Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What is the problem, and what are the key equity dimensions associated with it? | A salient problem is identified by community residents, leaders, and organizations, and its equity dimensions (e.g., consequences for people of different races, classes, or genders) are understood and illustrated with reliable research (e.g., disaggregated statistical data, community-based research). |
Who bears the burden of the inequities resulting from this problem? | Impacts on specific groups, communities and people most affected by the problem are revealed through traditional research and community-based research (e.g., demographic and economic secondary data, collection of primary information from and by residents, mapping of community trends). |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How central are the people most impacted by the problem to creating a vision and plan for equitable change? | The groups, communities, and people most affected by the problem identify it as a priority for change. Outreach strategies, capacity- building efforts, and information that is appropriate, available, and accessible (e.g., culturally, linguistically, and physically) to them may have furthered their understanding and engagement. A visioning process, driven by community dialogue – particularly among those most affected by the problem – produces a collective vision of the community’s future. Diverse and strategic stakeholders, including those most affected by the problem, commit to working together as a collaborative to create equitable change. |
What supports are available to sustain and strengthen an inclusive and ongoing organizing effort for change? | The collective expertise of the collaborative includes both community leaders bringing authentic community wisdom as well as advisors bringing technical expertise to jointly validate the problem, inform the campaign strategy, and justify policy change objectives. Trust between collaborative members is maintained through honest communication between members about their changing motives, goals, and individual and organizational priorities for participating in the campaign for policy change. Communication between collaborative members involves regular and timely flow of information. Sufficient resources (e.g., financial, human, etc.) are available to support organizing and visioning activities. |
How does the leadership of the collaborative demonstrate equity, and how well is that leadership supported? | Leadership of the collaborative includes leaders from the community and reflects its racial diversity and the diversity of engaged interests. Paths to leadership within the collaborative are transparent, available to, and endorsed by members of the collaborative. Leadership of the collaborative has timely access to the research, information, partners, and key informants necessary to advance the campaign. Leadership of the collaborative is accountable for and empowered to manage a diverse membership, and to ensure ongoing member engagement and conflict resolution. The capacity of the leadership of the collaborative to make strategic decisions and difficult choices is continually improving. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What aspects of the collaborative contribute to its power to create change? | There is a strong and ongoing commitment among collaborative members to one another and to advancing the community vision. The core strategy of the campaign is informed by the knowledge, strengths, and assets of collaborative members, and accelerated by continually building collaborative members’ skills and capacities to advance policy change objectives. Ongoing recruitment of new collaborative members from the community and various fields of expertise brings new energy, fresh perspectives, power, and skills to the collaborative. |
What external factors influence the power of the collaborative to create change? | Equity analyses, built upon dialogue and learning between collaborative members, reveal the institutional factors influencing the problem, and contribute to the findings from power mapping exercises. Initial power mapping reveals individuals, organizations, and interest groups that have the power, both formally and informally, to make, influence, or block decisions regarding possible policy change objectives. Ongoing power mapping reveals how groups, communities, and people that are most impacted by the problem, both within the collaborative and in the community at large, could gain power to advance the campaign. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How do decisions regarding advocacy strategy maximize the effectiveness of the collaborative? | The governance structure of the collaborative is transparent and designed to strategically leverage the assets of its members to advance the campaign toward the community vision. The agenda and campaign strategy are transparent and endorsed by members of the collaborative. Sufficient resources (e.g., financial, human, etc.) are available to support research, communications, and strategic planning activities focused on the campaign. Agreements regarding decisions and operations of the collaborative are identified and expressed in writing at important times. |
