CSOs’ Engagement in Advocacy and Policy Dialogue

Outcome

number or % of target CSOs that increased engagement in advocacy and policy dialogue to support [specify the topic or issue]

This indicator tracks the number or proportion of civil society organisations (CSOs) supported by the intervention that have become more active or effective in advocacy and policy dialogue on a defined issue. It reflects CSOs’ growing confidence and skills in influencing decision-making, coordinating with peers, and engaging authorities.

Determine the indicator’s value by using the following methodology:

1) Define “advocacy” and “policy dialogue” in the project context. At the design stage, clearly define what constitutes advocacy and what constitutes policy dialogue in the specific project context. Specify which activities fall under each category and document them separately. Examples may include:

• Advocacy: organisation or co-organisation of advocacy campaigns or awareness events; public statements; media engagement (e.g. press releases, interviews, op-eds); mobilisation of constituencies; or public events aimed at influencing public opinion or decision-makers.

• Policy dialogue: participation in public consultations or hearings; preparation and submission of policy briefs, statements, position papers, or recommendations; membership in working groups or advisory committees; or direct engagement with decision-makers in formal or semi-formal policy processes.

2) Clarify expected engagement pathways. Define the expected engagement pathway(s) for target CSOs, specifying whether they are expected to engage primarily in advocacy, policy dialogue, or a combination of both. Not all CSOs can be expected to engage in both forms of engagement; assessment should focus on progress along the pathway relevant to each CSO.

3) Define what “increased engagement” means. Establish measurable criteria for assessing whether engagement has increased compared to a defined baseline or reference period (e.g. the past 12 months). Definitions of increase should consider both quantitative aspects (e.g. frequency of engagement) and qualitative aspects (e.g. depth, confidence, or strategic focus), and should be aligned with the engagement pathways defined in Step 2. Examples include:

• Increased frequency of advocacy or policy dialogue activities;

• Expanded thematic or geographic scope, or engagement at higher decision-making levels—e.g. from local to national;

• Greater visibility or recognition in policy processes; for example, citations, invitations, media mentions;

• New or stronger alliances and collaboration with other stakeholders or networks.

4) Based on the established measurable criteria for assessing “increased engagement,” develop a simple scoring tool or checklist to assess changes in engagement of each target CSO, aligned with its expected engagement pathway.

5) Define a clear rule for when a CSO is considered to have “increased engagement”. This could be positive change in at least two relevant criteria, or demonstrable progress within its defined engagement pathway.

6) Collect data through CSO self-assessment using a structured questionnaire or scorecard. Where feasible, verify self-reported data using one or more complementary data collection methods. Examples include key informant interviews (with CSO representatives, public authorities, or partners) or document review (e.g. activity and monitoring reports, meeting records, policy submission, or media outputs).

7) To calculate the indicator’s value:

• numerical value: count the number of target CSOs meeting the criteria you defined in step 3;

• percentage value: divide the number of target CSOs that increased their engagement by the total number of CSOs assessed. Multiply the result by 100 to convert it to a percentage.

Disaggregate by CSO type, geographic scope (local, regional, national), or issue/thematic area (e.g. governance, environment, gender, youth), as feasible and appropriate.

1) Agree on baseline information early. Ask CSOs to recall and document their advocacy and dialogue activities during the pre-defined period (e.g. 12 months) before project support began.

2) Verify activity quality, not just quantity. Count meaningful participation in terms of advocacy and policy dialogue—for example, contributing inputs or leading discussions—rather than attendance of events or platforms alone.

3) Use participatory tools. Scorecards and self-assessment matrices help CSOs reflect on their progress and ownership of advocacy and policy dialogue outcomes.

4) Monitor enabling environment factors. Political changes, donor priorities, or shrinking civic space may limit advocacy opportunities even if a CSO’s capacity improved. Reflect on such contextual factors when interpreting results.

5) Consider other IndiKit advocacy indicators:

• number of engagements with relevant decision-makers regarding the advocacy efforts

• increased representation in fora relevant to the advocacy objectives

• number of existing and new partnerships for implementing advocacy efforts

• number / % of [specify the target group] actively involved in designing the advocacy actions

• number / % of [specify the target group] actively involved in implementing the advocacy actions