Understanding how CSOs use research-based evidence

Remarkably little systematic work on how CSOs use research-based evidence to influence policy processes is easily available in the public domain. ODI's research during the first year has focused on two broad questions: i) does evidence matter to CSO work, and if so how, when and why? And ii) can use of evidence improve the legitimacy and effectiveness of CSOs? Work has included literature reviews, cases studies, expert meetings and conferences.

It is clear that CSO-state contexts in developing countries are changing. Democratization and liberalization have led to greater potential (and often demand) for CSOs to engage with policy processes in some countries. This has involved a move from challenging the state, to policy engagement. Service delivery CSOs are increasingly moving into broader involvement in policy processes. Donor trends - particularly a greater engagement with states and often involving direct budget support, present challenges for NGOs.

The accountability, legitimacy and effectiveness of some CSO involvement is increasingly questioned. This is partly due to increasingly democratic governments questioning of the basis for the legitimacy of CSOs. But it is also clear that CSOs often fail to make the best use of the evidence they have when they engage in policy processes. In many contexts, while CSOs are increasingly invited into policy processes, they often have very little to contribute. CSO engagement is not leading to a policy impact.

But some of the case studies demonstrate how some CSOs are generating and using evidence very effectively to influence policy. For example, the Primary School Action for Better Health (PSABH) Project in Kenya used research-based evidence to inform a project that institutionalised a new attitude towards HIV/AIDS education in primary schools. Some of the best examples of CSO success (in influencing policy) have arisen where researchers and civil society organisations have worked well together.

A key lesson - that is perhaps surprisingly not mainstreamed - is that CSO interventions, and the types of evidence used, need to be targeted for different stages of the policy process. This is a general point that emerges from the literature as well as in our case studies. The case study on CSOs, evidence and budget processes illustrates this most forcefully.

Our work so far suggests that CSOs could maximizing their impact on policy by using evidence better in order to address five key obstacles:

• Access: Using better evidence can help improve CSOs access to policy arenas.
  
• Legitimacy: Evidence can be used in particular to enhance the technical sources of CSO legitimacy (i.e. credibility).
  
• Effectiveness: More and better evidence can help make CSO work more effective.
  
• Integration: Service delivery CSOs can have greater influence if they find better ways to turn their practical knowledge and expertise into evidence that can be used to inform other parts of the policy process (agenda setting, formulation and evaluation).
  
• Translation: CSOs can have greater impact if they find ways to turn local people's understanding into legitimate evidence and combine community wisdom with expert evidence.

Networks
The effectiveness of the Group of Eight (G8), the anti-globalisation protests, and Al Qaeda, all demonstrate the power of networks. Networks is the latest buzzword in the field of international development. Our initial research indicates that networks are particularly good at fulfilling three key functions - Communication; Creativity; and Consensus. They may, for example, help marshal evidence and increase the influence of good-quality evidence in the policy process. They can foster links between researchers and policymakers; bypass formal barriers to consensus; bring resources and expertise to policymaking; and broaden the pro-poor impact of a policy. However, different network functions (eg filters, amplifiers, convenors, providers) require different structures for maximum effectiveness. Networks designed for - and effective at - one role may not be good at others. Introducing new functions might compromise the original objectives. Specific networks will need to consider carefully how many and which functions they can carry out successfully.

Conclusions
Our research so far identifies three key roles for CSOs in policy processes. They can:

• Inspire: generate interest in an issue or support for or action;
  
• Inform: represent the views of others; share expertise and experience; put forward new approaches; and
  
• Improve: add, correct or change policy issues; evaluate and improve own activities, particularly regarding service provision; learn from each other.

Better use of evidence can help them to do this more effectively, and there is a strong demand from more advocacy-oriented and practical CSOs as well as think tanks to improve their use of credible evidence and influence policy. Work during the second year will focus on how CSOs can do this in different contexts.

Key Outputs
Key research outputs include:

• Policy Engagement: How civil society can be more effective
  
• Civil Society Organisations Case Studies and Summary Report: Good News for Troubled Contexts: Lessons learned from case studies on how civil society organisations use evidence to influence policy processes
• CSOs, Policy Influence, and Evidence Use: A Short Survey
• How Civil Society Organisations Use Evidence to Influence Policy Processes: A literature review. Amy Pollard and Julius Court, ODI Working Paper 249, July 2005
  
• CSO Participation in Health Research and Policy: A review of models, mechanisms and measures, Shyama Kuruvilla, ODI Working Paper 251, August 2005
  
• Networks and Policy Processes in International Development: a literature review, Emily Perkin and Julius Court, ODI Working Paper 252, August 2005
  
• A panel session at the IDPM Conference "Assessing the Contribution of Non-Governmental Organisations to Development Alternatives" in Manchester in June 2005
  

Further information about Achievements:
- Achievements index
- Achievements in Outcome 2: Capacity Development
- Achievements in Outcome 3: Information
- Achievements in Outcome 4: Global Projects

Back to CSPP index