Description
The essay will require to use a residualist conversion approach to identify an appropriate health advocacy goal.The
first material is shiffman & smith theory of change framework while
the second document contains different types of theory of change. So,
you can choose from anyone you’re comfortable with and apply it to the
chosen problem.Please, also give examples to help illustrate your points effectively. Another
Hint: Please when choosing a health problem, Consider choosing an issue
that affects a particular state or location rather than globally. So
that It will lot easier to apply the theory of change to that chosen
location
Unformatted Attachment Preview
GLOBAL ADVOCACY AND POLITICAL PRIORITY
ASSIGNMENT 1 QUESTION
Within public health, there is a focus on research, epidemiology and program development.
However, very often effective action on the part of governments does not occur without
significant influence from civil society in the form of health advocacy as community
organising.
The Purpose of this assignment is to critically appraise a health issue in terms of its structural
determinants and discuss the application of a theory of change for effective health advocacy.
Your task is to write an academic essay that uses a social problem analysis and theory of
change framework to prepare for health advocacy on a pressing health issue.
This essay requires you to use a residualist conversion (Jamrozik & Nocella, 1998)
approach to identify an appropriate health advocacy goal. This problem framing process
will explicitly incorporate an understanding of the relevant social determinants of health. The
key elements of a theory of change for the identified health advocacy goal will be discussed
for a particular national or sub-national setting.
Your essay should:
1. Include an introduction that briefly outlines the importance of the health issue and
the structural determinants that are relevant. (150 words)
2. Outline the application of a residualist conversion analysis to explain how your
chosen issue is a predictable negative by-product of the pursuit of dominant interests and
values in society. Explain how your issue is commonly converted from a political into a
technical problem. You will propose an alternative framing that recognizes the political and
structural framing of the problem. Explicit application of structural determinants of
health will be included in this process drawing on model by Solar and Irwin (2010). (800
words)
3. Finally you will discuss how a theory of change for health advocacy could be applied
to address the identified problem in a particular setting. Use of relevant reports, statistics,
and potential NGO alliances will be included. (900 words)
4.
Include a conclusion that concisely summarises your key points. (150 words)
KEY RESOURCES/MATERIALS: (1) Jamrozik, A., & Nocella, L. (1998). The Sociology
of Social Problems: Theoretical Perspectives and Methods of Intervention. Cambridge
University Press.
(2) Solar, O., & Irwin, A. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social
determinants of health.
Other Useful Resources/Materials:
➢ Gemma Carey, Eleanor Malbon, Brad Crammond, Melanie Pescud, Philip Baker, Can
the sociology of social problems help us to understand and manage ‘lifestyle drift’?,
Health Promotion International, Volume 32, Issue 4, August 2017, Pages 755–761,
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dav116
➢ Levy, Barry S. (ed.), Social Injustice and Public Health, 3rd edn (New York, 2019;
online edn, Oxford Academic, 22 Aug. 2019),
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190914653.001.0001, accessed 11 Sept. 2023.
➢ (Chapter 9: An A–Z of Tobacco Control Advocacy Strategy). (2007). In Chapman,
Public health advocacy and tobacco control [electronic resource] : making smoking
history (p. 1 online resource (346 p.)). Blackwell Pub.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470692479. (Note: Please Read section titled Advocacy:
the neglected sibling of public health)
➢ Kingdon, John W.. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, Update Edition, with
an Epilogue on Health Care: Pearson New International Edition, Pearson Education
UK, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acu/detail.action?docID=5138173.
➢ Cockerham, William C.. Social Causes of Health and Disease, Polity Press, 2013.
ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acu/detail.action?docID=1604131.
