| by Simone Parrish, Knowledge Manager, Innovation
Network, Inc.
What's the Difference?
Part Two
In the first article in this series, we introduced the differences
between the evaluation of advocacy work and direct service
evaluation. In this article, we delve into the first two
differences in more detail: timeframes and organizational
capacity.
Timeframes
The continually increasing speed of communication has strongly
affected advocacy work. The rise of social media and instant
communication (e.g., email, widespread cell phone use, blogging,
and social networking sites like MySpace)
has given advocates new tools for their efforts. It has also
created new challenges in monitoring and evaluating results.
Using instant communications and social media can bolster
an advocacy issue's visibility. Recent examples from the
field include:
These successes are inspiring, and there are many others
like them. But it's important to keep in mind that these
new communications tools are just that: tools. They need
to be used in a strategic context, and evaluated as part
of a greater whole. If a cause does not have strong public
support, or an organization doesn't have broad name recognition,
setting up a MySpace page probably won't be very effective
on its own.
Despite the speed of individual communications, effecting
policy change and moving public opinion are long-term processes.
Should a coalition call it quits because a piece of legislation
does not pass? Was Susan B. Anthony a failure because she
didn't live to see women's suffrage become a reality in the
United States? Of course not. Incremental successes must
be planned for and recognized. This is true in direct service
evaluation as well, but for advocacy evaluation the incremental
successes may be the only visible measures of progress within
a grant period, a legislative session, or an election cycle.
The fifth article in this series, "Defining Success," will
discuss these incremental successes in more depth.
Organizational Capacity
Advocacy and hybrid organizations need to be able to do
things differently than direct service organizations. In
more formal terms, their capacity needs are different. Two
illuminating examples are Agility and Communications.
Agility: "Advocacy tends to focus on action-advocacy work
by nature is very nimble and fluid according to the external
environment," says Rhonda Schlangen. Much more than direct
service organizations, advocacy organizations need to have
contingency plans in place, and be able to respond to events
that affect their cause.
When a window of opportunity opens, an advocacy organization
must be ready to act. This is true whether the opportunity
is positive (e.g., build on the momentum of a victory) or
negative (e.g., mitigate losses when circumstances favor
the opposition). To maximize an opportunity, an organization
needs to be flexible, learn from its own work, and keep a
constant eye on outside forces. In the June 2006 report to
the California Endowment, TCC Group summarized these qualities
with the term "adaptive capacity," which it described as "the
ability of a nonprofit organization to monitor, assess, and
respond to internal and external changes."
The processes and practices identified by TCC as supporting
adaptive capacity-e.g., implementing systems for monitoring
change, reflection on successes and failures, and making
plans based on that reflection-are the same processes that
support ongoing learning, as we discussed in the first article
in this series (see Fig. 2 ).
Communications: A sound communications plan will help almost
any nonprofit perform better. For an advocacy organization,
it is crucial. Visibility, branding, outreach, public education,
and media relations make up advocacy's lifeblood.
For an advocacy organization, visibility is helpful. For
an issue, it's imperative. This is where the media comes
in. "Having a broad-based connection in terms of grassroots
is important, but in terms of really moving things forward
the media becomes critical," notes TCC. Advocates need to
establish themselves as credible sources-people the media
will listen to. Advocates should establish themselves as
the "go-to person," someone other key players will call to
find out about what's going on with an issue.
In the next article in this series we will examine the third
difference between the evaluation of advocacy work and direct
service evaluation: the importance of relationship-building.
Figures
Figure 2
Please click to enlarge
back up
|
