How to Break Down Big Policy Declarations into Action?

This article was originally published and featured as a top post in Apolitical, UK under Adaptive Policymaking and Gender Equality in Government theme. Apolitical is a global platform for 250,000+ public servants & policymakers. 

Fall is quietly knocking on the door. There is a slight nip in the air. And I am not complaining. I am enjoying the change in season as it signifies the progress we are making.Earlier this summer, I contributed to the “Institutional Mechanism” working group by the United Nations Civil Society Consultation for Beijing +30 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Consultation. UNECE includes the region of North America too.

This document was presented to member states at the B+30 Civil Society Forum in Geneva on 19-20 October 2024. It was a great learning exercise for me. How do we close the existing gaps at the policy level with insights based on data, evidence, and specific examples ranging from the definition, steps required for internalization of gender-responsive budgeting as an international legal instrument and development of regulations and norms for gender analysis of public budgets.The task was to take stock of the progress so far and chart a way forward with 3 action items (short, medium, long term). The process truly energized me, and I could see how the efforts were completing the big puzzle. The act of doing it was fulfilling. 

Today, I am sharing a few personal reflections from such participatory-advisory roles.

What to do?

My journey from public health research to policy advocacy has shown me that effective policy change begins with using data-driven storytelling to initiate productive conversations. The first step is to draft compelling narratives with data to initiate a policy dialog (What it is and how it can contribute to evidence-informed decision-making by WHO, 2015). If there is one thing that I have learned from working in the sector over the last 20 years, for equitable growth to be a reality the innovations need to be voiced and handed over to the government. At some point, it needs to become universal.

How to do it Well?

At the same time, I have seen from steering committee meetings, congressional testimonies for advocacy, and closed-door meetings how much importance is given to brevity (in writing), specifics (in speech), logic (in illustration), and coherence (contextualized content). I have seen how human stories embedded in deep research have the power to outdo overly emotionally aggressive rants. Tone matters, both in speech and writing. Moreso, if you are opposing or challenging those in positions of power.

How to find Humans in Data?

This could be done with intention, aligned with a global-national-regional mandate, logical rationale, hard quantitative data, and soft qualitative data to humanize ‘suffering’ and ‘specificity’ on what we exactly want to change. By combining hard data with human stories in the form of videos-audios-podcast-in person meetings-photo voices from the ground, policymakers can gain a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. This empathy can lead to more effective and compassionate policies. It can bridge the gap between policymakers and the realities faced by those they serve.

Who is it for?

From a policymaker’s perspective, the decision we are advocating for is not for an individual. It is for a section of the population and therefore to keep it unbiased it’s better to do homework like calculate the magnitude of the problem, the opportunity cost, and the return on investment even if it’s an estimate (not everyone is an economist, use existing proxy indicators to make a point). I have yet to come across a public servant who hasn’t appreciated a thorough work of research that is intended to help them govern their geographies better.

Define and estimate the cost of inaction?

And most importantly, what are the financial implications of ‘not taking action’ vs ‘taking action’? For instance, for gender equality, there is an opportunity cost when we are not including 50% of the population – women in decisions that directly affect them. This has a direct connotation on economic, public health, and education outcomes. More for those who have a history of inter-generational trauma due to colonialism, slavery, genocide, or forced migration due to conflict or war. How often do we take into account the historic injustices which contribute greatly to present disparities.

Do we have a tool for metrics?

One of the main tools that we all agreed upon in the IM group was “Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB)”. But this is not new. Factually speaking, it has been in existence since the 1990s right after the B+30. There are such well-documented manuals available, thanks to the European Union. And yet it’s not socialized enough, or actors are not incentivized or capacitated enough to use-adapt-apply it. Sheila Quinn has written a useful Gender Budgeting: Practical Handbook published by the Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs, Council of Europe (April, 2009).

During the process, one of my central arguments that met with a considerable amount of silence was because the states have not provided enough tangible incentives to use these tools or there is a high degree of ‘optionality’ attached to it – the adoption of these tools is still “at will” then why would anyone do it?

I had three questions to ask as a public servant:

1. Do we have a public open dashboard for accountability? Do we know who is reporting on the compliance of leader who attended a conference vs agreed to a declaration vs leader who have taken action. Not to mention, these UN and similar conferences have significant carbon footprints. It matters what progress is made between 2024 and 2025 and who are the participants making these decisions.
2. Is it an issue of leadership intentionality vs inaction due to resistance from institutions under their governance? And if change is not happening, do we fully know what barriers are they facing in making it happen?
3. Is it a commitment crisis = competency vs complacency fatigue? Is it want to act but lack upskills or is it don’t want to act so upskilling is out of question.