➢ Baum, F., & Fisher, M. (2014). Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its
failure to reduce health inequities. From Health Behaviours to Health Practices, 5768. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118898345.ch6
➢ Baum. (2015). The new public health / (Fourth edition..). Oxford University Press,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/acu/detail.action?docID=4786467. (Note:
Please Read Chapter One and Thirteen)
➢ Shiffman, & Smith, S. (2007). Generation of political priority for global health
initiatives: a framework and case study of maternal mortality. The Lancet, 370(9595),
1370–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61579-7
➢ Carlisle. (2000). Health promotion, advocacy and health inequalities: a conceptual
framework. Health Promotion International, 15(4), 369–376.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/15.4.369
➢ Erik Blas. (n.d.). Social determinants approaches to public health: from concept to
practice. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564137. (Read Chapter 2:
Scaled up and marginalised.)
➢ Marmot, & Bell, R. (2012). Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health, 126(1), S4–S10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014
➢ Wilkinson, & Marmot, M. G. (Eds.). (2003). Social determinants of health [electronic
resource] : the solid facts / (2nd ed.). World Health Organization Regional Office for
Europe.
➢ Phelan, Link, B. G., & Tehranifar, P. (2010). Social Conditions as Fundamental
Causes of Health Inequalities: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 51(1_suppl), S28–S40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383498
➢ WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (Ed.). (2008). Closing the gap in
a generation : health equity through action on the social determinants of health : final
report /. World Health Organization.
➢ Donkin, Goldblatt, P., Allen, J., Nathanson, V., & Marmot, M. (2018). Global action
on the social determinants of health. BMJ Global Health, 3(Suppl 1), e000603–
e000603. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000603
➢ Jamrozik. (1998). The sociology of social problems : theoretical perspectives and
methods of intervention (Nocella, Ed.). Cambridge University Press; Cambridge
University Press. (Read Chapter Three Methods of Intervention in Social Problems)
➢ Klugman. (2011). Effective social justice advocacy: a theory-of-change framework
for assessing progress. Reproductive Health Matters, 19(38), 146–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-8080(11)38582-5
➢ Cairney. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making [electronic resource]
/. Palgrave Macmillan UK : (Read Chapter 3 health and advocacy barriers and
solutions)
➢ McClelland, & Smyth, P. (Eds.). (2014). Social policy in Australia : understanding for
action (3rd edition., p. 1 online resource (xvii, 302 pages) :). Oxford University Press.
(Note: Please read: ‘Chapter 3 — A Framework for Understanding and Action’)
➢ Policy Interventions and Citizen Engagement. (2005). In Considine, Making public
policy : institutions, actors, strategies / (pp. 141–164). Polity Press,.
➢ McClelland, & Smyth, P. (Eds.). (2014). Social policy in Australia : understanding for
action (Third edition., p. 1 online resource (xvii, 302 pages) :). Oxford University
Press. (Note: Please read: ‘Chapter 4 — The Institutional Context for Decisions and
Action’, pages 60-77)
Length: 2000 words no +/- 10% (including in-text references but excluding the
end reference list). Referencing style: APA 7, a citation should be provided
upon every mention of an idea, statistic, concept, argument, etc. that has
come from someone other than yourself.
Formatting:
•
•
•
•
•
Microsoft Word document (not PDF)
Essay writing
1.5 line spacing
Normal margins
Font 12/ Times New Roman
PLEASE STRICTLY FOLLOW THE CRITERION 1-5 STATED BELOW WHEN
WRITING YOUR ESSAY.
CRITERION 1- A CLEAR LINK SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN THE
CHOSEN HEALTH TOPIC, THE CHOSEN AND SOCIAL DETERMINANT
OF HEALTH (SDH).
•
Please excellently provide analysis of a high-level, detailed description of link
between health issue and social determination of health
Underpinned by the scientific literature
– Please, include citations for all key statement
CRITERION 2- AN ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH ISSUES IS PROVIDED
THAT APPLIES THE RESIDUALIST CONVERSION (JAMROZIK &
NOCELLA, 1998) APPROACH TO ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERS THE
APPROPRIATE GOALS FOR EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY.
–
Please Excellently undertake Health issue analysis in an extremely detailed
manner,
–
Also, excellently show a very clear understanding of concepts related to
residualist conversion.
