Advocacy Capacity Building Project Report 2007

Advocacy Capacity Building Project

Funded by Reichstein Foundation

Researched by the Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS), the Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc. (PILCH) and the Federation of Community Legal Centres (FCLC)

Table of Contents

1. Overview 3

2. Defining Systemic Advocacy 8

3. Consultants 10

4. Pro Bono Brokers 12

5. Law Firms 15

6. Peak Bodies 17

7. Advocacy Organisations 19

8. Community Legal Centres 21

9. Recommendations 23

1. Overview

“Action is the catalyst that creates accomplishments. It is the path that takes us from uncrafted hopes to realized dreams.”

- Thomas Huxley, Physiologist (1825-1895)

1.1 Introduction

The Reichstein Foundation, through its grant making program, supports community organisations in Victoria which empower people to challenge policies, institutions and attitudes which foster inequality and inequity. The Foundation recognises that as well as financial assistance, these community groups often require someone with experience in advocacy and campaigning to consult with them and listen to the problem, help them articulate the desired outcome and ‘craft’ a strategy to achieve social change.

1.2 Project Objective

The project, funded by the Reichstein Foundation, investigated the following:

· Where can community groups in Victoria obtain ‘face to face’ capacity building support in advocacy project development? Which not for profit organisations or for profit organisations provide this service? What are the application criteria?

· Do any of the existing pro-bono organisations (Leadership Vic, Melbourne Cares, Good Company, Oxfam Skill Share, etc) provide this? What are the application criteria?

· Are there gaps in the provision of this service?

This Report outlines the results of this investigation together with the contact details of organisations that provide this support.

1.3 Authors

The Report was researched and prepared by the Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS), in partnership with the Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc. (PILCH) and the Federation of Community Legal Centres (FCLC) - collectively ‘the Authors’. The Report identifies consultants and organisations with expertise in advocacy who are willing to provide assistance, both face-to-face and written advice, to community groups on a pro bono or reduced fee basis to develop projects which will effect systemic change.

1.4 Executive Summary

In summary, the Report concludes:

a) Consultants

The consultants surveyed expressed an interest in providing systemic advocacy support. However, consultants will generally charge a fee for their services, although most noted that they will consider providing reduced fee or pro bono assistance if the cost would prohibit the organisations from obtaining advocacy support with a campaign that was intended to benefit the community, disadvantaged or marginalised groups.

b) Pro Bono Brokers

The pro bono brokers surveyed indicated they are willing and able to place skilled volunteers in community organisations to assist with systemic advocacy projects. In fact, the pro bono brokers reported that they have a short-fall in requests for such assistance, whereas most other parties surveyed reported that they had trouble meeting the demand for advocacy support. Further work is needed to establish if the pro bono brokers represent an untapped resource for advocacy capacity building, and if, in fact, suitable skilled volunteers could be placed in response to requests for assistance with specific advocacy projects.

c) Law firms

Law firms have capacity to assist community organisation with discrete advocacy activities and are interested in providing pro bono advice and support to eligible community organisations. However, the firms confirmed that they prefer requests for the advocacy support to be referred to them by a pro bono broker, such as PILCH, to assist with articulating the assistance required and breaking it down into discrete, achievable tasks which can be allocated to the firms’ lawyers.

d) Peak Bodies

Peak bodies generally have the expertise and interest in providing members with hands-on support to engage in systemic advocacy, and all of those surveyed provide this kind of support—generally as part of membership services. Most respondents reported that they the lacked capacity to meet demand due to resource constraints.

e) Advocacy Organisations

The advocacy organisations’ ability to provide hands-on support to other community groups in most cases depends on their size, resources, whether they employ a dedicated policy/advocacy worker and whether the organisation requiring assistance has similar objectives, (e.g. The Wilderness Society is better placed to advise other environmental advocacy groups). A number of organisations are willing to provide advice and assistance to other organisations in relation to methods to engage in systemic advocacy, but currently lack resources to meet demand.

f) Community Legal Centres

Most community legal centres (CLC) have advocacy expertise and are interested in providing other organisations with advocacy support. However, the CLC sector is not adequately resourced to respond to all requests from other community organisations for advocacy support, despite their expertise.

