs can work together effectively in networks; Information, training and capacity building programmes to strengthen networking capacity for southern development policy institutes. Knowledge on pro-poor policy issues is accessible A survey of existing users of ODI information. A demand assessment of CSOs. A more strategic range of information materials for CSOs An up-to-date database of partners & research interests Improved knowledge management within ODI Re-design of the ODI website, and better integration of ODI project and network sites Active marketing of ODI’s information materials to CSOs. An enhanced programme of public meetings and seminars for NGOs and other CSOs; Training courses for staff from NGOs and CSOs Regional capacity to support CSOs is established A collaborative survey of regional PRIs & TTs. Development of principles and guidelines for partnerships. Small-scale collaborative projects. Technical assistance and capital grants to strengthen organisational capacity; Assistance to develop closer links with CSOs and promote e.g. public affairs programmes; Assistance to develop information, training and capacity building programmes

Development policy is more pro-poor Purpose
CSPP Objectives Goal Development policy is more pro-poor Purpose Southern CSOs make more use of research-based evidence to influence the establishment of pro-poor policy ODI engages more effectively with southern CSOs and other stakeholders to make more use of ODI’s research-based evidence to influence the establishment of pro-poor policy.

Partnership Activities
Network: Interactive community website Information and knowledge exchange within and across regions General support Capacity-building: staff exchanges visiting fellows to ODI and Southern institutes, Southern participants in global policy events Training and ToT – for CSOs and policy-makers Mentoring support to action research projects Dissemination of lessons: Ongoing learning “How to do it” guidelines New research on the research-policy-practice interface Collaborative projects: Small-scale ARPs Continued support to existing projects One new global collaborative project each year

(Southern Cone and Andes) and organized in partnership with local CSOs
Global Consultation Workshops were held in Africa (Southern, Eastern and West), Asia (South and South East) and Latin America (Southern Cone and Andes) and organized in partnership with local CSOs Case studies: Budget Monitoring (Zambia), Community Participation in Waste Management (Ghana), Rice pricing (Bangladesh), Public participation (Indonesia) etc. Sub-national elections and journalist capacity building (Peru) Workshops and seminars were held in Southern Africa (Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique), Eastern Africa (Tanzania and Uganda) and West Africa (Ghana and Nigeria). Participants at these events were mainly from research institutes, national NGOs and networks, along with a wide spectrum of stakeholders interested in the issue of bridging research and policy – including government officials, international NGOs and bilateral and multilateral donors. In total, approximately 400 members of civil society were in attendance. The events were organised in partnership with: Malawi Economic Justice Network (MEJN) (Malawi); Institute of Economic and Social Research (INESOR), University of Zambia, (Zambia); Cruzeiro do Sul (Mozambique); Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) (Tanzania); FARM Africa (Uganda); Participatory Development Associates (PDA), the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP) etc. Budget Monitoring (Malawi); Transparency and Public Participation in National Budgets (Zambia); Poverty Monitoring (Mozambique); Agricultural Extension Services by NGOs (Uganda); NGO Policy and Poverty Reduction Action Plan (Tanzania); Government and Community Collaboration in a Waste Management Programme (Ghana); and Participation of CSOs in Environmental Policy of Cross River State (Nigeria).

Civil Society Partnerships Programme
Aim: Strengthened role of southern CSOs in development policy processes Outcomes: CSOs better understanding evidence-policy process Capacity to support CSOs established Improved information for CSOs Global collaboration CSOs understand how research → policy: Collaborative research on bridging research and policy issues Collaboration with Government and CSOs in the UK to identify useful lessons from evidence-based policy making in the UK Synthesis of results into demand-driven, user-tested information and training materials for CSOs CSOs actively participate & link N & S Networks: A collaborative study to identify CSOs and CSO networks in the North and South interested in improving their use of research-based evidence in pro-poor policy work; A series of virtual and real meetings through ODI’s own and other policy-research networks to identify and discuss common policy issues; A joint programme of analysis and action on one policy issue each year to build capacity and learn how local and international CSOs can work together effectively in networks; Information, training and capacity building programmes to strengthen networking capacity for southern development policy institutes. Knowledge on pro-poor policy issues is accessible A survey of existing users of ODI information. A demand assessment of CSOs. A more strategic range of information materials for CSOs An up-to-date database of partners & research interests Improved knowledge management within ODI Re-design of the ODI website, and better integration of ODI project and network sites Active marketing of ODI’s information materials to CSOs. An enhanced programme of public meetings and seminars for NGOs and other CSOs; Training courses for staff from NGOs and CSOs Regional capacity to support CSOs is established A collaborative survey of regional PRIs & TTs. Development of principles and guidelines for partnerships. Small-scale collaborative projects. Technical assistance and capital grants to strengthen organisational capacity; Assistance to develop closer links with CSOs and promote e.g. public affairs programmes; Assistance to develop information, training and capacity building programmes

Principles of partnerships etc
Activities Principles of partnerships etc Mapping of CSO’s and support organisations Regional Workshops Research, synthesis and toolkits Small-scale collaborations (internal) Small-scale collaborations (external) Identification of long-term partners Support (and capacity-building) Collaboration on global projects

Linking Evidence to Policy: Lessons Learnt
Understanding Policy process means understanding the politics Demand led vs Supply driven Credibility of CSOs is questioned Capacity to use and package research for policy influence is limited Donor influence is huge Gradual erosion of research capacity in the South

Establishing capacity
Engagement with policymakers varies Varied level of capacity in the south Retention and recruitment of qualified staff Role of research in development organization Lack of training opportunities More emphasis on policy advocacy Limited fund for research Strong Demand for support ( regional bias) Capacity of government institutions also in question

Partnership for Capacity Development
Equitable Long-term commitment Intellectual honesty Mutual Trust Ethical Principle of Partnership Contextual ( strong regional variation) Capacity is demanded not given!!

