• Size or number of actors that participate in the network
• Amount and type of interests envolved
• Cohesion: ratio between existing relationships and potential relationships
• Consensus: degree of acceptance of the internal rules of the network
• Intensity: frequence and volume of exchanges • Stability or persistence of relationships
• Autonomy or degree of permeability of the net- work to other external stakeholders
relationship that may exist between networks and govern- mental global or regional decision-making. Hence, proof of influence is frequently elusive and, at best, anecdotal.
According to Church et al (2002) evaluating lobbying and advocacy work must try and understand the added- value that linking and co-ordinating bring to advocacy. Therefore, evaluation regarding the policy influence capac- ity could include:
• The improved quality and sophistication of joint analysis that underpins the advocacy;
• The extended reach to key actors in key contexts through which that improved analysis can be channelled; • The capacity to act simultaneously, with shared ide-
as, in many places at once;
• The space for competing views to be discussed and consensus positions achieved;
• The opportunity for those with few other avenues to powerful decision-makers to gain access through the networked relationships.
exercise 7: Measuring different types of
outcomes
In order to capture the complexity of influence, McKinley and Baltazar (2005) propose the following table that cov- ers a wide range of evaluation criteria. Members can be requested to value the degree to which these criteria have been met.
criteria to a minor extent to a large extent
re so lu tio n of t he p ro bl em th ro ug h pu bl ic p ol ic ie
s Approval of the proposal
Application or implementation of the proposal Public debate on the issue
Establishment of the issue in the public agenda
Incorporation of affected stakeholders in the governmental plans Achievements in the resolution of the approached problem
tr an sf or m at io n of p ow er re la tio ns hi ps to w ar ds m or e de m oc ra cy
Establishment of new mechanisms for State-civil society interaction Generation of mechanisms for accountability
Sensibilisation of public servants Increase of local power
More clarity about the functioning of institutions Identification of governmental allies
Exercise of citizenship rights
st re ng th en in g an d em po w er m en t of c iv il so ci et y
Legalisation of the group or coalition More knowldged about how the State works Capacity to generate proposals
Identification of new non traditional allies Constitution of the group as a social control group Larger credibility
Awareness of the issue
Formation of sustainable alliances Strengthening of local power
Participation of poorly represented groups Court and Perkins (2005) also provide a valuable table that can serve as a guiding platform to assess the impact of the networks on policy processes. They propose that rather than follow the usual approach and focus on types of net-
work themselves, policy processes should be taken as the starting point. In each stage of the policy process, there are a number of ways in which networks can help which are summarised below:
stage of the
policy process Key objectives for actors aiming to influence policy how networks can help agenda setting Convince policymakers that
the issue does indeed require attention
• Marshall evidence to enhance credibility of the argument - facilitate vertical and horizontal communications
- provide a mechanism for knowledge sharing and feedback across global boundaries between North and South
• Extend an advocacy campaign - strength in numbers
- sustain a campaign over time and across geographical areas • Foster links among researchers, CSOs and policymakers
- create a ‘boomerang pattern’ whereby CSOs use international partners to pressurise unresponsive local governments
- capitalise upon key individuals in the network to communicate evidence - bypass formal barriers to dialogue
formulation Inform policymakers of the options and build a consensus •
Collate good-quality representative evidence and act as ‘resource bank’ • Channel international resources and expertise into the policy proccess • Build long-term collaborative relationships with policymakers • Bypass formal barriers to consensus
Implementation Complement government
capacity •
Enhance the sustainability and reach of the policy
- provide an effective means of grassroots service-delivery on behalf of government - enhance sustainability by: sharing workload; cutting down inefficiency; provi-
ding solidarity; mobilising funding; entrenching grassroots representation • Act as dynamic `platforms for action
IFRTD and measuring changes in attitudes Based on their awareness of the complexity of mea- suring impact, IFRTD applied a new methodology to assess the impact of the forum. This methodology was replicated from a Canadian experience that al- lows the mapping of changes in attitudes and not only of specific result of an activity. This method helped them see how certain actions could be trans- formed into policies in the long term, especially when the change of attitude comes from a key stakeholder such as a mayor or governor. In this sense, the im- pact could be evaluated more easily at the local level where the NFs interact with local politicians. evaluation Collate quality evidence and
channel it into the policy process
• Provide good-quality representative evidence and feedback
- refine the evidence through the input of multiple actors (for both research and grassroots advocacy networks)
- access and channel feedback from grassroots communities
- provide a forum for peer evaluation amongst implementing agencies • Link policymakers to policy end-users
- make use of diverse links and powerful individuals to bridge vertical divides - provide a mechanism to mediate among diverse actors
all stages
(underlying) Capacity building for CSOs aiming to influence policy
• Foster communication
• Provide a dynamic environment for knowledge sharing and collaborative action • Provide support and encouragement
• Coordinate member evaluations
101