MEASURING UP \\ A GUIDE FOR LEARNERS
The need or advocacy to address the challenges oHIV is widely acknowledged and accepted. There isample evidence o the changes good advocacy hasbeen able to bring about, rom improving healthsystems and treatment supply chains to enablingthe voices o the most marginalised to be heardand or communities to be empowered to meet thechallenges o HIV themselves.However, in many places there are stilloverwhelming silences that prevent eectiveresponses, and we remain ar rom the goal ouniversal access to prevention, care, supportand treatment to which the world’s leaders rstcommitted in 2002. Many donors and governmentsrecognise the need or advocacy to help create thechanges to systems, programmes and culturesthat are needed to stop new inections and enablethose who live with HIV to lead ull and productivelives. Increasingly, the private sector, governmentsand other unders are willing to und advocacyprogrammes and positions, and many civil societyorganisations are nding it possible to acquireresources to conduct more systematic advocacywork.Yet it is oten hard to demonstrate the impactand eectiveness o advocacy work, especiallyin the eld o HIV, or a number o reasons. Thelength o time needed to achieve policy and socialchange is one, as this usually ar exceeds thelength o time or which any project will be unded.Another is that evaluating advocacy requiresnew or modied techniques rom those we useto evaluate interventions or service delivery. Thislearning guide arises rom a workshop conductedby the Alliance, ICASO and Constella Futures in2008, in which we looked at some promising newapproaches being developed to try to address someo these challenges. Participants at that workshopwere keen to spend more time looking at these newtechniques to see i they could help them meet thespecic challenges o HIV-related advocacy.This resource brings together useul concepts andmodels we have identied rom new literatureon advocacy evaluation, much o it developed inand or social change work in the global North.We have taken these ideas and piloted them withcolleagues working in low- and middle-incomecountries, to act as a springboard or civil societyorganisations to develop approaches that meettheir needs or accountability, planning anddelivering results. Because this is relatively newthinking, this resource is not a step-by-step ‘howto’ guide. Instead we want to encourage people totry these approaches and adapt them to their needsand circumstances. So the guide comes with a seto resources that is intended to help advocatesthemselves acquire enough o a working knowledgeo the eld to train themselves and each other.The good news is that with a little planning,advocacy evaluation is able to be fexible, cost-eective and to deliver meaningul inormationto advocates and unders on how our work isprogressing, even i our ultimate goals still seem along way o. This guide outlines key messages oradvocates planning to evaluate their work.We hope you nd this guide useul and welcomeany eedback you have, and especially anyexamples or case studies o advocacy evaluationyou may be willing to share. Feedback and ideascan be sent to the email addresses below:
Key messages or advocacy evaluation
It is important to negotiate with donors to designan advocacy evaluation that is realistic andworthwhile, and that is adequately resourced.Engagement o donors in evaluation design isthe most eective way to negotiate an eectivedesign.
Advocacy evaluations need to be fexible andable to adapt to changing circumstances, asdoes advocacy work itsel.
Since HIV-related advocacy work oten haslong-term goals, it is appropriate and practicalto consider interim advocacy outcomes assignicant evaluation results, alongside policychange outcomes and impact.
Since more than one advocate oten contributesto any one advocacy goal, it is reasonable toocus on contribution rather than attribution oadvocacy results where necessary.
Taking the time to develop and articulate atheory o change or your advocacy work willmake planning and conducting an evaluationeasier.
Since networks o key populations or non-governmental organisations are oten a ‘meansto an end and an end in themselves’ oradvocacy work, some evaluation questions canocus on the existence o such a network, orimproved eectiveness o the network in termso the quality o its key internal unctions andprocesses.
INtRODUctION AND ExEcUtIvE SUMMARy