How are research and communications integrated into collaborative planning and implementation operations? | A clear strategy is established for conducting research, analyzing information, and disaggregating data to inform the equity dimensions of the campaign throughout its duration. A “feedback loop” directs information regarding decision processes and outcomes efficiently and effectively to members of the collaborative. The collaborative is committed to monitoring its course and revisiting its understanding of the problem, in order to remain current and effective in its campaign for equity. The collaborative is committed to implementing and leveraging a strategic communications plan to sharpen its advocacy strategy. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What research is used to understand the problem and identify possible policy change objectives? | Identification of possible policy change objectives is informed by thorough research and analysis of the problem, its causes, its impacts on people and communities, and the potential opportunities to advance equity. Data and information to understand the problem and possible policy change objectives are disaggregated (e.g., by population, place, race, etc.) and analyzed frequently during the campaign to illuminate the equity dimensions (e.g., consequences for people of different race, class, or gender) of the possible policy change objectives. Community knowledge and expertise and academic and professional research are combined to understand the problem and develop possible policy change objectives. Data and information are available and accessible (e.g., culturally, linguistically, and physically) to the collaborative to support selection of policy change objectives with desired equity impacts. |
How does the selection of policy change objectives consider and improve conditions for equity? | Selection of the policy change objectives is informed by accurate, up-to-date information on the changing social, political, and environmental circumstances surrounding the problem. The structure of the campaign and the leadership of the collaborative are assessed upon selection of the policy change objectives and adjusted to ensure authentic community experience, diverse representation, and technical capacity. There is a clear connection between the policy change objectives and meaningful change to reduce or eliminate the problem and bring the community closer to its vision of the future. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What are the key messages of the equity advocacy effort? | Language, messaging and framing about the problem and the policy change objectives are developed and agreed to by collaborative members. Framing analyses – studies of the themes, ideas, and messages used in the media – inform the campaign strategy about perceptions of the specific problem, the policy change objectives, and overall views of equity. |
How are messages packaged and delivered to target audiences? | Target audiences for campaign message delivery are identified by leveraging power mapping information to identify policymakers and their advisors, and communications research identifies the favored forms of media among these people and their constituents. Language, messaging, and framing agreed to by collaborative members are consistently used when contacting target audiences (e.g., policymakers, thought leaders, media, etc.). Communications activities (e.g., fact sheets and other written materials, commentary, articles, media interviews, staged media events, etc.) promote awareness and understanding of the problem, and help to broaden understanding and support for the policy change objectives among target audiences. Communications regarding the problem and the policy change objectives are accessible (e.g., culturally, linguistically, and physically) to the target audiences, and make use of specific cultural and ethnic media outlets. |
In what ways do strategic communications activities advance the cause? | The framing and messaging employed by the collaborative regarding the problem and the policy change objectives are repeated and used by target audiences. Target audiences take action in response to calls to action for the campaign for policy change. The collaborative is sought by policymakers, thought leaders, allies and the media as a credible and expert voice about both the problem and policy change objectives. Social norms (e.g., public beliefs, attitudes, values, priorities, behaviors) related to the problem shift to reflect or become better aligned with the policy change objectives. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How are influential supporters and champions of the policy change objectives identified and cultivated? | The discussions and efforts of the collaborative, together with periodic power mapping, identify different categories of potential supporters: those who are part of the policy process and external to it, existing and potential champions, allied policymakers, unlikely allies, and others. Influential supporters, internal and external champions, unlikely allies, and allied policymakers are consulted about the policy change objectives and the direction of the campaign. Collaborative members and their allies strategically raise awareness of the problem and build support for the policy change objectives. New, needed champions are identified and a strategy to develop and secure their participation in the campaign is developed. |
How are influential supporters and champions of the cause mobilized and retained for ongoing participation in the campaign? | Development of the campaign strategy reflects restrictions of participating collaborative members (e.g., non-negotiable criteria regarding advocacy outcomes). Development of the campaign strategy reflects restrictions of participating collaborative members (e.g., non-negotiable criteria regarding advocacy outcomes). Leadership of the collaborative shares an understanding of the goals and restrictions of the campaign participants (e.g., non-negotiable criteria regarding advocacy outcomes), as well as the strategies being used to advance policy change objectives. Collaborative members develop new or refine existing skills and knowledge to encourage and support continued and expanded involvement in advocacy activities. The collaborative consistently tracks its base of support in terms of the hurdles it must surpass to advance its campaign goals and identifies needs for additional support and the strategies to secure it. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How are opponents to the cause identified? | The discussions and efforts of the collaborative, together with periodic power mapping, identify different categories of potential opponents: institutions and influential people who are “on the fence,” disagree with the equity framing and/or are opposed to the policy change objectives. Strategies are developed to try to move those on the fence to become supporters and for opposition to be decreased and isolated. Media analyses and framing analyses reveal the activities and allies of the opposition, and strategies are developed to respond either directly or through adjustments in proactive strategies. Collaborative members commit to leveraging useful relationships to help advance the campaign. |