•
Underpinned by the scientific literature
– Please, include citations for all key statement
CRITERION 3- A THEORY OF CHANGE SHOULD BE ARTICULATED
THAT
INFORMS
THE
HEALTH
ADVOCACY
STRATEGY.
THE ANALYSIS OF THE HEALTH ISSUE SHOULD INCORPORATE A
THEORY OF CHANGE THAT IS SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATE
SCHOLARLY LITERATURE. THIS ANALYSIS SHOULD ALSO IDENTIFY
THE WAY POWER WILL BE UNDERSTOOD AND STRATEGICALLY
EMPLOYED AND WILL SUPPORT THE KEY ADVOCACY GOAL.
–
Excellently explain in a highly detailed manner, the theory of change implications
of the chosen health issue
Please Show a very clear understanding of concepts related to power and
advocacy strategies.
– Underpinned by the scientific literature
CRITERION 4- SCIENTIFIC WRITING, FORMATTING, GRAMMAR,
PUNCTUATION, AND SPELLING:
•
Very high quality of scientific writing, logical, clear and eloquent; and meets word limit
and formatting requirements. There are no errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, and
meaning is easily discernible. The essay should read without interruption.
-Avoid padding (‘each and every…’ …’both positive and negative’’)
CRITERION 5- REFERENCES AND REFERENCING:
•
References used should be credible, relevant, and of high quality. Mixed use of published
books, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, high quality databases, and/or
reports. APA 7 referencing should be accurate in all instances. All statements of fact and
ideas taken from elsewhere should be referenced. Use Wide range of references, at least
up to 45 references and above.
-A Citation per Key Statement.
SUMMARY
The Essay must contain:
• An introduction that briefly outlines the importance of the health issue and the
structural determinants that are relevant
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outline the application of a residualist conversion analysis to explain how your
chosen issue is a predictable negative by-product of the pursuit of dominant interests
and values in society.
Explain how your issue is commonly converted from a political into a technical
problem.
You will propose an alternative framing that recognizes the political and structural
framing of the problem
Explicit application of structural determinants of health will be included in this
process drawing on model by Solar and Irwin (2010).
discuss how a theory of change for health advocacy could be applied to address the
identified problem in a particular setting
A conclusion that concisely summarises your key points.
• High quality presentation, in terms of format, meeting general requirements for
task; coherence of expression; and adherence to conventions of writing (spelling,
grammar, length) and referencing
Tips:
(1) Where appropriate, use sub-headings that align with the criterion.
(2) You can also include graph, image or statistical data if need be.
(3) Gauge the number of words and emphasis to use for each section.
ADVOCACY EVALUATION
PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE:
10 Theories to Inform
Advocacy and Policy
Change Efforts
Sarah
Stachowiak,
ORS Impact
October
2013
This is an update and expansion of the Pathways brief originally published by Organizational Research
Services in 2009. This brief may not be reproduced whole or in part without written permission from
the author or the Center for Evaluation Innovation.
ADVOCACY EVALUATION
PATHWAYS TO CHANGE:
10 Theories to Inform
Advocacy and Policy
Change Efforts
Sarah
Stachowiak
Foreword
T
he first Pathways for Change brief originally was published in 2008 in response to growing interest
from evaluators, funders, and advocates to evaluate advocacy and policy change efforts. Since that
time, the field of advocacy and policy change evaluation has grown, and theories of change continue to
serve as bedrock for evaluative efforts. Given this context, the time is ripe to expand on the original work.
This updated brief maintains most of the content from the original piece and provides information on four
additional theories. It continues to focus on theories most directly applicable to either understanding
how policy change happens or how specific advocacy tactics play out; this brief does not focus on more
comprehensive social science theories. Additionally, at the time of the original brief, the utility and
application of this work were largely theoretical. This update includes an expanded section on how
evaluators, advocates, and funders can apply these theories to advocacy and policy work.
Introduction
A
dvocates of all stripes seek changes in policy as a way to achieve impact at a scale and degree of
sustainability that differs from what can be achieved through direct services or programs alone.