What’s the challenge?

Making actors convinced is the biggest act of change. Basic behavioral economics.

People do behaviors that reward them in some way. If we want to make gender-responsive budgeting to improve equity at the heart of financial decisions, then have we rewarded those who have done that? Have we, from a systems point of view, given those organizations easy loans, pre-qualified them for new funding, ease of taxes, etc.?

How to Maintain Momentum from Discussions to Doing: Before-During-After Policy Dialogs?

1. Connect People Prior to Event: I found myself making more meaningful connections where the event encouraged registration process engaging via Technology Platforms/Apps like Whova, I came to know while attending Partnership for AI’s AI and Philanthropy Forum at Google’s New York office. Through this app, participants could connect, chat, exchange business cards, talk before the event, discuss issues in real time and schedule side meetings during the conference. I am sure there are more apps like this.

2. Mode of Operation: Working Groups are a great instrument for keeping that energy and making change happen in time through collective consultation based on themes. Like policy research, ethics, monitoring and evaluation, fundraising, communication, etc. This could be voluntary or incentivized. I had the opportunity to contribute to UN working groups by responding to open calls for inputs/comments, a valuable mechanism for incorporating diverse perspectives into global policymaking.

3. Assign Roles: Communication Convenors: Those who work in critical narrative inquiry framework or qualitative research are great at leading such knowledge synthesis in an organized manner and managing people towards a time-bound goal. Such a process involves a lot of reading, reviewing, editing, and rewriting large complex texts and it requires significant time to make meaningful inputs in addition to regular duties.

4. Tool: Data Dashboard for Collective Impact Metrics: This is where megatrend data and evidence become important for policy change. The causes for which we as academics or think tank researchers want to influence public policy need financial and human resources. And such decisions are driven by a combination of fact and human emotions. Storytelling helps decode the data in simple language. However, agreeing on common minimum metrics for reporting can help simplify how we choose to define success. Keep it short, few, and simple like SDGs Global Dashboard with UN and World Bank’s data for member countries. 

Another such conceptual tool I found particularly interesting is Policy Analyst Learning Tool by the Government of Canada.

Source: Policy Analyst Learning Map, Government of Canada

5. Ownership: Joint Accountability by Coalition/Collective/ Partners: Impact metrics defined early, clearly, and publicly, demand real capacity building of key actors together as per their skills. To bring a change through intentional investment in gender-segregated data and how consciously we are internalizing gender as a category-theme-sub-theme in our systemic analysis of impact – what we care about – who we care about and are we willing to demonstrate that publicly. For example, evidence gap maps. To do this, assigning Third Party Monitors is a great way. To make sure the data is collected, segregated and publicly shared with integrity to amplify transparency and accountability, The Government Outcomes Lab, University of Oxford suggest Outcome Based Financing models in education sector has seen some success (SOC 24).

6. Capacity building: Standardized Playbooks: Invite interested people to contribute to, endorse, draft, and share playbooks. Real change demands a real ‘how do I do this thing guide’ and more often, despite the availability of tools, lack of standardization creates confusion. For instance, in India, while working with Sightsavers on the National Blindness Control Program, we successfully addressed this issue by developing a standard operating manual (Guidelines for the Management of Cataract in India) in collaboration with a center of excellence. This manual was endorsed by the Government Health Department and VISION 2020, the central body for national eye care initiatives, and was subsequently rolled out to all eye care partners performing cataract surgery. There are many lessons from public health that can be burrowed into social justice-equity issues.

I hope you found this article relatable. What is your experience of contributing to policy analysis, research, and engagement? What challenges do you face and how do you mitigate them in an amicable manner? I would like to learn from your real-life wins.

---

About the Author

Shweta Chooramani, MPH, MBA, is a seasoned global health and education equity advocate with a two-decade track record of challenging the status quo in Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States. As the founder and CEO of Neeman Global Capital, she is at the forefront of reimagining evidence-based development partnerships. Shweta believes that current global policies are heavily tilted towards the Global North, systematically excluding critical perspectives from the Global South in decision making. She champions a radical power shift to decolonize policy spaces by intentionally engaging with the public, private, and philanthropic sectors, prioritizing gender equity in design and budget appropriation, amplifying minority voices, and fostering a deep understanding of culture and race. Member of Apolitical, NGO Committee on the Status of Women (NGO CSW) New York, Coalition for Adolescent Girls and RedBox Me in collaboration with Cartier Women’s Initiative. A first-generation immigrant from Uttar Pradesh and an alumna of the University of California, Berkeley, Shweta lives with her husband and daughter in New Jersey. Reach: schooramani@berkeley.edu