1.5 Implementation Plan

The Authors were awarded the tender in December 2006. In January 2007, VCOSS began compiling a list of organisations and consultants with expertise in advocacy and prepared a draft survey to inform the implementation plan stage of the project.

The authors met in late January 2007, to devise an implementation plan and discuss the:

1. aims and objectives of the project;

2. definition and nature of systemic advocacy;

3. activities and assistance which could be categorised as ‘advocacy support;’ and

4. various organisations and consultants which have the relevant expertise and experience to provide community organisations with advocacy support to build their capacity to engage in advocacy, including;

(a) Consultants (section 3 of the Report)

(b) Pro bono providers (section 4)

(d) Peaks (section 6)

(e) Advocacy organisations (section 7)

(f) Community legal centres (section 8)

1.6 Surveys

Having identified the above categories, the Authors then prepared separate surveys with which to interview each of the categories.

The surveys were intended to elicit quick and simple feedback from the advocacy providers. They were deliberately kept to two pages and were largely ‘tick the box’ responses in order to limit the effort and time required for completion and, therefore maximise the number of responses.[1]

The surveys all asked respondents whether they knew of any other organisations and/or individuals who provide support for systemic advocacy. Using this snowball method, any new organisations or individuals identified by respondents were then added to the lists of organisations/individuals for the Authors to contact and survey. The surveys also asked if the respondents worked with either Indigenous organisations and/or small consumer groups as the Authors understand these groups are a focus of the Reichstein Foundation grant program.

The Authors divided the potential advocacy provider categories (a) – (f) between the Authors to undertake the consultations either by email survey or interviews over the phone.

A summary of the responses for each of the categories is provided in section 2.

1.7 Methodology

It is important to note that the surveys were completed by individual coordinators or employees of the participating organisations and in some cases may not document or represent the whole range of activities, advocacy or otherwise, undertaken by that organisation. The survey results provide a ‘snapshot’ of the advocacy support which the respondents currently provide rather than a comprehensive overview.

(a) PILCH – Law firms and Advocacy Organisations

PILCH was responsible for surveying half of the listed advocacy organisations and the law firms which make up PILCH’s membership.

PILCH obtained feedback about (a) the advocacy support required by community organisations and (b) the support available on a pro bono or reduced fee basis by:

· holding a focus group at PILCH on 6 February 2007;

· distributing a survey by email to all its law firm members and half the advocacy organisations; and

· contacting a number of the firms and advocacy organisations which had not returned their surveys. [2]

(b) VCOSS – Consultants, Pro Bono Providers, Peaks and Advocacy Organisations.

VCOSS was responsible for surveying consultants, pro bono providers, peaks and the other half of the listed advocacy organisations.

VCOSS obtained feedback regarding the advocacy support available for community organisations (on a pro bono or reduced fee basis) by:

· contacting a number of the potential advocacy providers by telephone to broaden the list of organisations/individuals to be surveyed or interviewed;

· conducting surveys by telephone, email or face-to-face meetings with the organisations/individuals listed under the categories above; and

· pursuing a number of the potential advocacy providers by telephone to complete surveys via telephone interviews.

(c) FCLC – Community Legal Centres

FCLC was responsible for surveying and/or interviewing by telephone a selected list of generalist and specialist community legal centres which are members of the Federation of Community Legal Centres.

Surveys were conducted mainly through telephone interview with either coordinators or policy workers from individual centres. FCLC interviewed 27 centres including a cross section of rural, regional, specialist and generalist community legal centres. Interviews took between 20 minutes and one hour depending on the centre and the time available for them to respond.