How is opposition to the campaign averted? | Communications activities frame the debate and set the agenda in favor of the policy change objectives to proactively block the opposition. Strategies are developed to persuade those who are undecided about the policy change objectives to become supporters and/or dissuade from engaging in public discourse to defeat the campaign. |
How is opposition to the campaign isolated, blocked or countered? | Efforts to block or counter the opposition to the policy change objectives include both proactive and defensive strategies. Research reveals key points of the opposition’s position, their tactics and activities. Strategies to inoculate or respond are developed and implemented. Debate and dialogue with the opposition reveal points of agreement between both sides, possibilities for improvement in the equity advocacy position, or opportunities for compromise or partnership that do not compromise the policy change objectives of the collaborative or of individual members’ restrictions (e.g., non-negotiable criteria regarding advocacy outcomes). Strategies are developed to try to move those on the fence to become supporters and for opposition to be decreased and isolated. Communications and advocacy activities discredit or decrease the perceived impact of opponents’ activities and statements among target audiences. Strategies are developed to respond either directly or through adjustments in proactive strategies. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How well do stakeholders, allies, and policymakers understand the problem and policy change objectives? | Policymakers and their associates – including those who may be responsible for implementation of the decision later, and especially those with leadership on the issue – are aware of the problem and knowledgeable about its details and equity dimensions. Policymakers and their associates are aware of the policy change objectives. Some policymakers and their associates are champions for change and the policy change objectives. |
How deep is the engagement of policymakers in advancing the policy change objectives? | Policymakers champion the policy change objectives by speaking out and spreading information to strategic audiences, building on the efforts of the collaborative. Events and engagements (e.g., briefings, speaking engagements, protests) about the equity issue and policy change objectives raise awareness, build credibility, and garner growing support. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What is the policy change proposal? | A proposal to change public policy (e.g., legislation, a ballot initiative, regulatory change, litigation, etc.), other policy (e.g., procedural rules, organizational policies and procedures, etc.), or other power structure (e.g. inclusion or representation in decision-making bodies, etc.) is developed to address the problem, and is consistent with the collaborative’s policy change objectives. The proposal is championed by a strategically positioned policymaker and endorsed by other policymakers. The proposal is introduced into a formal decision-making process (e.g., bill is introduced, proposed regulation is released, etc.). |
How well does the collaborative navigate the changing social and political environments that influence the proposal? | The problem and proposal maintain visibility among policymakers and engaged stakeholders. Advocacy strategies and internal communications are regularly reviewed to identify opportunities for new support and alliances. Strategies and tactics are flexible – both proactive and defensive – to respond to fluid political dynamics and perceptions of the issue. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What ongoing organizing and community capacity- building activities support the advancement of the proposal? | Continued engagement of community and local leaders and experts through organizing and outreach activities build new and improve existing partnerships and alliances. Collaborative strength and capacity is sustained through respect to collaborative members’ non-negotiable elements, regular checks of members’ comfort level with strategies, and transparent governance and leadership accountability. Enhanced advocacy leadership and the cultivation of new leaders through capacity-building activities expand advocacy for the proposal and support for the overall effort. |
How do ongoing research activities support the advancement of the proposal? | Research and information regarding the problem and the proposal are written and shared strategically (e.g., research papers, issue briefs, educational materials, etc.) with target audiences. Flexibility to refine or change research, communications or campaign strategies when needed allows the collaborative to effectively navigate the policymaking process. |
In what ways do strategic communications activities advance the proposal through stages of the decision-making process? | The framing and messaging employed by the collaborative regarding the problem and the policy change objectives are repeated and used by policymakers in the decision-making process. Policymakers respond favorably to calls to action from the collaborative, its members, and their allies. Policymaker champions are sought as a credible and expert voice about both the problem and policy change objectives. |
