"The Elusive Craft of Evaluating Advocacy" by Steven Telus and Mark Schmitt (2011) provides some compelling points on the nonlinear and complex nature of evaluating advocacy efforts, particularly given the multiple, and context and time specific, forces which shape eventual outcomes. They call for a shift from primarily measuring the outcomes or acts of advocacy to a shift on evaluating the advocates, or advocacy organizations, particularly the influence and value that these organizations have on others, as well as highlight the importance of assessing the organization's strategic capacity. Reflecting on the paper, I think many of these insights are particularly useful and transferrable when we are thinking about the centrality of core support (flexible funding) and the prospects of building women's movements and organizations. In particular, Telus and Schmitt (p.43) note "The best way to evaluate an organization whose influence is extremely diffuse is for grant officers to be close to the political action and thus able to make informed judgment calls on how it conducts its core activities. This was the practice of many conservative foundations, whose staff devoted much of their time to simply reading the primary work of their grantees, rather than asking them to generate problematic metrics and lengthy reports designed solely for purposes of evaluation. Empowered by their boards or donors to trust their own judgment of good, appropriate work, this foundation strategy has been vindicated many times over in the real world of politics and the marketplace of ideas."
http://www.ssireview.org/images/digital_edition/2011SU_Feature_TelesSchmitt.pdf

This is something I'll be writing about more and posting on the wiki based on conversations between donors, women's organizations, and networks at the recent Gender at Work-IDS meeting on M&E in Sussex.