Key issues for Partnership
ODI needs to change ( Org and Staff) Invest time and resource Partnership to accommodate diversity of capacity Different modes of Partnerships ( research, networking, advocacy)

Capacity Development in CSPP
Building a knowledge base of orgs Responding directly to CD demand of partners CSPP network Training ( Research methodology, policy analysis, etc). Facilitating exchange of information and knowledge ( Best Practice) Support institutional development Collaborative action research projects

Key factors for CSO influence on Policy (Malawi)
Strengths Evidence of the value of CSO involvement Governments becoming more interested in CSOs CSOs are gaining confidence Strength of networks Opportunities for media engagement Political factors Constraints Lack of capacity Lack of local ownership Translating data into evidence Limited data Donor influence Crises Political factors

Define clear roles and responsibilities, especially in networks
What do CSOs need to do? Define clear roles and responsibilities, especially in networks Financial and human resources to facilitate policy influencing – both constructive engagement and confrontational approaches Effective communication: develop different materials for different target audiences Engage the media Engage with donors so that they can develop a more holistic understanding of development challenges Consult with policymakers (elected officials and civil servants) from the outset

Group work in regional teams
What do you understand by the term “policy influencing” or “policy engagement”? What are the most important policy processes for CSOs to influence with regard to any sector? Please give examples at regional and national levels How are you trying to influence any policy in your country? What are the key opportunities for CSOs and challenges in your country to influence policies? Plenary: Opportunities and Challenges for influencing development policies

Merilee Grindle’s Approach
Identify the policy reform – the decision to be made Political Interests Map – the actors and “politics” Institutional Contexts Map – the organisations and processes involved Circle of influence graphic – supporters and opponents and their power Policy process Matrix – what needs to be done when Merilee Grindle, Professor of International Development at Harvard University has her students carry out an exercise in developing a strategy for promoting policy reform. Mapping political context is an important element of the approach. The starting point is a clear statement of the policy reform being pursued. A second component is the production of “political interests map”, which addresses the following issues: i) Actors in policy area; ii) Priority of policy area for actor; iii) Actors’ reasons for exerting influence in policy area; iv) Actors’ resources for influencing policy outcomes in policy area; v) Degree of influence in policy area; vi) Actual and potential alliances among actors. A third component is the systematic analysis of the institutional contexts for policy reform, considering for each relevant organisational or inter-organisational arena: i) What actors have access to this arena or forum for policy discussion?; ii) What ‘rules of the game’ within the arena are particularly relevant to the intended policy reform; iii) What resources of power/influence are relevant in this arena?; iv) How important is this arena to the outcome of your policy reform? A fourth component is to produce a circle of influence graphic which shows the position (opposition, support or undecided) of various players in relation to the proposed reform, and their capacity to influence. A fifth component is to complete a policy process matrix to assess, for each stage of the policy process, what needs to be done to ensure the survival of the proposal for policy reform. NB: Steps four and five are about developing an influencing strategy which builds on the mapping of political context, rather than being about mapping political context. In addition to these five context mapping components, Professor Grindle asks her students to develop a communications strategy, thinking carefully about the goal of such a strategy, its audience, and its key messages. Communications Strategy

Introduction Your name Your work What is your expectation from this workshop? 3 minutes!!

Understand the context Identify the audience(s)
The overall framework How? Who? What? Audience Promotion Message Identify the problem Understand the context Identify the audience(s) Develop a SMART Strategy Identify the message(s) Resources – staff, time, partners & $$ Promotion – tools & activities Monitor, learn, adapt

What explains policy change?
Terms and Parameters What is policy? What explains policy change? What is the relationship between researchers and policy makers? Tools to understand the political context of policy change Tools to influence the policy process

Label for field of activity/space Expression of general intent
Policy – some meanings Label for field of activity/space Expression of general intent Specific proposals Decisions of government Formal authority/legislation Program Output or outcome Model or theory Hogwood & Gunn, 1984 It would be interesting to know what you wrote down and in particular how you conceptualised what you mean by policy. I would guess that collectively you used the term policy in quite a variety of ways. Hogwood and Gunn found that the term ‘policy’ is used in a variety of ways. Broad area: foreign or economic policy – broad fields of governmental activity General expression – lacking specificity – World Bank – a world free of poverty - sometimes even rhetorical – real intentions may differ from stated objectives (war in Afganistan and Iraq – threats to US part of a plan to secure access to vast oil reserves? Specific proposals – like reducing the incidence of a particular disease by a specific percentage over a given length of time Decision of government - government of Botswana decision to introduce Hep B vaccine into routine immunisation programme Formal legislation – act of Congress in the US – legitimising – but not necessarily meaning that action will follow – particularly effective action Programme – ‘programme on access to treatment and care’ might be part of a country’s HIV policy which could include formal legislation, organization, resources Output or outcome – what government actually delivered or achieved – differs from intent Model or theory - e.g., government undertook x policy to produce y – implicit in this way of thinking about policy is the idea of cause and effect, government introduces out of pocket charges for utilisation of health services will increase the availability of funds for health services Policy can be thought of as any of the above – but what is striking about the way that the word is used in general parlance is that it focuses on the content of policy.

Research: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge”
Definitions Research: “any systematic effort to increase the stock of knowledge” Policy: a “purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors” Evidence: “the available information supporting or otherwise a belief or proposition” Evidence-based Policy: “public policy informed by rigorously established evidence”.

Non-linear, dynamic policy processes
The impacts of research may occur neither at the time of the research, nor in ways that are predictable…or in the direction in which researchers intend. [Rather] it is mediated by the options available to policy makers at a particular time. [There is a] …need for researcher to be both radical and relate to its time and place….to make an impact but also to accord…with existing mores (Lucinda Platt, 2003: 2).

X Linear model Percolation model, Weiss Tipping point model, Gladwell
Existing theory X Linear model Percolation model, Weiss Tipping point model, Gladwell ‘Context, evidence, links’ framework, ODI Policy narratives, Roe Systems model (NSI) External forces, Lindquist ‘Room for manoeuvre’, Clay & Schaffer ‘Street level bureaucrats’, Lipsky Policy as social experiments, Rondinelli Policy Streams & Windows, Kingdon Disjointed incrementalism, Lindquist The ‘tipping point’, Gladwell Crisis model, Kuhn ‘Framework of possible thought’, Chomsky Variables for Credibility, Beach The source is as important as content, Gladwell Linear model of communication, Shannon Interactive model, Simple and surprising stories, Communication Theory Provide solutions, Marketing I Find the right packaging, Marketing II Elicit a response, Kottler Translation of technology, Volkow Epistemic communities Policy communities Advocacy coalitions etc, Pross Negotiation through networks, Sebattier Shadow networks, Klickert Chains of accountability, Fine Communication for social change, Rockefeller Wheels and webs, Chapman & Fisher The point of this slide is simply to emphasise that the RAPID program is engaging with a broad body of theory ranging from communications/media theory to organisational behavior, from public policy management to complexity theory, and social movement theory to power analysis. This has in turn informed the group’s analytical framework which has been refined through a process of collating and analysing more than 70 case and episode studies from diverse country contexts and policy sectors

