Rhonda Schlangen and Jim Coe are independent consultants who work with social change organisations and funders to develop and evaluate advocacy and campaigns. In ‘The Value Iceberg’, a Discussion Paper published by BetterEvaluation, they look at how concepts of 'value' and 'results' are being applied to advocacy and campaigning and present some alternative strategies for assessing advocacy.
BetterEvaluation Discussion Paper 1 is a thought piece written by Rhonda Schlangen and Jim Coe (independent consultants), members of the BetterEvaluation Community, and is intended to promote discussion. See the associated blog where you can post or view comments and responses, or listen to the Advocacy Iceberg podcast to hear Jim and Rhonda discuss this paper's themes.
The paper looks at how concepts of 'value' and 'results' are being applied to advocacy and campaigning and presents some alternative strategies for assessing advocacy.
Timely information about people’s desires could improve policy-makers’ ability to allocate resources to maximum effect and monitor interventions and outcomes. In developing a multidimensional well-being tool to compare the effectiveness of different interventions, weights aim to capture the relative importance of each component to a person’s overall well-being. In this ODI Development Progress Project Note, Laura Rodriguez Takeuchi explores how we may obtain weights based on people’s perceptions of what is important, proposing two methodologies for testing in a pilot project.