7. There are several ground rules involved in policy development and advocacy.

• be specific, be clear and precise. Describe rather than prescribe.

• know the policy, the legislation, the current guidelines for implementation, the priorities and values of the agency or institution being approached. Know your own and understand how yours and theirs are legislation likely to conflict or support each other.

• play by their rules and values but make them live up to those rules and values. Try to find ways to make those rules and values work for you rather than against you.

• provide choices, alternative solutions, pertinent information rather than issuing ultimatums. Make them an offer they can't refuse.

• know the background data and present situation, both supportive and non-supportive to your cause. Knowing both sides will keep you from being caught off balance, or trapped within your own alternative.

8. There are some very basic arguments which are currently operational in our society. The most important is the argument which suggests that limited resources must result in one group receiving those resources at the expense of another. For example, if we allow women to use training funds, there won't be enough for the unemployed men who need retraining.

This is an argument which tends to be accompanied by a message which suggests that women are very reasonable members of society who can see the problem involved and who will do the right/best/proper thing for their community/men/families/country. This concept of the essential competitive either/or quality of limited resources works against older age groups, women and those without dependents. In terms of learning opportunities it works against: the older person -- as in education/training is to prepare a person for life and educational/training funds should not be spent on those at the end of their life (however they can have medical or social funds if they would just ask)"; women -- as in education/training is to prepare a person for life and raising a family is either not "life" or does not require training (however, they can have medical or social funds for rehabilitation back into life or if they are incompetent about raising a family); and those who are lacking in basic literacy skills -- as in "they couldn't benefit from education/training the first time around, so how can they expect to now" (however, they are entitled to welfare funds).

The major problems involved in this issue of competition for funds are:

• it is not clear that if one group gets something, another is necessarily deprived. With some creativity we could probably all do with less.

• it seems more likely that as one group benefits, other groups also benefit. However, it should not automatically be the male group which receives the first benefit. In fact, other arrangements might provide greater long-range benefits to all groups.

• the competition for funds within one agency or ministry is the direct outcome of competition between agencies and ministries. It is really hard to know where to intervene in such a system.

• this competition between ministries and agencies results in activities designed to stabilize, protect, maintain and hopefully, extend the life of each; and at the same time to extend, etc. the vested interests of those employed within each. The CEIC strikes this writer as an enormous and effective make-work project for several thousand civil servants throughout the country. Perhaps we need more of this type of job creation program rather than LIP projects or Summer Employment projects which are minuscule and ineffective by comparison.

• the competition for funds creates a demand for more funds and eventually we come to believe that we cannot survive without these funds.