‘the interplay between institutions, interests and ideas.’
John P (1998) Analysing Public Policy. London: Cassell. There are numerous definitions. This definition of policy reflects three of the main theories of how policies change or remain the same since it emphasises the contributions of: Institutions – meaning the formal structures of goverance and their related norms and ‘rules of the game’ – ‘how we do things round here’; Groups and networks – meaning the patterns of association and alliances between participants in the policy process (e.g. between interest groups); Ideas - referring to the role of argument, discourse and advocacy in the policy process, including the role of research and evidence. This is where academics are said to play a particularly important role. Traditional policy definitions tend to highlight explicit ‘problems’ and the ‘decisions’ taken in response to them. However, I find Peter John’s broader, more political definition, with its awareness of the fact that conflict is endemic to policy and policy making, and that policy can also relate to decisions not to do things, closer to my experience

Identify the problem Commission research Analyse the results Choose the best option Establish the policy Implement the policy Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Implementation
Policy Processes Cabinet Donors Monitoring and Evaluation Agenda Setting Decision Making Policy Implementation Policy Formulation Parliament Civil Society Ministries Private Sector

…in reality… “The whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through selected strategies 1” “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa2” “Research is more often regarded as the opposite of action rather than a response to ignorance”3 Policy-making used to be widely thought of as a linear and logical process, in which policy-makers identified a problem, commissioned research, took note of the results and made sensible policies which were then implemented. Clearly that is not the case. Policy-making is a dynamic, complex, chaotic process. Clay and Schaffer’s book ‘Room for Manoeuvre’ in 1984 described “the whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of decisions through selected strategies”. That is increasingly recognised as a more realistic description of the policy process than the linear rational model – though the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, as Steve Omamo pointed out in a recent report on policy research on African agriculture: “Most policy research on African agriculture is irrelevant to agricultural and overall economic policy in Africa”. It is not really surprising that the link between research and policy is tenuous and difficult to understand if policy processes are complex and chaotic and much research is not very policy relevant. 1 Clay & Schaffer (1984), Room for Manoeuvre; An Exploration of Public Policy in Agricultural and Rural Development, Heineman Educational Books, London 2 Omamo (2003), Policy Research on African Agriculture: Trends, Gaps, and Challenges, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) Research Report No 21 3 Surr (2003), DFID Research Review

Factors influencing policy making
Experience & Expertise Pragmatics & Contingencies Judgement Evidence Lobbyists & Pressure Groups Resources Habits & Tradition Values and Policy Context Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

Different Notions of Evidence
‘Scientific’ (Context free) Proven empirically Theoretically driven As long as it takes Caveats and qualifications Researchers’ Evidence Colloquial (Contextual) Anything that seems reasonable Policy relevant Timely Clear Message Policy Makers’ Evidence Source: Phil Davies Impact to Insight Meeting, ODI, 2005

Policy process The way policy is initiated, developed, negotiated, communicated, implemented Agenda setting – why some issues considered by policy makers Formulation – which policy alternatives and evidence is considered, why evidence ignored Adoption – who is involved in deciding, formal or informal decision-making Implementation – who will implement, how will implementers change policy to suit their aims, are implementers involved in decision-making Evaluation – whether and why policies achieve their aims As indicated about ‘policy process mapping’ Implementation phase - arguably most important and neglected area of policy – if policies are not implemented or are diverted or changed at implementation – then something is wrong and policies won’t have their desired outcomes

Systemic factors which effect policy
Policy context Systemic factors which effect policy Situational: change of leadership, focusing events, new evidence, etc. Structural: resource allocation to intervention, organization of service delivery – public private mix, etc. Cultural: prevailing attitudes to situation of women, technology, equity, tradition, etc. International: place of intervention on international agenda, aid dependency, levels and modalities, migration of staff, ideas and paradigms, etc. A huge number of contextual variables may play a role in whether or not a policy changes or remains the same. These factors are complex and unique in time and setting.

Political Context Analysis
Systematically gather political intelligence associated with any policy reform Contextual opportunities & constraints Formal & informal processes through which decisions made Identify stakeholder groups Assess political resources of groups Understand interests, positions and commitments of groups Systematically assess political palatability of specific policy alternatives

Context Analysis and Policy Mapping Tools
Policy Process Mapping RAPID Framework Stakeholder Analysis Force-Field Analysis Outcome Mapping More complex tools: Drivers of Change Power Analysis World Governance Assessment

Civil Society Index (CIVICUS)
More Complex Tools Civil Society Index (CIVICUS) Country Policy & Institutional Assessment (World Bank) Democracy and Governance Assessment (USAID) Drivers of Change (DFID) Governance Questionnaire (GTZ) Governance Matters (World Bank Institute) Power Analysis (Sida) World Governance Assessment Civil Society Index (CIVICUS): Civil society's structure, impact, environment and values Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (World Bank): Governance institutions, policies, economic management Democracy and Governance Assessment (USAID): Players, interests, resources, objectives, rules, institutional arenas Drivers of Change (DFID): Structure, agents, institutions Governance Questionnaire (GTZ): State-society relations, political system, political culture, politics and gender, economic policy and political framework of markets, international integration Governance Matters (World Bank Institute): Voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, control of corruption Power Analysis (Sida): Power and its distribution World Governance Assessment: Participation, decency, fairness, accountability, transparency, efficiency

Context Assessment Tools
Practical Tools Overarching Tools - The RAPID Framework - Using the Framework - The Entrepreneurship Questionnaire Context Assessment Tools - Stakeholder Analysis - Forcefield Analysis - Writeshops - Policy Mapping - Political Context Mapping Communication Tools - Communications Strategy - SWOT analysis - Message Design - Making use of the media Research Tools - Case Studies - Episode Studies - Surveys - Bibliometric Analysis - Focus Group Discussion Policy Influence Tools - Influence Mapping & Power Mapping - Lobbying and Advocacy - Campaigning: A Simple Guide - Competency self-assessment Influencing policy change is an art as much as a science, but there are a wide range of well known and often straightforward tools that can provide powerful insights and help to maximize your chances of impact on policy. We’ve already seen how ODI’s RAPID Framework can help you to understand the context you are working in and how you could use the Policy Entrepreneur Questionnaire to figure out what you are good at. Other useful tools to help to understand the policy context include Stakeholder Analysis, Forcefield Analysis, Writeshops, Policy Mapping and Political Context Mapping. This is vital in terms of developing an influence strategy. There is a wide set of research tools – from case studies to action research – that can help generate new or better evidence to support your case. The key communications questions are: Who do I want to convince? What do I want them to do? What will convince them? What relevant material do I have? A SWOT analysis can help to focus a communications strategy on the key messages and targets, and using the media can help you to reach a wide audience. Many tools have also been developed by organisations involved in lobbying, advocacy and campaigning for pro-poor change.