Advocates and funders each come to policy work with a set of beliefs and assumptions about how change
will happen, and these beliefs shape their thinking about what conditions are necessary for success, which
tactics to undertake in which situations, and what changes need to be achieved along the way.
These worldviews are, in actuality, theories of change, whether or not they have been explicitly stated or
documented as such. When articulated as theories of change, these strategy and belief system roadmaps can
clarify expectations internally and externally, and they can facilitate more effective planning and evaluation.
This brief lays out 10 theories grounded in diverse disciplines and worldviews that have relevance to the
world of advocacy and policy change. These theories can help to untangle beliefs and assumptions about
the inner workings of the policy making process and identify causal connections supported by research
1 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
to explain how and why a change may or may not
occur. This piece is not meant to be comprehensive of
Defining Theory of Change
all possible relevant theories and approaches; rather, it
T
introduces and illustrates a handful of theories that may
be useful to advocates, funders, and evaluators. While
the theories included may have broad applicability, the
brief is grounded in the context of US domestic policy.
Knowing about existing theories may sharpen your own
thinking, provide new ways of looking at the policy world,
and give you a leg up on developing your own theory of
change. The final section gives concrete examples of the
way in which advocates, funders, and evaluators can use
this brief in their work.
heory of change can be defined as
the conceptual model for achieving a
collective vision. A theory of change typically
addresses the linkages among the strategies,
outcomes, and goals that support a broader
mission or vision, along with the underlying
assumptions that are related to these
linkages. Theories of change can be expressed
in many forms but ultimately should explain
how you get from “here” to “there.”1
1
Organizational Research Services. (2007). A guide to
measuring advocacy and policy. Prepared for the
Annie E. Casey Foundation. Seattle, WA.
10 Theories of Change Related to Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
B
rief summaries follow of 10 social science theories of change relevant to advocacy and policy change
efforts.2 These comprise two types of theories:
Global theories are theories that explain how policy change occurs more broadly, and
Tactical theories are theories from various social science disciplines that apply to common advocacy
tactics that are likely part of broader advocacy efforts or campaigns.
Global theories include the following:
1. “Large Leaps” or Punctuated Equilibrium theory
2. “Policy Windows” or Agenda-Setting theory3
3. “Coalition” theory or Advocacy Coalition Framework
4. “Power Politics” or Power Elites theory
5. “Regime” theory
Tactical theories include the following:
1. “Messaging and Frameworks” theory
2. “Media Influence” or Agenda-Setting theory3
3. “Grassroots” or Community Organizing theory
4. “Group Formation” or Self-Categorization theory
5. “Diffusion” theory or Diffusion of Innovations
2
3
Overviews of the theories are based on the seminal works that undergird them. Summarizing complex theories into one page or
less necessarily distills the information significantly. For greater depth or nuance, please see the Bibliography to access the original
sources.
Both Kingdon (“Policy Windows”) and McCombs and Shaw (“Media Influence”) use the term “Agenda-Setting Theory” to quite
different ends. To be true to the original authors, we use the term for both. To differentiate between them, we refer to Kingdon’s
work as “Policy Windows” and McCombs and Shaw’s work as “Media Influence.”
2 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
GLOBAL THEORIES
TACTICAL THEORIES
3 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
Psychology
Communications
Messaging and
Frameworks or
Prospect theory
(Tversky & Kahneman)
Media Influence or
Agenda-Setting theory
(McCombs & Shaw)
Political issues on the public’s agenda will depend on the
extent of coverage a given issue receives by mass news
media.
Individual’s preferences will vary depending on how
options are presented.
Policy change happens through the support and
empowerment of policy makers by a close-knit body of
influential individuals.
Change happens when a new idea for a program or policy
is communicated to a critical mass, who perceives it as
superseding the current policy/program (or lack thereof)
and thus, adopts the idea.
Sociology
Political Science
Regime Theory (Stone)
Policy change is made by working directly with those with
power to make decisions or influence decision making.
Diffusion theory
or Diffusion of
Innovations (Rogers)
Sociology
Power Politics or
Power Elites theory
(Mills, Domhoff)
Policy change happens through coordinated activity
among a range of individuals with the same core policy
beliefs.
