USING SMALL-WINS FRAMEWORK AND CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS FOR IMPACT STORY TELLING OF A POLICY ADVOCACY EVALUATION

Abstract Information: In the quest for scale and sustainability, influence and advocacy are key mechanisms through which development partners affect policy changes. As is with any other development investment, communicating impact of advocacy interventions is as critical as its good implementation. Developing a compelling impact story is therefore a key concern for all the key stakeholders-implementers, funders and policy-makers. However, advocacy interventions operate in highly complex and uncertain environs with multiple actors and diverse strategies- making it all the more harder to tell a clear impact story. Methodological innovations and adaption are consequntly necessary for developing a compelling impact narrative. We showcase one such methodological experimentation using Contribution Analysis and the Small Wins Framework for telling impact story in a policy advocacy evaluation in India. The portfolio evaluation was of advocacy interventions on Sexual and Reproductive Realth and Rights, State Capacity Building and on mainstreaming needs of women and marginalized communities in development programming of the state. We describe the rationale in making the method choices, processes adopted during the evaluation and the lessons learnt therein. We posit that combining diverse approaches bringing best-fit method mixes in given evaluation scenario is the way forward to complexity responsive evaluations.

Relevance Statement: Development programming is increasingly getting complex with multi-actors intervening through multi-layered and multi-sectoral strategies. Similar is the case of policy advocacy and influence efforts. Such efforts operate in highly complex environments with multiple actors and factors affecting engagement of investors, implementors and the decision-makers who are to be influenced. Uncertainty of advocacy efforts yielding any results and actuating the desired policy outcome adds to the complexity. More often than not, impacts do not materialize. And in instances impacts do materialize- most of times they are incremental rather than transformative. In cases, the issue advocated may itself be in very nascent stage so that building salience would be the target of advocacy efforts. Or just that the target problem is ‘sticky’ and the needle has moved a bit over the decades. The question that evaluators in such scenarios is what’s the contribution of the interventions? And hence, evaluations need to focus on assessing contributions of the initiatives towards the intended policy outcomes. Contribution Analysis is more or less an established method for evaluations for distilling contribution of an policy advocacy intervention to the policy outcomes. However, there is equal need for evaluations to continuously see what is working, learn about what are the enablers and barriers, for crafting a way forward. Small Wins Framework (Termeer and Dewulf, 2019) is one such method option that could be used in conjunction with Contribution Analysis for the said purpose. Identifying the small wins in the specific intervention context and learnings therefrom can help key decision-makers in learning from the doings. The combination of the two methods can thus facilitate evaluators in both articulating a contribution story of the advocacy intervention as well determine what strategies are working in interim, long-term and synergies therein. Plurality of method is necessary for responding to the complexity posed in policy advocacy evaluations. Bringing a suite of complimentary methods can help evaluators respond to the multiple evaluation asks and expectations from the evaluation. Such method portfolios can help evaluators in telling multi-dimensional impact stories. Such methodological experimentation holds the key for evaluators to learn and employ right method mixes in specific intervention scenarios. Reference Catrien J.A.M. Termeer & Art Dewulf (2019) A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems, Policy and Society, 38:2, 298-314, DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2018.1497933