Problem Tree Analysis The first step is to discuss and agree the problem or issue to be analysed. Next the group identify the causes of the focal problem – these become the roots – and then identify the consequences – which become the branches The heart of the exercise is the discussion, debate and dialogue that is generated as factors are arranged and re-arranged, often forming sub-dividing roots and branches

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
SWOT Analysis What type of policy influencing skills and capacities do we have? In what areas have our staff used them more effectively? Who are our strongest allies? When have they worked with us? Are there any windows of opportunity? What can affect our ability to influence policy? Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Skills and abilities Funding lines Commitment to positions Contacts and Partners Existing activities Other orgs relevant to the issue Resources: financial, technical, human Political and policy space Other groups or forces

Planning: Social Network Analysis
Focus on structure of relationships Nodes and links between nodes Nodes: people, groups and organizations, etc. Links: social contacts, exchange of information, political influence, membership in org etc Social processes influence organizations and vice versa

Stakeholder Analysis Approach
Keep Satisfied Engage Closely and Influence Actively Monitor (minimum effort) Keep Informed High Power Low Interest Clarify policy change objective Identify all stakeholders associated with this objective Prioritise stakeholders according to interest/commitment and power/ assets Develop strategy to engage with different stakeholders

Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder: individuals, groups, or organizations that have an interest in the project and can mobilize resources to affect its outcome in some way. Stakeholders are often specific to each policy reform and context, and should not just be assumed. Stakeholder analysis: tool used to identify and understand the needs and expectations of major interests inside and outside the project environment in order to plan strategically. It is critical for assessing project risk and viability, and ultimately the support that must be effectively obtained and retained.

Stakeholder interests

Actors/Stakeholders Identify key governmental, NGO, international, regional, national and sub-national stakeholder groups Also identify independent groups/individuals with some influence or potential influence Break down categories as far as feasible (one possibility is primary stakeholders, e.g. ministerial advisors, and secondary stakeholders, the minister her/himself; trade union federation vs factor workers directly). Identify 15 or so stakeholders Need to think about the implications/consequences of the policy – those affected, those who might take action, those who could be mobilized – Pay attention to those who can block policy adoption or implementation Pay attention to individuals and organizations

Assessing Stakeholder Power:
Political Assets: Tangible Votes Finance Infrastructure Members Research evidence Intangible Expertise Charisma Legitimacy Access to media & decision makers Tacit/implicit knowledge Of the stakeholders you identified, select ten and make an inventory of the major assets and characterize each as having low, medium, high power

Interests, Position & Commitment
Interests – what would a stakeholder gain or lose from the proposed reform? Interests determine position: supportive, neutral, opposed Commitment – importance attached by stakeholder to issue Determining interests can be complex – sometimes concealed Chose five of the groups and list their interests – what they stand to gain or lose Given interests – determine their position Consider the commitment – a powerful actor may be relatively indifferent

Type of engagement

Stakeholder Position Map
LEVEL OF INFLUENCE POSITION Opposed Neutral Supportive High Medium Low

Strategies for Policy Engagement
Develop political strategies to change: Position: deals to bring about change, horse trading, promises, threats Power: provide supporters with funds, personnel, access to media & officials Players: change number of actors by mobilizing and demobilising, venue shifting Perceptions: use data and arguments to question, to alter perspectives of problem/solution, use associations, invoke symbols, emphasise doability Power: undermine legitimacy, expertise or motives, characterise them as self serving, refuse to share information, withhold power resources Players: Undermine by dividing (find stakeholder subgroup to convent), challenge legitimacy of opposition Perception: power of ideas and perception of a problem and solution is critical for getting issues on agendas and rallying implementers and other stakeholders.

Bangladesh Integration Example:
Ministry of Finance Planning Commission Prime Minister Minister of Health Secretary of Min of Health Deputy Secretary Ministry of Health Health reformers in Ministry Cadre of Family Planning Officials Medical Association Donors Press Academics Select service delivery NGOs Identify 15 or so stakeholder groups pertinent to your chosen policy

LEVEL OF INFLUENCE POSITION Opposed Neutral Supportive High Medium Low
Bangladesh Integration: Pre-2001 LEVEL OF INFLUENCE POSITION Opposed Neutral Supportive High DG FP Min of Finance Planning Commission Prime Minister Minister of Health Secretary of Health BMA Some DPs (WB, DFID, EC, USAID) Medium Admin cadre FP cadre Class III/IV employees Print press DGH Health cadre Reformers in MOHFW Secretariat Low Additional Secretary Health NGOs FP NGOs Academia Some DPs (WHO, UNICEF, UNFPA, CIDA, SIDA, GTZ, Dutch Co-operation)

LEVEL OF INFLUENCE POSITION Opposed Neutral Supportive High Medium Low
Positions Oct 2001-May 2003 LEVEL OF INFLUENCE POSITION Opposed Neutral Supportive High Secretary DG FP FP cadre Class III/IV workers Ministry of Finance Prime Minister Planning Commission Minister of Health BMA Medium FP NGOs Admin cadre ? Press? DGH Some DPs (WB, DFID, EC, USAID) Low UNFPA CIDA SIDA GTZ Academia Health NGOs Some DPs (WHO, UNICEF, Dutch Co-operation) A sophisticated position map would model the shifts prospectively given specific changes, for example, the modification to the content of the policy Stakeholder analysis limitations Only as good as the data and analyst (access, tenacity, Says nothing about policy content and process

a) Who are your stakeholders?
Group work: Questions: a) Who are your stakeholders? b) How powerful are they? And what accounts for their power? c) What are their interests? Are these likely to differ across different stages in the policy cycle? d) What type of engagement is recommendable at different junctures in the policy cycle?