How do leadership decisions promote the advancement of the proposal? | For public policy proposals, decisions to engage in direct lobbying are made at relevant and strategic points in the campaign. Collaborative members, allies, and champions demonstrate increased accountability, motivation, and engagement, over time. There is alignment between the resources of the collaborative and support of advocacy activities; core groups are able to remain engaged as the proposal passes through stages of decision-making. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How are collaborative activities associated with the progress of the policy change proposal? | Movement of the proposal through the decision-making process reaps new or previously unidentified allies. Proactive tracking and understanding of the decision-making process reveals opportunities for strategic advocacy (e.g., testifying before policymakers, lobbying, speaking at public hearings, media blasts, etc.). Strategic advocacy activities (e.g., testifying before policymakers, lobbying, speaking at public hearings, media blasts, etc.) aim at specific steps in the decision-making process. Ineffective proposals are rejected even without a viable alternative. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How does the final decision on the proposal affect campaign activities? | The collaborative and the affected community have a shared understanding of the equity “wins” and their role in influencing those wins, and champions them. The collaborative is prepared to revisit its advocacy strategy if the final decision on the proposal is rejected. The collaborative has a strategy in place to advocate for effective implementation once the proposal is formally adopted. |
What supports are available to sustain and strengthen an inclusive and ongoing organizing effort for change? | The collective expertise of the collaborative includes both community leaders bringing authentic community wisdom as well as advisors bringing technical expertise to jointly validate the problem, inform the campaign strategy, and justify policy change objectives. Trust between collaborative members is maintained through honest communication between members about their changing motives, goals, and individual and organizational priorities for participating in the campaign for policy change. Communication between collaborative members involves regular and timely flow of information. Sufficient resources (e.g., financial, human, etc.) are available to support organizing and visioning activities. |
How does the leadership of the collaborative demonstrate equity, and how well is that leadership supported? | Leadership of the collaborative includes leaders from the community and reflects its racial diversity and the diversity of engaged interests. Paths to leadership within the collaborative are transparent, available to, and endorsed by members of the collaborative. Leadership of the collaborative has timely access to the research, information, partners, and key informants necessary to advance the campaign. Leadership of the collaborative is accountable for and empowered to manage a diverse membership, and to ensure ongoing member engagement and conflict resolution. The capacity of the leadership of the collaborative to make strategic decisions and difficult choices is continually improving. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What aspects of the collaborative contribute to its power to create change? | There is a strong and ongoing commitment among collaborative members to one another and to advancing the community vision. The core strategy of the campaign is informed by the knowledge, strengths, and assets of collaborative members, and accelerated by continually building collaborative members’ skills and capacities to advance policy change objectives. Ongoing recruitment of new collaborative members from the community and various fields of expertise brings new energy, fresh perspectives, power, and skills to the collaborative. |
What external factors influence the power of the collaborative to create change? | Equity analyses, built upon dialogue and learning between collaborative members, reveal the institutional factors influencing the problem, and contribute to the findings from power mapping exercises. Initial power mapping reveals individuals, organizations, and interest groups that have the power, both formally and informally, to make, influence, or block decisions regarding possible policy change objectives. Ongoing power mapping reveals how groups, communities, and people that are most impacted by the problem, both within the collaborative and in the community at large, could gain power to advance the campaign. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How do decisions regarding advocacy strategy maximize the effectiveness of the collaborative? | The governance structure of the collaborative is transparent and designed to strategically leverage the assets of its members to advance the campaign toward the community vision. The agenda and campaign strategy are transparent and endorsed by members of the collaborative. Sufficient resources (e.g., financial, human, etc.) are available to support research, communications, and strategic planning activities focused on the campaign. Agreements regarding decisions and operations of the collaborative are identified and expressed in writing at important times. |
How are research and communications integrated into collaborative planning and implementation operations? | A clear strategy is established for conducting research, analyzing information, and disaggregating data to inform the equity dimensions of the campaign throughout its duration. A “feedback loop” directs information regarding decision processes and outcomes efficiently and effectively to members of the collaborative. The collaborative is committed to monitoring its course and revisiting its understanding of the problem, in order to remain current and effective in its campaign for equity. The collaborative is committed to implementing and leveraging a strategic communications plan to sharpen its advocacy strategy. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
