|
 CSOs,
Policy Influence, and Evidence Use: A Short Survey
ODI's Civil Society Partnerships Programme (CSPP)
is a six year programme which aims to better enable Southern Civil
Society Organisations (CSOs) to use evidence in connection with
contributing to pro-poor policy processes. With this goal in mind,
under Outcome
1 of the programme: 'CSOs understand better how evidence
can contribute to pro-poor policy processes', a survey of civil
society organisations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern
Europe was implemented to address three major research questions:
- How are CSOs influencing policies in their country?
- What is the context in which they are influencing policy?
- What are these CSOs requesting from ODI? What types of support
do they need?
The survey was designed to help us understand: (a) the types of
evidence CSOs use for policy influence; and (b) the extent of success
they feel they are having; (c) the incentives and disincentives
for CSOs to use evidence; (d) how types of context affects all this;
and (e) what they feel their needs are.
A number of clear and incisive findings were highlighted when analysing
survey data. First, when assessing CSOs agenda to influence policy
we found that the majority of respondents considered the objective
of influencing government policy as highly relevant to their organisation's
agenda. When specifying the areas of policy their organisations
seek to influence, 'Governance/Accountability' and 'Rural Livelihoods/Agriculture'
were most often the areas of focus. Education and Gender issues
closely followed. It was also interesting to note that the majority
of CSOs were working to influence a wide number of policy areas,
suggesting that the majority of CSOs are not single issue based,
but working across a broader range or spectrum.
In response to a question regarding methods of policy influence,
the majority of the surveyed CSOs reported that they were networking
with other organisations. It was interesting to note that three
of the four lowest responses - 'work on projects commissioned by
policymakers', 'newsletter to policymakers', and 'insider lobbying'
- are activities most directly related to working with policymakers.
Most responses tended to favour activities that are 'indirect.'
When specifying the types of evidence that are used in seeking
to influence policy, the majority of respondents considered
case studies to be the most effective form of evidence. On the other
hand, a mere 32% of respondents regarded academic research papers
as highly effective. Nevertheless, when given the opportunity to
comment, most respondents indicated that combinations of types of
evidence are used.
Assessing frequencies of success, the majority of respondents
indicated that their organisations have experienced only moderate
levels of success in regards to influencing policy. When asked to
evaluate the overall success of civil society in their country,
the sample perceived civil society to be achieving little in terms
of influencing policy - even less than success of their own organisation.
Furthermore, when responses were separated by region, it was apparent
that respondents from certain localities experienced different levels
of success: Only 21% of CSO representatives from Asia identified
their organisation as successful, compared to 42% of African CSOs
and 44% of Eastern European CSOs. Even more dramatic were the differences
among success levels of civil society as a whole in a respondent's
country. Whereas one third of respondents from Africa indicated
there were moderate to high levels of success at the country level,
there was not a single respondent from Latin America who perceived
civil society as successful at influencing policy in their country.
Given these low levels of success, it is necessary to determine
the factors that prevent success - barriers to success. According
to the majority of respondents, the political context was neither
favourable, nor overtly hostile, however average ratings were often
accompanied by an open-ended comment that suggested a hostile political
environment. These included: CSOs seen as opponents of the government;
corrupt government officials; and lack of transparency. In other
cases, there were several responses that acknowledged the positive
aspect of the introduction of a democratic government, referring
specifically to freedom of speech and media, yet at the same time
it was noted that the way democratic space functions in practice
limits engagement. Separately, we also found that as the favourability
of the political environment increases, civil society in an organisation's
country is more likely to experience higher levels of success. On
the other hand, the variable of region failed to demonstrate any
significant association. In regards to the main barriers to CSO
engagement, the majority of respondents indicated that 'CSOs
do not have sufficient capacity' (63%) and 'CSOs do not have enough
funds' (59%). It is interesting to note that respondents barriers
that are related to issues concerning their own organisation, thus
placing blame on internal factors rather than external factors.
When the question was refocused to assess the main barriers to
using research and evidence to influence policy, CSOs influence
was substantially limited because 'policymakers are not used to
drawing on research and evidence', 'policymakers have limited capacity
to use and adapt evidence in policy processes', and 'CSOs have limited
capacity to use and adapt evidence in policy processes'.
When assessing the characteristics that are associated with
higher and lower levels of success, we found that the key factors
that are associated with higher levels of policy success are being
from Asia or Africa, as well as working in a Government think tank.
In addition, networking with other organisations, working on projects
commissioned by policymakers, working with publications on policy
issues and providing services were also key factors associated with
higher levels of success. Lower levels of policy success were associated
with being a consulting group or a university-based research organisation,
using case studies as evidence to influence policy, trying to influence
policy through websites or by holding seminars, as well as working
in the area of housing policy
Finally, looking at demands for support the majority of
respondents indicated that training/capacity building, access to
the latest thinking on how to use evidence to influence policy and
support for more research on policy issues are the types of support
most needed to help their organisation to influence policy. Separating
the responses by region, we found several variations on the types
of support needed. The majority of respondents from Asia indicated
that 'information on policy issues' as the most essential support
need, whereas respondents from Africa indicated 'training/capacity
building'. Respondents from Eastern Europe and Latin America considered
neither as the most necessary (the majority of respondents from
Eastern Europe indicated that both 'access to latest thinking on
using evidence to influence policy' and 'support for more research'
are the most important, whereas three types of support - 'access
to latest thinking,' 'training/capacity building' and 'technical
support' - were tied as the most important according to respondents
from Latin America). It should be noted that variations that are
exhibited within this study are not necessarily applicable to the
general population, as our study lacked a random sampling method.
Assessing the single most important action to improve policy
impact of individual organisations, top responses included:
More financial support; Creation of space for civic engagement in
policy discussions/public dialogue/dissemination bodies; Cooperation
of legislative bodies; Monitoring and evaluation of policies and
policymakers; Build capacities/train professions with regards to
research and policy development; for staff to influence policy;
for credible evidence-based policy influence; for the purpose of
policy entrepreneurship; for lobbying; for the creation of a research
unit within CSOs. Assessing the single most important action
to improve policy impact of CSOs in one's country, top responses
included: Empowerment of CSO capacities/resources; Support for more
research and advocacy; Networking/sharing information; Civil society
to work with research bodies that are considered acceptable by government;
Strengthen legal framework; Promotion of stakeholder forums; Faster
implementation or passing of bills; Government to be held accountable
for its activities.
|