Peer Assist A peer assist is a method whereby participants are invited to reflect on the ideas of their peers based on their experiences, insights and knowledge early on in a project targets a specific technical or commercial challenge; gains assistance and insights from people outside the team; identifies possible approaches and new lines of inquiry; promotes sharing of learning with each other; and develops strong networks amongst people involved

The RAPID Approach Effective Evidence-based policy influencing:
Policy Mapping Tool 2 Effective Evidence-based policy influencing: The RAPID Approach

Political context - key findings
The design of political institutions or regimes matter in that they channel the flow of ideas in particular ways and create different sets of incentives New regional / transnational policy spaces present new opportunities and challenges Volatility of political contexts Time-bound windows of opportunity 1) First, an appreciation of the political context, including formal institutional processes and rules as well as informal political values and practices is critical for effective communication and identifying the opening and closing of political windows. As former head of DFID’s central research department, Paul Spray has argued, no matter how strong the research, ultimately “politics rather than research changes policy”. So for example, the success of the SLA was in part due to the new Blair govt in 1997 and DFID’s desire to redefine its role – including a desire to work in partnership with other agencies such as World Food Programme, UNDP, International Fund for Agricultural Development etc. Similarly, one of the reasons why Sth Africa is at the forefront of pro-poor budget initiatives is because of its highly progressive post-Apartheid Constitution which recognises the state’s obligation to demonstrate progress towards realisation of social and economic rights. 2) Recent work on the knowledge‑policy nexus has drawn attention to the need to move beyond the nation‑state as the unit of analysis and take account of an increasingly globalised political environment. In the case of RAPID’s work, the Sphere project, the refugee crisis of Rwanda in 1994 served as a critical moment to reflect critically on role of humanitarian agencies, as well as international govt/ ngo conferences such as Beijing on Women’s Rights or Rio and Joburg on sustainable development and environmental protection. 3) Volatility of political contexts – one of the themes that emerged from the 70 case studies and in-depth episode studies was how quickly political contexts can shift. What was impossible under one regime for example, suddenly becomes possible in another.

Evidence – key findings
Research quality matters Research quantity matters (body of work culminating in a tipping point) Triangulation of research methods is important Quantitative Qualitative Experiential Participatory Quality evidence is critical to establish credibility in the policy arena and to ensure that ideas for reform are well founded. Criteria for quality evidence can include methodological rigour, a multi-disciplinary approach, attention to the complex interplay of macro-, meso- and micro-level factors that underpin many development issues and even the concept of catalytic validity which calls for an explicit concern for social transformation. The latter goes beyond the research principle of ‘do no harm’ and calls for research “that allow[s] marginalized voices to be heard, to challenge dominant discourses and to open up alternative perspectives and courses of action” (Lather, 1986: 69).

Intent to shape policy matters
Linkages Intent to shape policy matters “The hard evidence of many cases supports the claim that intent matters. It matters precisely because the confusions, tensions and accidents of the policy process itself turn out to be so complicated and unpredictable…Research will only have a reliable influence on policy if it can survive…” (O’Neil, 2005: 762). Credibility of messenger may be as important as the message; this depends on social/institutional positioning and policy entrepreneurship skills Intent While it is recognised that ideas and new knowledge may percolate into policy circles gradually over time (Weiss, 1980) due to the dynamic and often unpredictable nature of the policy process, empirical evidence suggests that researchers who intend to influence policy debates are more likely to be successful. This is because they are more likely to invest in the critical interpretative task of translating academic research findings into specific, context‑appropriate and measurable indicators and policy recommendations required by government officials and donors alike.[i] Credibility Where channels of communication between domestic actors and the state are precarious, international networks may serve to amplify domestic groups’ claims, bring pressure of international bodies and media attention to bear on domestic politics and thereby prise open new political spaces. In other cases, new ideas championed by northern NGOs may find much greater cultural resonance if they are communicated through local partners because of strong national discourses (eg indigenous rights, trade policy impacts). Working as part of a network also serves to hone an individual institution’s understanding of different perspectives and to develop greater communication versatility.[i] Policy entrepreneur A policy entrepreneur is an individual who invests time and resources to advance a position or policy (Kingdon, 1995). One of their most important functions is to change people’s beliefs and attitudes about a particular issue. ODI has gone further in identifying different types of policy entrepreneurs: story-tellers who sense of complex realities is through simplified scenarios, networkers who facilitate coalitions and alliances; engineers who are engaged on the ground with street level bureaucrats and not just sitting in a laboratory; and political ‘fixers’ who understand the policy process and those who hold power in it (Court and Maxwell, 2006: 9). [1] Example of policy entrepreneurship Close working relationships between an education rights NGO and a local city government in Brazil led to the major and dept of education authorising the ngo to run the city education department – the first such case in brazil. Successful pilot projects of community-based curricula and teaching methods persuaded the city govt that it would be a good model to address the alarming statistics of educ dropout and under-performance.

An Analytical Framework
External Influences Socio-economic and cultural influences, donor policies etc The political context – political and economic structures and processes, culture, institutional pressures, state-civil society relations, pol-econ history. The links between policy and research communities – networks, relationships/ trust, power, competing discourses The evidence – credibility, the degree it challenges received wisdom, research methodology, message clarity, how it is packaged etc The aim of the RAPID framework is to simplify the complexity of how evidence contributes to the policy process so that policy makers and researchers can make decisions about how they do their work to maximise the chance that policies are evidence-based, and that research does have a positive impact on policy and practice. It is based on a thorough review of the literature and a wide range of case studies at international, regional and national level across the developing world. It identifies four broad groups of factors. We call the first external influences. Donors/ IFIs/ international agencies, international treaties, discourses, At national level the factors fall into three main areas. The political context includes the people, institutions and processes involved in policy making. State civil society relations, political regime type, political/econ history Although not well represented diagramatically also includes dimension of time – an acute awareness that political context can shift dramatically over time making it essential for knowledge brokers or translators to be watching out for windows of opportunity when ideas are likely to have greater likelihood of uptake. The evidence arena is about the type, quantity and quality of research and how it is communicated. The third arena links is about the mechanisms affecting how evidence gets into the policy process or not. This includes networks, relationships, competing discourses,

External Influences political context evidence links
A Practical Framework External Influences political context Politics and Policymaking Campaigning, Lobbying Policy analysis, & research Media, Advocacy, Networking Scientific information exchange & validation Research, learning & thinking In addition to serving as an analytical framework, the RAPID framework also serves as a practical action-oriented framework. As Diane Stone recently noted it allows us to cope with “The paradox of ‘knowing’ the complexity of an unsolvable problem (ie. Understanding and capturing the complexities of knowledge utilisation) alongside practical requirements to do something about it”. That is, organsiational choices have to be made about incentive structures, knowledge management, inter-organisational behaviour, investing in capacity building etc. . In this presentation, will focus less on this advisory, public affairs dimension and more on questions of research methodology that we have faced in trying to better understand the knowledge/policy/practice nextus. evidence links

Political Context: Key Areas
The macro political context (democracy, governance, media freedom; academic freedom) The sector / issue process (Policy uptake = demand – contestation) [NB Demand: political and societal. Power.] How policymakers think (narratives & policy streams) Policy implementation and practice (bureaucracies, incentives, street level, room for manoeuvre, participatory approaches) Decisive moments in the policy process (policy processes, votes, policy windows and crises) Context is crucial, but you can maximize your chances

Evidence: Relevance and credibility
Key factor – did it provide a solution to a problem? Relevance: Topical relevance – What to do? Operational usefulness – How to do it? : Credibility: Research approach Of researcher > of evidence itself Strenuous advocacy efforts are often needed Communication Context: Demand & Contestation The degree of demand and contestation matter greatly. Demand: Policymaker demand: (eg – initiating a review) Societal demand: (focus on problems) Contestation: Ideology / Narrative Vested Interests In virtually all cases: Policy uptake = demand – contestation Evidence can change the policy narrative (Need to think about how they can work to increase demand and reduce contestation.)