What mechanisms are established to assure that the equity provisions of the policy are implemented as intended? | A plan to implement the adopted policy and its equity provisions includes roles, responsibilities, resources, and timelines for implementation, as well as indicators to measure progress and equity impacts, and is transparent to the collaborative, its allies, and the larger community. Channels of communication are developed for the collaborative, its allies, and the larger community to receive updates about, and review progress of, the ongoing policy implementation and the advancement of equity objectives. The collaborative, its allies, and the larger community trust the implementers to follow through on policy implementation and to remain focused on reaching the equity impacts – particularly for groups, communities, and people most affected by the issue – based on demonstrated leadership, accountability, and commitment of the implementers. The collaborative and its allies are committed to track the implementation, provide community support to achieve equity objectives of the policy, and take action to improve effectiveness of the equity provisions when needed. |
How does the policy change contribute to addressing the issue, changing community conditions, and advancing equity objectives? | Data and information to track community changes are disaggregated (e.g., by population, place, race, etc.) and analyzed at multiple time points after policy adoption to illuminate equity dimensions of the policy (e.g., consequences for people of different races, classes, or genders) and the success of implementation in advancing equity objectives. Data and information regarding the ongoing community changes are accessible (e.g., culturally, linguistically, and physically) and transparent to all. Traditional and community-based research (e.g., demographic and economic secondary data, collection of primary information from and by residents, mapping of community trends) reveal improvements among specific groups, communities, and people affected by the issue. |
How do advocates and their allies monitor the effectiveness of the policy implementation and enforce follow through on equity provisions? | Advocates leverage their relationships with implementers as part of an “inside strategy” to encourage effective implementation approaches and to provide insight from authentic community experts and technical advisors on how to address implementation problems for equity impacts. Advocates leverage broader, more inclusive channels of communication (e.g., open letters to implementers, media strategies) as part of an “outside strategy” to applaud success and to draw attention to and improve accountability and leadership on implementation, when needed. Strategic allies outside of the collaborative (e.g., policymakers, their associates, elected officials, other influential leaders) stay engaged and inquire about the progress of implementation to reinforce accountability and the need for equity impacts. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How has the equity campaign brought greater attention and resources to address the issues affecting impacted groups, communities, and people? | Activities or information regarding changing community conditions (e.g., formal and nontraditional research, disaggregated data, and information derived from news media and social media) generated by original equity campaign spurs other campaigns. Documentation and testimonials from expert sources clearly link the activities and impacts of the equity campaign with new or increased resources to address issues affecting impacted groups, communities, and people. |
How has the decision on the proposal for equitable change led to increased power in the affected communities? | Community members report increased opportunities for engagement in decision making, increased access to relevant data and information, improved leadership and/or greater control over issues affecting their communities. Power mapping reveals that community members have increased power to influence matters related to the issue. Traditional and community-based research reveal increased traction of community input in decision-making. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
In what ways does the capacity of the community to advocate for equity continue to grow and evolve with the implementation of the proposal? | Opportunities for community members to learn about the equity issue and community conditions and to develop skills related to organizing, research, communications, and capacity building are more available and utilized more following implementation. Opportunities for mentorship and leadership development are available to cultivate new community leaders focused on advancing equity. |
In what ways are the capacity and expertise of the community considered valid and meaningful? | The community is consulted as experts on the issue by media, academia, and other influential thought leaders. Community members gain power through election, appointment, invitation or other engagement in decision-making entities and processes. |
Guiding Questions | Equity Benchmarks |
---|---|
How are equity improvements institutionalized within existing systems over the long term? | Formal strategies for meaningfully engaging authentic community leaders and members in the ongoing implementation are embedded into processes related to future implementation and decision making. Meaningful community representation, participation, and engagement in the systems and decisions that impact the issue are increased and improved. Equity indicators are developed to measure progress on the issue and are used as a platform for developing equity indicators for other programs and policies. |