CSOs and communities should engage in both policy and budgeting processes in order to ensure the sustainability of harm reduction services. At times, this engagement may be broader than the field of harm reduction, and strategic partnerships with other civil society groups help create the supportive environment needed for civil activism.
The primary focus of CSOs when engaging in the policy process is to demand changes to existing policies, or the formulation of new policies and regulations. Moreover, civil society has an important role in this process, by demanding proper costing of the activities planned in the policy or proposing possible costing scenarios. In both cases, CSO/community engagement takes two forms: one is proactive and directed towards intervention, while the other is reactive and directed towards monitoring the process. Activities in either of these domains are equally valuable and important for any civil activism, including budget advocacy efforts for harm reduction.
If the existing policies are restrictive, or the county lacks key policies, then CSOs should engage in both the policy process and the budget process. In this case, CSOs should undertake broader policy analysis, also targeting policies outside the area of harm reduction, such as fiscal and other sectoral policies.
Without eliminating existing policy barriers, CSOs will not be able to ensure full national funding for harm reduction programs. Until the legal barriers are eliminated, CSOs can monitor and analyze the implementation of the budget process in two directions: first, to identify possible sources of funds in the budget which could be used to finance harm reduction; and second, to track the expenditures for implementing existing harm reduction policies and assess their quality and effectiveness.
The primary focus of CSOs when engaging in the budget process is to demand changes to budgets, concentrating on the financial implementation of existing policies. Engagement in the budget process does not means that organizations have to be completely outside the policy process.
Engagement in the policy process and in the budget process can take place in parallel, but when all the policies needed are in place, then engagement in the budget process could be extensive.
The role of CSOs and communities in the budget process can be different. The activities and the strategies that CSOs and communities can undertake are different in different country contexts. Before starting to engage in the budget process, CSOs and communities should have detailed information on their county’s budget processes in general, and for harm reduction in particular. The organizations and communities might have direct involvement in the budget process after eliminating policy barriers and conducting preparatory activities.
Advocacy goal: Create a conducive legal environment to ensure smooth implementation of national HIV and TB responses and achieve greater engagement of CSOs through public funding.
Role of CSOs and communities in the policy process
- Policy mapping;
- Policy assessment;
- Development of simplified versions of the policies to increase understanding of policies and policy barriers;
- Implementation of advocacy campaigns to ensure change.
Role of CSOs and communities in the budget process
- Monitoring and analysis of current revenues and expenditures (implementation phase);
- Monitoring and evaluation of current expenditures (oversight/monitoring and evaluation phase);
- Implementation of advocacy campaigns to increase efficiency in the implementation of the policies and enhance quality in the current level of services provided to PWUD (implementation phase).
Role of CSOs and communities in the policy process
- Policy research in other countries;
- Development of draft policy models;
- Implementation of advocacy campaigns to ensure adoption of the key policies.
Role of CSOs and communities in the budget process
- Monitoring and analysis of current revenues and expenditures (implementation phase);
- Monitoring and evaluation of current expenditures (monitoring and evaluation phase);
- Implementation of advocacy campaigns to increase efficiency in the implementation of the policies and enhance quality in the current level of services provided to PWUD (implementation phase).
Advocacy goal: Full national funding of harm reduction program
Role of CSOs and communities in the policy process
- Monitoring policy implementation;
- Assessing the outcomes of existing policies;
- Initiating changes to existing policies if they still represent an obstacle to providing full national funding for harm reduction programs.
Role of CSOs and communities in the budget process
- Monitoring and analysis of current budget revenues and expenditures (implementation phase);
- Monitoring and evaluation of current expenditures (oversight/monitoring and evaluation phase);
- Direct engagement in the formulation and adoption phase in order to advocate for ensuring that harm reduction programs are taken into consideration when developing the national budget, that harm reduction programs become a budget priority and that the budget for harm reduction is approved by the institutions responsible;
- Tracking revenue allocations and expenditures for implementing the approved budget for harm reduction programs (implementation phase);
- Assessing the impact of the allocated funds on communities.
Role of CSOs and communities in the policy process
- Monitoring policy implementation;
- Assessing the outcomes of existing policies;
- Initiating changes to existing policies if they still represent an obstacle for providing full national funding for harm reduction programs;
- Advocating for improved policies and outcomes, even if the funds allocated are not enough to implement harm reduction programs.
Role of CSOs and communities in the budget process
- Monitoring and analysis of current budget revenues and expenditures for harm reduction (implementation phase);
- Monitoring and evaluation of current expenditures for harm reduction (oversight/monitoring and evaluation phase);
- Direct engagement in the formulation and adoption phase in order to advocate for increased funding for harm reduction programs and ensure that the increased budget for harm reduction is approved by the institutions responsible;
- Tracking revenue allocations and expenditures for implementing the approved budget for harm reduction programs (implementation phase);
- Assessing the impact of the allocated funds on communities.
Role of CSOs and communities in the policy process
- Monitoring policy implementation;
- Assessing the outcomes of existing policies;
- Advocating for improved policies and outcomes.
Role of CSOs and communities in the budget process
- Tracking revenue allocations and expenditures for implementing the approved budget for harm reduction programs (implementation phase);
- Assessing the impact of the allocated funds on communities;
- Direct engagement in the formulation and adoption phase in order to advocate for ensuring that harm reduction programs remain a priority for the government and that the allocated funds satisfy the needs of people who use drugs.