Links: Coalitions and Networks
Feedback processes often prominent in successful cases. Trust & legitimacy Networks: Epistemic communities Policy networks Advocacy coalitions The role of individuals: connectors, mavens and salesmen Context: Demand & Contestation The degree of demand and contestation matter greatly. Demand: Policymaker demand: (eg – initiating a review) Societal demand: (focus on problems) Contestation: Ideology / Narrative Vested Interests In virtually all cases: Policy uptake = demand – contestation Evidence can change the policy narrative (Need to think about how they can work to increase demand and reduce contestation.)

Big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy – e.g. PRSP processes.
External Influence Big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy – e.g. PRSP processes. And some interesting examples of donors trying new things re. supporting research But, we really don’t know whether and how donors can best promote use of evidence in policymaking (credibility vs backlash) What we don’t know - 2. External Influences It seems that big “incentives” can spur evidence-based policy – e.g. EU accession, PRSP processes. WTO And some interesting examples of donors trying new things re. supporting research But, we really don’t know whether and how donors can best promote use of evidence in policymaking (credibility vs backlash)

The external environment: Who are the key actors?
The Key Questions The external environment: Who are the key actors? What is their agenda? How do they influence the political context? The evidence: Is it there? Is it relevant? Is it practically useful? Are the concepts new? Does it need re-packaging? The political context: Is there political interest in change? Is there room for manoeuvre? How do they perceive the problem? Links: Who are the key actors? Are there existing networks? How best to transfer the information? The media? Campaigns?

Childhood Poverty in Ethiopia
Political context Govt weariness/suspicion of civil society Some media access PRSP consultation period Limited capacity of social policy ministries External influences WB, donors encouraged research-based policy recommendations UN Convention on Rights of the Child Consultants to Ministry of Finance and Economy Evidence National hh surveys Young Lives survey on childhood poverty Good practice from other countries, esp. indicators Qualitative research Linkages National NGO umbrella orgs Save the Children Alliance Policy entrepreneurs Ethiopian Dev’t Research Institute PRSP technical committee Dept of Children and Youth Regional state govt officials

What you need to do – group work
What you need to know Broad action steps Possible strategies Political Context: Evidence Links Get to know the policymakers. Identify friends and foes. Prepare for policy opportunities. Look out for policy windows. Work with them – seek commissions Strategic opportunism – prepare for known events + resources for others Who are the policymakers? Is there demand for ideas? What is the policy process? Build a reputation Action-research Pilot projects to generate legitimacy Good communication Establish credibility Provide practical solutions Establish legitimacy. Present clear options Use familiar narratives. What is the current theory? What are the narratives? How divergent is it? For researchers wishing to influence policy and practice, understanding the context, evidence and links is just the first part of the process. Our case studies also identify a number of practical things that researchers need to do to influence policy and practice, and how to do it. In the political context arena you need to get to know the policymakers, identify friends and foes, prepare for regular policy opportunities and look out for policy windows. One of the best ways is to work with them through commissions, and establish an approach that combines a strategic focus on current issues with the ability to respond rapidly to unexpected opportunities. Make sure your evidence is credible. This has much more to do with your long term reputation than the scientific credibility of an individual piece of research. Provide practical solutions to policy problems in familiar language and concepts. Action-research using pilot projects to generate legitimacy seems to be particularly powerful. Make the most of the existing links by getting to know the other actors, working through existing networks and building coalitions and partnerships. Identify the key individuals who can help. You need people who can network with others, mavens to absorb and process information, and good salesmen who can convince the sceptics. You may also need to use informal “shadow networks” as well as more formal channels. Get to know the others Work through existing networks. Build coalitions. Build new policy networks. Build partnerships. Identify key networkers, mavens and salesmen. Use informal contacts Who are the stakeholders? What networks exist? Who are the connectors, mavens and salesmen?

Specific examples from South Asia Country Case studies
Group Work Specific examples from South Asia Country Case studies Application of RAPID to South Asian case studies Presentation and Plenary Discussion

(Or how to influence people to make changes ....)
Advocacy Rules (Or how to influence people to make changes ....)

What are the changes you are trying to bring about?
Use the problem tree or some other tool to identify problems, impact of the problem and root causes Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-Bound (SMART) objectives

Who are you advocating/communicating to?
Who needs to make these changes? Who has the power? What is their stance on the issue? Awareness, Knowledge, Attitude, Behaviour Targets and influence Mapping where decisions happen Analyse the outcome and then decide.

Who are you working together with?
Who do you need to work with? Identify your ‘niche’ (SWOT) Stakeholder Mapping Structures for collaborative working Skills needed in teams Benefits and pitfalls of collaborations

Why do you want to make the changes?
Why should things change (or what is the evidence to support your case?) How to make sure that the evidence is credible and ‘legitimate’? The evidence : accurate, credible, well researched, authoritative… What the target audience wants to hear....

Should ‘communicate’ with your target audience and prompt action
Advocacy Statement A concise and persuasive statement that captures What you want to achieve, Why, How and by when? Should ‘communicate’ with your target audience and prompt action Think about language, content, packaging, and timing Persuasive

How will you communicate your messages and evidence?
How to target and access information? Who is a trusted and credible messenger? What is the most appropriate medium? How will you package your information? Role of the media

Where and when to advocate/communicate?
Creating opportunities (campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying etc.) Influencing existing agendas Piggybacking on other agendas

Skills of (pro-poor) policy entrepreneurs
Networkers Storytellers Engineers Fixers

Policy Entrepreneurship Questionnaire
Rank responses Add scores Don’t worry about specifics

Bangladesh CSO Policy Entrepreneurs
>44 = Low <30 = High <23 = V. High

Strategies and Organizational factors for linking Evidence to Policy
How strategies are made? What organizational factors matter?

To disseminate our research results To provide information
Why communicate? To disseminate our research results To provide information To aid our research process To engage with specific groups To facilitate (public) discussion To lead to change Let’s start with the basic question: Why do we wish to communicate? If we have thought about this question, then it’s easier to choose the tools that are most appropriate to our aims. People and organisations communicate for a variety of different reasons. Here are some examples of possible reasons. They range from the wish to disseminate results, which can be done in quite a simple and straightforward way (e.g. send out an ), to the wish ‘to lead to change’, which requires getting involved in a far more complex and multi-layered process of engagement with different groups.