Social Psychology Policy change can be achieved when individuals identify
with groups and subsequently act in a way that is
consistent with that social group or category membership.
Political Science
Coalition Theory or
Advocacy Coalition
Framework (Sabatier,
Jenkins-Smith)
Policy can be changed during a window of opportunity
when advocates can successfully connect two or more
components of the policy process (e.g., the way a problem
is defined, the policy solution to the problem, and/or the
political climate of their issue).
Group Formation or
Self-Categorization
theory (Turner, Tajfel)
Political Science
Policy Windows or
Agenda-Setting theory
(Kingdon)
Like seismic evolutionary shifts, significant changes in
policy and institutions can occur when the right conditions
are in place.
Social Psychology Policy change is made through collective action by
members of the community who work on changing
problems affecting their lives.
Political Science
Large Leaps
or Punctuated
Equilibrium theory
(Baumgartner & Jones)
HOW CHANGE HAPPENS
Grassroots or
Community
Organizing theory
(Alinsky, Biklen)
DISCIPLINE
THEORY (Key Authors)
Matrix of Theories
• You have trusted messengers and champions to model or
communicate the innovation
• The focus is on a new idea for a program or policy
• Cohesion among your organization’s members is a prerequisite for
change
• You are looking to build or tighten your base of support
• Your organization’s role in an issue is as a “convener” or “capacitybuilder” rather than as a “driver”
• A distinct group of individuals is directly affected by an issue
• You want to put the issue on the radar of the broader public
• You have strong media-related capacity
• A key focus of the work is on increasing awareness, agreement on
problem definition, or salience of an issue
• The issue needs to be redefined as part of a larger campaign or
effort
• You have access to or can become part of this coalition or regime
• You know or suspect that a coalition of non-politicians is deeply
involved in policy making
• Focus may be on incremental administrative or rule changes
• You have one or more key allies in a position of power on the issue
• You have a strong group of allies with a common goal
• A sympathetic administration is in office
• You have internal capacity to create, identify, and act on policy
windows
• You can address multiple streams simultaneously (e.g., problem
definition, policy solutions, and/or political climate)
• You have strong media-related capacity
• Large-scale policy change is the primary goal
WHEN THIS THEORY MAY BE USEFUL
The description for each theory includes a short summary; important underlying assumptions associated
with the theory; the theory’s application to advocacy; and an example theory of change that visually
illustrates key concepts, strategies, and outcomes.4, 5
Global Theories
C
ompared with Tactical theories, Global theories represent more encompassing worldviews about
how policy change happens. Advocates may be more successful if they operate within one of these
frameworks rather than several simultaneously. While some Global theories share similar assumptions or
components, explicitly acknowledging which theory resonates can help groups make focused strategic
choices about possible tactics and allow them to leverage the assumptions inherent to that point of view
more effectively.
GLOBAL
1 “LARGE LEAPS” Theory of Change
THEORY
Believers of the Large Leaps theory recognize that when
conditions are right, change can happen in sudden, large
bursts that represent a significant departure from the past,
as opposed to small incremental changes over time that
usually do not reflect a radical change from the status quo.
This theory also is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium
theory, stemming from evolutionary science terminology.
Frank Baumgartner and Brian Jones, major thinkers in this
area, developed the model and have used it in longitudinal
studies of agenda-setting and decision making.
Large Leaps theory posits
that large-scale change can
occur when an issue is defined
differently, when new actors
get involved, or when the issue
becomes more salient and
receives heightened media and
broader public attention.
The theory holds that conditions for large-scale change are ripe when the following occur:
Q an issue is defined differently or new dimensions of the issue gain attention (typically a fundamental
questioning of current approaches);
Q new actors get involved in an issue; or
Q the issue becomes more salient and receives heightened media and broader public attention.
While these conditions set up the environment in which large-scale change can occur, they do not predict or
guarantee it. For example, an issue may achieve increased attention and focus, but the heightened attention
may not result in policy change. However, when all of the right conditions occur simultaneously, change is
exponential, not incremental.
