ENHANCING EFFECTIVE POLICY ENGAGEMENT OF ASSOCIATIONS

Internal Constraints and Potential Solutions

1. Limited understanding of specific policy processes, institutions and actors: Conduct rigorous context assessments to enable a better understanding of how policy processes work, the politics affecting them and the opportunities for policy influence.

• Macro political context, 
• Specific policy context: the climate surrounding the relevant stage of the policy process (agenda setting, policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation);
• Extent of policymaker demand; degree of consensus or resistance; and importance of the issue to society.
• Implementation: nature of bureaucratic processes (transparency, accountability, participation, corruption); incentives, capacity and flexibility of organisations to implement policy; degree of contestation; and feasibility of a specific policy reform.
• Decisive moments in the policy process: character of the policy process on an issue; predictability of the policy process; existence of policy windows; and sense of crisis regarding a particular issue.
• The way policymakers think: extent that policy objectives and cause-effect relationships are clear; openness to new evidence; capacity to process information; policymaker motivations; and types of evidence they find convincing. 

2. Weak strategies for policy engagement: Identify critical policy stages (agenda setting, formulation and/or implementation) and the engagement mechanisms that are most appropriate for each stage. 

• Agenda setting: Convince policymakers that the issue does indeed require attention. Marshall evidence to enhance the credibility of the argument. Extend an advocacy campaign. Foster links among researchers, CSOs and policy makers.
• Formulation: Inform policymakers of the options and build a consensus. Act a 'resource bank'. Channel resources and expertise into the policy process. Bypass formal obstacles to consenus.
• Implementation: Complement government capacity. Enhance the sustainability and reach of the policy. Act as dynamic 'platforms for action. Innovate in service delivery.

3. Inadequate use of evidence: Ensure that evidence is relevant, objective, generalisable and practical. This helps improve legitimacy and credibility with policy makers. 

4. Weak communication approaches in policy influence work: Engage in two-way communication and use existing tools for planning, packaging, targeting and monitoring communication efforts. Doing so will help make their interventions more accessible,digestible and timely for policy discussions.

5. Working in an isolated manner: Apply network approaches. Networks can help bypass obstacles to consensus; assemble coalitions, marshal and amplify evidence, and mobilise resources.

6. Limited capacity for policy influence: Engage in systematic capacity building. Associations need a wide range of technical capacities to maintain their chances of policy influence.