Advocacy Planning and Monitoring Training Course

Participants can analyse decision contexts, actors and power relations to target advocacy monitoring effectively.

• Political economy analysis identifies incentives, interests, institutions and informal rules
• Stakeholder mapping ranks actors by influence, position, interest and salience
• Power analysis examines visible, hidden and invisible forms of power
• Decision-maker mapping traces formal authority, advisors, gatekeepers and coalition brokers
• Force-field analysis identifies drivers, blockers and feasible advocacy entry points
• Update assumptions when elections, crises or leadership changes alter incentives

Participants can create a testable theory of change for an advocacy objective.

• Theory of Change connects policy asks, actors, strategies and intended outcomes
• Backward mapping starts with the desired policy or implementation change
• Causal pathways specify preconditions required before decision-maker action occurs
• Assumptions record conditions beyond organisational control that affect progress
• External risks include opposition, legal constraints, conflict and fiscal pressures
• Test causal logic with stakeholders, evidence and disconfirming explanations

Participants can define measurable advocacy outcomes and fit-for-purpose indicators.

• SMART policy objectives specify actors, decisions, scope and timeframes
• Outcome indicators capture commitments, discourse, behaviour, policy and implementation shifts
• Indicator reference sheets define measures, units, sources and collection frequency
• Proxy indicators provide evidence where direct observation is impractical or unsafe
• Disaggregate evidence by gender, disability, location and affected population groups
• Avoid vanity metrics that measure visibility without influence or decision change

Participants can build a practical monitoring framework that assigns data responsibilities and quality controls.

• Advocacy monitoring matrix links outcomes, indicators, methods, owners and timing
• Evidence plans combine documentary records, observation, interviews and administrative data
• Baseline strategies establish starting positions for policy, practice and stakeholder behaviour
• Data collection calendars align monitoring tasks with advocacy decision points
• Source triangulation tests claims through independent and corroborating evidence
• Data quality checks assess completeness, credibility, timeliness and traceability

Participants can select and apply evidence methods appropriate to advocacy questions and constraints.

• Key informant interviews capture decision processes, perceptions and confidential influence
• Document review examines bills, budgets, minutes, policies and implementation guidance
• Media content analysis tracks framing, messenger prominence and issue salience
• Surveys measure awareness, attitudes, coalition capacity and reported behaviour
• Process tracing tests causal mechanisms using hoop tests and smoking-gun evidence
• Sampling decisions balance representation, feasibility, safety and evidential strength

Participants can identify, substantiate and use harvested outcomes from advocacy work.

• Outcome harvesting starts with observed changes rather than predetermined indicators
• Outcome statements specify who changed what, when and where
• Substantiation confirms outcomes through documents, informants and independent verification
• Contribution descriptions explain specific actions plausibly linked to observed change
• Harvesting questions surface expected, unexpected, positive and negative outcomes
• Outcome clusters reveal patterns across policy, practice, relationships and discourse

Participants can make proportionate contribution claims while addressing alternative explanations.

• Contribution analysis develops and tests a credible contribution story
• Alternative explanations identify other actors, events and contextual drivers
• Evidence strength increases through temporal sequence, mechanism and corroboration
• Attribution language distinguishes contribution, influence, association and sole causation
• Rival hypotheses challenge preferred explanations for advocacy outcomes
• Confidence ratings communicate evidential limits without overstating results

Participants can manage ethical, political and security risks in advocacy evidence collection.

• Informed consent procedures address voluntary participation, purpose and data use
• Do-no-harm assessment identifies political, reputational and protection risks
• Confidentiality protocols protect sources, sensitive relationships and advocacy intelligence
• Data minimisation limits collection to information necessary for stated purposes
• Secure evidence registers control access, retention, anonymisation and disposal
• Conflict-sensitive monitoring avoids exposing partners or affected groups to retaliation

Participants can use evidence to revise advocacy tactics and communicate credible results.

• After-action reviews convert advocacy events into documented learning and decisions
• Pause-and-reflect sessions test assumptions, evidence gaps and strategic choices
• Adaptive management triggers define when targets, tactics or messages require revision
• Results narratives combine outcome evidence, contribution analysis and contextual explanation
• Dashboards present leading indicators, outcome progress, risks and evidence confidence
• Ninety-day application plans assign actions, owners, milestones and review dates