4
5
The strategies shown in the maps are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
Strong advocacy capacity within an organization is key to success—i.e., the ability to choose strategies appropriate to the context
and issue, identify opportunities for progress, develop relationships, make midcourse corrections, and communicate effectively.
Though this key factor is highlighted specifically in only one theory of change, it is a critical component to the successful application of all 10 theories.
4 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
Underlying Assumptions
Q Government institutions typically maintain the status quo and have a monopoly over the way issues
are defined and decisions are made.
Q Though institutions try to maintain their monopoly, the American political system of separation of
powers and overlapping jurisdictions allows many different venues through which to pursue change.
Q People pay attention to only a few issues at a time, and large-scale change is unlikely without more
attention focused on an issue.
Q People typically become mobilized through redefinition of the prevailing policy issue or story, a
narrative that should include both facts and emotional appeals.
Q Media can play an integral role by directing attention to different aspects of the same issue and
shifting attention from one issue to another. However, media attention does not cause policy change
directly—it typically precedes or follows the change.
Q Large-scale change typically involves creating or eliminating institutions (e.g., departments, agencies).
Application to Advocacy
Q Advocacy efforts should focus on questioning policies at fundamental levels, as opposed to making
administrative or rule changes to existing policies.
Q Issue definition and agenda-setting are key to mobilizing new people around an issue.
Q Promising strategies include issue framing, mobilizing supporters, and media advocacy.
Reading the Outcome Maps
T
he outcome maps related to particular advocacy strategies and tactics featured in this brief show the
potential theoretical connection between that strategy through to policy change and ultimate impact.
Solid lines represent outcomes clearly stated in the seminal research. Outcomes connected by dotted lines
are hypothetical and are illustrative of how that tactic ultimately supports the longer-term policy change
and impact desired by advocates.
5 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
“LARGE LEAPS” Theory of Change
OUTCOMES
STRATEGIES
Refine issue/Issue framing
Mobilize new actors
• Public
• Legislators
• New allies/Unexpected allies
Get media attention to focus on
new definition or aspect of policy
STRENGTHENED ALLIANCES
STRENGTHENED BASE OF SUPPORT
Increased number of allies/partners
Increased media attention
SHIFT IN SOCIAL NORMS
STRENGTHENED BASE OF SUPPORT
Increased awareness of issue
Increased visibility of issue
SHIFT IN SOCIAL NORMS
STRENGTHENED BASE OF SUPPORT
• Increased agreement about issue
definition and need for change
Increased political & public will for issue
• Increased salience of and prioritization
of issue
IMPROVED POLICIES
• “Significant” changes in institutions
• “Significant” changes in policy
IMPACT
Changes in social and/or physical conditions
6 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
GLOBAL
2 “POLICY WINDOW” Theory of Change
THEORY
The Policy Windows theory is John Kingdon’s classic theory of agenda-setting attempts to clarify why some
issues get attention in the policy process and others do not. He identified three “streams” related to the
policy system:
1. Problems: The way social conditions become defined as “a problem” to policy makers, including the
problem’s attributes, its status, the degree of social consciousness of the issue, and whether the
problem is perceived as solvable with clear alternatives.
2. Policies: The ideas generated to address problems.
3. Politics: Political factors, including the “national mood” (e.g., appetite for “big government”),
campaigns by interest groups and advocates, and changes in elected officials.
According to this theory, to increase the likelihood that an issue will receive serious attention or be placed
on the policy agenda, at least two of the streams need to converge at critical moments or “policy windows.”
Policy windows are windows of opportunity that arise when there is the possibility for policy change.
Underlying Assumptions
Q Policy streams operate independently.
Q Advocates can couple policy streams when a policy window opens. For example, advocates can
attach their solutions to a problem that has gained prominence on the agenda (even if its rise was
independent of their efforts).
Q Success is most likely when all three components (problems, policies, and politics) come together
during a policy window.
