Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Defining, Building, and Measuring Capacity: Findings from an Advocacy Evaluation


Author Info

  • Debra A. Strong
  • Jung Y. Kim
Registered author(s):


    This article describes an evaluation of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Consumer Voices for Coverage, an initiative supporting consumer health advocacy coalitions in 12 states, and suggests approaches to building and measuring capacity for advocacy or other nonprofit activities for funders to consider. The foundation based part of the program's strategy on a study that identified six core advocacy capacities, and designed it to strengthen these capacities. The level of funding, substantial and targeted technical assistance, and the program's three-year time frame contributed to observed increases in five capacities. Fundraising remained the lowest-rated capacity for most of the coalitions and may require different strategies.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found. If this is indeed the case, please notify (Joanne Pfleiderer) or (Joanne Lustig)
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Mathematica Policy Research in its series Mathematica Policy Research Reports with number 7440.

    as in new window
    Length: 14
    Date of creation: 30 Mar 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:7440

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Mathematica Policy Research P.O. Box 2393 Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 Attn: Communications
    Fax: (609) 799-0005
    Web page:
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Advocacy Evaluation; Building Capacity; Measuring Capacity; Capacity Assessment Tool; Funding Advocacy;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.



    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:7440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joanne Pfleiderer) or (Joanne Lustig).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.