1.8 Conclusion

As a result of the research undertaken for this project and feedback from the participants, it is clear that community organisations need further access to support and assistance to engage effectively in systemic advocacy. As a result in conjunction with the Reichstein Foundation, VCOSS, PILCH and FCLC will continue to investigate ways to increase access to advocacy support for community organisations, so in turn they can:

· Concentrate their time on advocacy projects as well service delivery;

· Identify structural issues which could be the subject of an advocacy campaign or project;

· Undertake successful systemic campaigns on a broad range of social issues;

· Undertake forms of systemic advocacy to address issues and obtain assistance where appropriate, to prepare media releases, articles in newspapers, letters to and meetings with responsible persons in government or other agencies;

· Prepare submissions to parliament, government and other enquiries on issues within the knowledge and expertise of the community organisation or consumer group; and

· Generally improve their advocacy capacity.

If these objectives are achieved, then the community sector and, in turn, the multitude of people it assists and our civil society in general, will be strengthened.

2. Defining Systemic Advocacy

Participants were asked at the beginning of the interview and survey what they understood the term ‘systemic advocacy’ to mean and what types of activities fell within that definition.

The answers varied dramatically. A substantial number of participants found it difficult to provide a neat definition of systemic advocacy, but found it easier to describe the types of activities which they felt could be classified as systemic advocacy.

At the opposite end of the scale there were a number of organisations who responded with clear, succinct definitions:

“Providing a voice and a chance for input”

- Jade Colgan, VIYAC

“The active support of an issue, policy or organisation”

- Carolyn Atkins, VCOSS

“Accessing leverage to create systems change”

- John Ryan Anex

“To provide a voice in order for the collective of individuals to be heard”

- Judy Flanagan, CASA

“The application of pressure and powers of persuasion on some target or other to effect change”

- Sam Biondo, VAADA

The surveys all included a list of advocacy methods and activities to prompt the respondents to list what services they provide, such as:

· Networking

· Lobbying government

· Media and Communication

· Research and analysis

· Policy development

· Campaign development/ evaluation

· Submissions to government reviews and enquiries

· Grant applications for advocacy projects

· Advocacy project development/ evaluation

· Organising events – public meeting, direct actions, protests, rallies

A handful of participants initially said their organisation did not engage in systemic advocacy, but changed their response when presented with the list of activities that constitute systemic advocacy.

The law firm participants had a clear, formal understanding of systemic advocacy and the work involved. The responses from law firms were similar and encompassed the following concepts: Identifying the structural conditions and field-specific issues that negatively impact on the community organisations’ constituents and implementing plans to effect change, which include influencing decision-makers in shaping policy and reallocating budgets.

The community legal centres had a common understanding of their systemic advocacy role: Systemic advocacy works beyond individual case work and aims to change systems and structures that impact on particular sections of the community. Policy and law reform and community legal education are broad terms used to describe systemic advocacy in the context of the Community Legal Centre sector. Further to this, Systemic Advocacy in Community Legal Centres aims to address the causes of legal problems/justice concerns.

The above examples notwithstanding, it is clear from other responses that simply asking the original question “Where can community groups in Victoria obtain ‘face to face’ capacity building support in advocacy project development?” is insufficient. Further explanation is required to assist participants to understand what is meant by ‘systemic advocacy’, such as examples of activities that constitute systemic advocacy, as well as examples of advocacy projects and how they differ from other projects. These findings are consistent with those of a report by Dalton and Lyons (2005) on Australian advocacy organisations, which found that there was no consensus on definitions of advocacy among respondents, partly due to their ambivalence about the political connotations of the term.[3]

“Systemic advocacy is fundamentally political”

- Phillip Camela, DEAC

A number of organisations have expressed concern that community organisations which receive government funding ‘feel increasingly constrained’ and discouraged from engaging in advocacy.[4] The literature indicates that the current Commonwealth Government is perceived as hostile towards systemic advocacy and undermines community organisations’ capacity to actively engage in advocacy. Casey and Dalton note that there is a widespread perception in the community sector that current federal and state governments seek to suppress advocacy and silent dissent.[5] Despite the current political climate, the authors report that organisations which have a particular reliance on government funding continued to be committed to, and devote resources to, systemic advocacy.[6]