≠ more communication more change But…
Whatever the aim of our communication, we should not just assume that ‘more’ = ‘better’. More communication will not necessarily lead to more change. This is especially the case if communication in some way is offensive to the target audience, or if it is perceived to be condescending, aggressive, irrelevant, or ‘wrong’. We need to think about the quality and strategy of our communication, and not just the quantity.

Key communication skills
More communication ≠ more change But better communication can lead to change. Key skills: to understand, to inspire, to inform, and to learn. In conclusion, more communication does not necessarily lead to more change. But better communication can lead to change. We need to develop more effective and strategic approaches to our communication, and that is what the tools in this Toolkit are meant to help with. The key skill of a communicator is not simply to send out a mass of information. Rather, the key skills that we should develop in order to become excellent communicators are to understand, to inspire, to inform and to learn.

Communications Toolkit
Planning Tools Packaging Tools Targeting Tools Monitoring Tools The Communications Toolkit is divided into four parts: Planning, Packaging, Targeting and Monitoring.

Communications Toolkit
Planning Tools Stakeholder Analysis Social Network Analysis Problem Tree Analysis Force Field Analysis National Systems of Innovation (NSI) How to Write a Communications Strategy Packaging Tools Targeting Tools Monitoring Tools Key skill: to understand The key skill linked to the first part, Planning, is to understand the situation and context of the communication. There are six tools to choose from here: Stakeholder Analysis, Social Network Analysis, Problem tree analysis, Forcefield analysis, and National Systems of Innovation. In addition we have included a section on how to write a communication strategy. My favourite of these tools is Forcefield Analysis. [Explain Forcefield analysis]

Understand the context Identify the audience(s)
The overall framework How? Who? What? Audience Promotion Message Identify the problem Understand the context Identify the audience(s) Develop a SMART Strategy Identify the message(s) Resources – staff, time, partners & $$ Promotion – tools & activities Monitor, learn, adapt

Audience Who needs to make these changes? Who has the power?
What is their stance on the issue? Who influences them? Identify targets and influence (use stakeholder & context mapping tools)

Message Why should things change (or what is the evidence to support your case?) How to make sure that the evidence is credible and ‘legitimate’? What the target audience can hear.... frameworks of thought Language, content, packaging, and timing

Messenger (Promotion)
How to access information and target? Who is a trusted and credible messenger? What is the most appropriate medium? (campaigns, public mobilisation, formal and informal lobbying) How will you package your information? Role of the media?

Separate people from problem Focus on interests, not positions
Persuasion Separate people from problem Focus on interests, not positions Invent options for mutual gain Insist on using objective criteria. Manage human emotion separately from the practical problem Highlight the human need to feel heard, understood, respected and valued.

Be an authority on the subject Include all group in the work
Lobbying Be an authority on the subject Include all group in the work Be positive in your approach Be aware of the agenda and language on the government in power Identify and target politicians Time your input Use the Media to lobby

Targeting: Writing Effective Policy Papers
Providing a solution to a policy problem Structural elements of a paper Problem description Policy options Conclusion Key issues: Problem oriented, targeted, multidisciplinary, applied, clear, jargon-free. [Source: Young and Quinn, 2002] BACKGROUND Good News – Evidence can matter (e.g. bednets vs. malaria). Other cases around Room. DFID Research Policy Study. Bad News – But … often major gaps (e.g. HIV/AIDS). Resistance despite clear evidence. How to bridge the gap? Key Question: When does evidence matter? We still need a systematic understanding. ODI RAPID / GDN Bridging Research and Policy Project – 50 case studies. PAPER IN PRESS - Handout Exec Summary / Soon on web CHALLENGE – Massive amount of work into 15 minutes

Peer Assist A peer assist is a method whereby participants are invited to reflect on the ideas of their peers based on their experiences, insights and knowledge early on in a project targets a specific technical or commercial challenge; gains assistance and insights from people outside the team; identifies possible approaches and new lines of inquiry; promotes sharing of learning with each other; and develops strong networks amongst people involved

Multiplying Knowledge
Peer Assist Action Multiplying Knowledge What’s possible? What you know in your context "...the politics accompanying hierarchies hampers the free exchange of knowledge. People are much more open with their peers. They are much more willing to share and to listen” What we both know What I know in my context

External networks; Colleagues; Information assets; Own knowledge
What is KM & Learning? “… keeping track of people who ‘know the recipe’…. “…every time we do something again we should do it better than the last time…” Learn during Goals Activities Results Learn before Learn after External networks; Colleagues; Information assets; Own knowledge

Different learning styles…
Reflector Activist Activists are people who learn by doing. They like to involve themselves in new experiences, and will ‘try anything once’. They tend to act first and consider the consequences afterwards Reflectors learn by observing and thinking about what happened. They like to consider all the possible angles and implications before coming to a considered opinion. They spend time listening and observing, and tend to be cautious and thoughtful Theorists like to understand the theory behind the actions. They need models, concepts and facts in order to learn. They like to analyse and synthesise, and feel uncomfortable with subjective judgements Pragmatists are keen on trying things out. They look for new ideas that can be applied to the problem in hand. They like to get on with things and tend to be impatient with open-ended discussions; they are practical, down-to-earth people Theorist Pragmatist

Different forms of knowledge
Implicit Y Has it been articulated? Can it been articulated? Start N Tacit to tacit: Acquiring someone else’s tacit knowledge through observation, imitation and practice e.g. research methodologies, presentations Explicit to explicit: Combining discrete pieces of explicit knowledge to form new explicit knowledge, for example, compiling data and preparing a report that analyses and synthesises these data. The report constitutes new explicit knowledge. Tacit to explicit: researchers subsequent conversion of acquired tacit knowledge into specifications or good practices Explicit to tacit: Internalizing explicit knowledge. We acquire new tacit knowledge; specifically, they came to understand in an intuitive way Y N Explicit Tacit

Management Techniques Collaboration Mechanisms
KM Toolkit Strategy Development Management Techniques Collaboration Mechanisms Knowledge Sharing and Learning Processes Knowledge Capture and Storage

Knowledge Audit for CSOs
What are the core tasks? What do the people doing them need to know? How is the knowledge generated? How is it stored and accessed? Any problems? What are the relationships between producers and users? How could it be improved? Any leadership issues? Any incentive problems?