Q Policy windows can be predictable (e.g., elections, budget cycles) and unpredictable (e.g., a dramatic
event or crisis, such as a plane crash or hurricane). Policy windows also can be created.
Q The way a problem is defined makes a difference as to whether and where the problem is placed on
the agenda. Problem definition also has a value or emotional component; values and beliefs guide
decisions about which conditions are perceived as problems.
Q Often there are many competing ideas on how to address problems. To receive serious consideration,
policy options need to be seen as technically feasible and consistent with policy maker and public
values.
Q To effectively recognize and take advantage of open policy windows, advocates must possess
knowledge, time, relationships, and good reputations.
7 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
Application to Advocacy 6
Q Promising strategies include:
•
impacting problem definition (i.e., framing the issue, monitoring indicators that assess the
existence and magnitude of issues, initiating special studies of an issue, promoting constituent
feedback);
•
developing policy options (e.g., through research, publications, and the like), and;
•
influencing the political climate (e.g., coalition building, demonstrations, and media advocacy).
Q Advocates and organizations need adequate capacity to create and/or recognize policy windows and
then respond appropriately.
STRATEGIES
“POLICY WINDOW” Theory of Change
Define the
problem, e.g.,
• Indicator tracking
• Framing
• Research
• Organizing
Develop policy
solutions, e.g.,
• Research/think
tanks
SHIFT IN SOCIAL NORMS
• Increased agreement on
problem definition
OUTCOMES
• Increased agreement on
solutions to problems
Strengthen
organizational
capacity
• Relationships
• Credibility
• Ability to identify
policy window
• Ability to “couple”
streams
CHANGE IN CAPACITY
Increased ability to
create/recognize/respond
to policy window
effectively
Influence the
political climate, e.g.,
• Coalition building
• Demonstrations
STRENGTHENED
BASE OF SUPPORT
Increased political will
IMPROVED POLICIES
Changes in policy
IMPACT
Changes in social and/or physical conditions
6
To study an application of Kingdon’s theory to an advocacy effort, see: Coffman, J. (2007). Evaluation based on theories of the
policy process. The Evaluation Exchange, 13(1 & 2), 2–6. Retrieved July 3, 2013, from http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluationexchange/issue-archive/advocacy-and-policy-change/evaluation-based-on-theories-of-the-policy-process.
8 | PATHWAYS FOR CHANGE: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts
www.evaluationinnovation.org
GLOBAL
3 “COALITION” Theory of Change
THEORY
Coalition theory, developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith and commonly known as the Advocacy
Coalition Framework, proposes that individuals have core beliefs about policy areas, including a problem’s
seriousness, its causes, society’s ability to solve the problem, and promising solutions for addressing it.
Advocates who use this theory believe that policy change happens through coordinated activity among
individuals and organizations outside of government with the same core policy beliefs.
Underlying Assumptions
Q Coalitions are held together by agreement over core beliefs about policies. Secondary beliefs
about how policies are executed are less critical to alignment (e.g., administrative rules, budgetary
allocations, statutory revision).
Q Diverse groups can operate effectively and efficiently due to shared core beliefs; in other words, little
time is needed to reach shared understanding.
Q Core beliefs are resistant to change, unless
• major external events, such as changes in socio-economic conditions or public opinion, are skillfully
exploited by proponents of change; or
• new learning about a policy surfaces across coalitions that changes views about it.
Q Policies are unlikely to change unless
• the group supporting the status quo is no longer in power; or
• change is imposed by a hierarchically superior jurisdiction.
Application to Advocacy
Q Coalitions can identify and reach out to diverse groups with similar core policy beliefs (e.g., unlikely
allies).
Q Coalitions typically will explore and pursue multiple avenues for change (e.g., engaging in legal
advocacy and working on changing public opinion), often simultaneously, to find a route that will
bear fruit.
Q Promising strategies include:
• influencing like-minded decision makers to make policy changes;
• changing incumbents in various positions of power;
• affecting public opinion via mass media;
• altering decision maker behavior thr