Policy Influencing Tools
Identifying the forces for and against change and developing the strategy

(Identify Priorities) (Develop Strategies)
Force field Analysis Specific Change Identify Forces (Identify Priorities) (Develop Strategies)

Do not confuse strength of force with importance of force
Force Field Analysis Think about: Who needs to change Who can support and who can resist change Do not confuse strength of force with importance of force Look out for: VERY strong forces Priorities Nested FFA (you might have to re-think your problem)

What are the problems we face while monitoring for policy impact?
The problem with attribution Multiple actors and factors contribute Unintended results are often ignored Influence shifts overtime (indirect relation) Impact of our interventions occurs further down the development chain

The problem with attribution
Family National Gov Church CEF Local Gov DFID GRO CSO USAID

Why do we face these problems?
Because the responsibility for achieving results ultimately depends on the actions of our partners as influenced by the contexts in which they work Focusing on downstream impact increases programming bureaucratisation and is inconsistent with our understanding of develpment as a complex process.

… ex-post is sometimes too late
Monitoring ex-ante … ex-post is sometimes too late A short introduction to OUTCOME MAPPING

What is OM? OM is a dynamic methodology useful in the development of planning, monitoring and evaluation mechanism. OM: Provides the tools to think holistically and strategically about how it intends to achieve results Focuses on Outcomes instead of impacts It deals with Contribution instead of attribution Forces us to limit our planning and evaluation to our sphere of influence Deals with changes in the behaviours of our direct partners

Outcome Mapping OUTCOME MAPPING: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs Sarah Earl, Fred Carden, and Terry Smutylo

The 3 Stages of OM The intentional design stage: helps answer 4 questions: 1) Why? (developing a vision statement); 2) Who? (identifying the primary partners); 3) What? (specifying desired outcomes and relevant progress markers); and, 4) How? (articulating the mission and a portfolio of strategies). The outcome and performance monitoring stage: provides a framework for a continuous monitoring of the initiative as a tool to achieving its outcomes. The program uses progress markers, a set of graduated indicators of behavioural change, identified in the intentional design stage to clarify directions with its primary partners and to monitor outcomes. The evaluation planning stage: helps identify the evaluation priorities assessing the strategy at greater depth than the performance monitoring stage.

Intentional design Boundary Partners Individuals, groups and organisations with whom the programme interacts directly to effect changes. Those that you are trying to encourage to change so that they can contribute to the vision? With whom will you work directly? We must try to group similar partners according to the type of behavioural changes sought. Boundary partners are different from strategic partners. At first the number of boundary partners might be overwhelming. We must try to group similar partners according to the type of behavioural changes sought. Boundary partners are different from strategic partners. Strategic partners are those with whom the programme works but in whom it does not intend to influence changed behaviours. Boundary partners are a subset to the programme’s stakeholders.

Boundary partners = Program`s Partners Program

Intentional design Outcome Challenges The changed behaviours (relationships, activities and/or actions) of the boundary partner and how they would be behaving if they were contributing ideally to the vision. Imagine that in 3-5 years PartCom has been extremely successful. What would our boundary partners be doing to contribute maximally to the vision? Outcome challenges are about the boundary partner, not the programme. Outcome challenges are the vision for the boundary partners. What we intend to see in a few years time. We intend to see RFs who share research and evidence within the institute….

Intentional design Progress markers Step by step progressive changes that one expects to see (short run), would like to see (medium to long run) and love to see (very long run) –keep it simple, 15 max! Are about CHANGES IN BEHAVIOURS OF BOUNDARY PARTNERS Are linear but NOT static Must be revised Help monitor the effectiveness of the strategy

Intentional design Strategy Map Outlines the programmes approach in working with the boundary partners How will the programme contribute to the achievement of the outcome challenged over the next X months/years? Use force field analysis Strategy Map We will work on this in the morning. Based on a summary of the Vision, Mission, Boundary Partners and Outcome Challenges, we will draft a Strategy Map.

The three stages of OM

Discussion How will we design and deliver training on Evidence based Policy Advocacy?

Evidence-informed policy challenging
Summary Evidence-informed policy challenging Policy about interests, institutions & ideas Variety of tools to understand these factors - range in sophistication/complexity and ease of use Tools to use the understanding to engage in policy processes – less well developed Extent to which the tools are helpful depends on creativity, tenacity, inside knowledge – advocacy coalitions useful You can get more info at …

Mapping Political Contexts:
Further Information Mapping Political Contexts: Tools for Policy Impact: Best Practice in Policy Making: Understanding Policy Process: Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘The Tipping Point’ describes how social epidemics spread. It is about the different types of people who are involved in the policy process: connectors, who know a lot of people; mavens, who hoover up and digest information; and salesmen who are very good at ‘selling’ ideas. He describes research into US news anchors in the run-up to the elections in the United States, which showed how very small differences in the way they behave on screen can give very strong messages to the public. He talks about how the context affects how people behave. In another experiment in the US, researchers sent student on errands all over the campus, and arranged for them to pass somebody in distress who clearly needed help and anaysed the factors which influenced whether the students stopped to help or not. The most important factor seemed to be whether the student was in a hurry or not. He describes how some ideas seem to be “sticky” - the factors that determine whether people remember specific bits of information. Gladwell describes how the conjunction of these factors create the “tipping points” when ideas suddenly spread and are adopted.

Further Information / Resources
ODI Working Papers Bridging Research and Policy Book JID Special Issue Meeting Reports Tools for Impact Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘The Tipping Point’ describes how social epidemics spread. It is about the different types of people who are involved in the policy process: connectors, who know a lot of people; mavens, who hoover up and digest information; and salesmen who are very good at ‘selling’ ideas. He describes research into US news anchors in the run-up to the elections in the United States, which showed how very small differences in the way they behave on screen can give very strong messages to the public. He talks about how the context affects how people behave. In another experiment in the US, researchers sent student on errands all over the campus, and arranged for them to pass somebody in distress who clearly needed help and anaysed the factors which influenced whether the students stopped to help or not. The most important factor seemed to be whether the student was in a hurry or not. He describes how some ideas seem to be “sticky” - the factors that determine whether people remember specific bits of information. Gladwell describes how the conjunction of these factors create the “tipping points” when ideas suddenly spread and are adopted.

What will you do different from now on? How can we help you?
Closing comments Was this useful? What will you do different from now on? How can we help you? Action Planning

Contact Details: Naved Chowdhury n.chowdhury@odi.org.uk
RAPID Programme, ODI

Improving Evidence based Policy Engagement in South Asia

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Improving Evidence based Policy Engagement in South Asia"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Improving Evidence based Policy Engagement in South Asia

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Improving Evidence based Policy Engagement in South Asia"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback