Journal of Community Practice
ISSN: 1070-5422 (Print) 1543-3706 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20
Developing a Strategy to Meaningfully Engage
Stakeholders in Program/Policy Planning: A Guide
for Human Services Managers and Practitioners
Michael R. Woodford & Susan Preston
To cite this article: Michael R. Woodford & Susan Preston (2011) Developing a Strategy to
Meaningfully Engage Stakeholders in Program/Policy Planning: A Guide for Human Services
Managers and Practitioners, Journal of Community Practice, 19:2, 159-174
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2011.571091
Published online: 19 May 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 799
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcom20
Download by: [University of Michigan]
Date: 03 October 2016, At: 13:28
Journal of Community Practice, 19:159–174, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1070-5422 print/1543-3706 online
DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2011.571091
Developing a Strategy to Meaningfully Engage
Stakeholders in Program/Policy Planning:
A Guide for Human Services Managers
and Practitioners
MICHAEL R. WOODFORD
School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
SUSAN PRESTON
School of Social Work, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Stakeholder participation can be a valuable component of
program/policy development in the human services. However, service users and other stakeholders often experience it as tokenistic
and having little effect. Although management literature recommends stakeholder participation and social work ethics promote
it, agency leaders and practitioners are given little guidance on
how to design participation initiatives that integrate stakeholders’
input into agency decision making. This article focuses on creating a strategy that can foster meaningful stakeholder participation.
We outline 7 principles of meaningful participation and present a
12-step process for formulating a participation strategy that applies
these principles.
KEYWORDS consultation, engagement, policy formation,
program development, stakeholder participation, empowerment
The research informing this article was supported in part by the Social Sciences
Humanities Research Council of Canada. Our gratitude goes to the University of Michigan
students from the advanced practice minicourse, Formal Participation in Social Policymaking:
Effective Design and Implementation. Their feedback helped to refine the principles and
model presented in this article.
Address correspondence to Michael R. Woodford, School of Social Work, University of
Michigan, 1080 S. University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail: [email protected]
159
160
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
As part of social work’s commitment to fostering social justice, social workers are expected to promote “meaningful participation in decision making
for all people” (National Association of Social Workers, 2008). Many of
today’s human services agencies, from small nonprofit organizations to large
state agencies, often consult current and potential service users, community
leaders, collaborators, and other stakeholders during program/policy development (Barry & Sidaway, 1999; King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998; Lacy, 2000;
Moynihan, 2003; Wharf Higgins, Cossom, & Wharf, 2003). However, some
agencies hesitate to do so, and some do not have the required knowledge
and skills. Although complicated and problematic (Fischer, 2006), stakeholder participation, if well-designed and implemented, can assist agency
managers and practitioners in making well-informed decisions in their efforts
to create responsive services (Hardina, 2008; Wharf Higgins et al., 2003).
Realizing these ambitious results requires that participation be meaningful. We define meaningful participation as that which is authentic in that
stakeholder input is used to inform decision making (King et al., 1998;
Smith, Grandbois, & Tremblay, 2000). Further, participation is not limited to program/policy implementation issues only and is inclusive of all
stakeholder groups (Pratchett, 1999).
Although recommended in social work ethics and a part of contemporary human services management practice, the topic of participation receives
cursory attention, at best, in popular management and program development
texts (e.g., Lewis, Packard, & Lewis, 2007; Manning, 2003; Worth, 2009). Even
when the value of engaging stakeholders is emphasized (e.g., Allison &
Kaye, 1997; Brody, 2005; Pawlak & Vinter, 2004), specific guidelines on how
to engage stakeholders are not provided. In an effort to address this gap, this
article offers practical guidance on how to create a participation strategy that
can foster meaningful stakeholder involvement. We offer this article based
on our practice experience, our teaching of social administration, and the
first author’s research concerning participation (Woodford, 2010).
We begin by defining stakeholder participation and discussing its general
aims, rationales, and benefits, as well as popular criticisms of participation.
Next, we present our vision for meaningful participation by outlining seven
guiding principles. Finally, we outline a 12-step framework for creating a
participation strategy. We give suggestions on how to avoid or minimize
common pitfalls of stakeholder participation throughout. Purposefully, this
article does not consider how to implement a participation strategy since the
skills required depend on the particular strategy formulated.
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION: AN OVERVIEW
Many terms and definitions exist for participation; one may see it
called client participation, community engagement, consultation, or public
Meaningfully Engaging Stakeholders in Planning
161
involvement, to name a few of the terms used. We define participation as
activities purposefully established by human services agencies to involve
their stakeholders in the creation of specific programs and/or policies
(Hardina, 2008; Itzhaky & Bustin, 2005; Phillips & Orsini, 2002). Under this
definition, participation is linked to the development of a particular planning
initiative, and the framework presented herein is designed for this situation.
We acknowledge, however, that many agencies engage their stakeholders
on an ongoing basis through advisory committees, board participation, and
other means. Also under this definition, the agency initiates the participation,
which gives considerable power to agency personnel. Basically, administrators have the power to determine who is involved, how they are involved,
what questions are posed, and participation’s impact (Moynihan, 2003;
Pratchett, 1999; White, 2000; Woodford, 2010). We approach participation
with this understanding in mind.
There are numerous types of, and general approaches to, participation.
First, participation can be full or partial (Pateman, 1970). Full participation
occurs when stakeholders themselves have authority over the decision, as
with a policy referendum. Partial participation takes place when certain
individuals are vested with decision-making authority, such as a board of
directors or an agency administrator, and the agency’s stakeholders offer
their advice and input. The framework provided herein can apply to both
types. Second, participation can be direct or indirect (Richardson, 1983).
Situations such as community meetings, when stakeholders and decision
makers (or their representatives) engage one another face-to-face, illustrate
direct participation, while a service user completing a survey is an example
of indirect participation.
Why involve stakeholders in program/policy development? Participation can benefit both the organization and its stakeholders. For the
organization, participation can provide an opportunity to learn about stakeholders’ needs, perspectives, and priorities (Bishop & Davis, 2002; White,
2000). Such information is vital to the development of responsive services,
programs, and policies (Wharf Higgins et al., 2003; White, 2000), particularly
in the context of increasing social needs and diversity within communities (Petts, 2001). Some argue that, given the complex social problems of
today and limited financial resources, stakeholders can help agencies make
informed difficult decisions (Abelson et al., 2003). Participation may also
facilitate stakeholder commitment to the agency (Wharf Higgins et al., 2003)
and support for new programs and policies, even if a stakeholder’s specific
suggestions were not adopted (White, 2000). It can also provide an opportunity to educate stakeholders about the realities facing the agency (Pratchett,
1999). As well, participation can promote successful program/policy
implementation, as potential problems become known and can be
addressed prior to actual implementation (Abers, 2000; Bishop & Davis,
2002).
162
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
Stakeholders, especially service users, can benefit in two primary ways.
First, the resulting policies and services may meet service users’ needs
better than those developed without the users’ input (Beresford & Croft,
1993). Second, some service users may benefit from the experience of
being engaged in the participation process itself in terms of their sense
of citizenship, self-efficacy, and empowerment (Abers, 2000; Zimmerman &
Rappaport, 1988). In addition—a point often overlooked in literature on this
topic—an agency’s staff also can benefit when staff members are consulted
in policy/program development. Most noteworthy, their sense of empowerment and identification with the agency can increase through participation
(Shera & Page, 1995; Woodford, 1997).
To realize these important outcomes, however, it is essential that the
participation experience not be tokenistic for stakeholders—a common critique of participation initiatives (Arnstein, 1969; King et al., 1998; Smith,
1998; Wharf Higgins et al., 2003). Situations in which decisions are already
made, stakeholders go unheard, or some are purposefully excluded make
participation meaningless and can negate the positive outcomes that participation offers. Even though participation can involve many important
benefits, some agencies may have reservations about involving stakeholders.
Most commonly, administrators are concerned that participation may lead to
unrealistic stakeholder expectations and expose the organization to undue
criticism and risk (Manning, Clifford, Dougherty, & Jolette, 1998; Reisch &
Lowe, 2000; White, 2000). Our practice and research tells us that these are
genuine concerns, especially when participation is approached in a haphazard way. The principles and steps we offer can help to deal with these
issues while also promoting meaningful participation that can realize the
much-desired results participation can offer.
PRINCIPLES OF MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION
To foster meaningful participation, an initiative must be well-planned, systematic, and implemented to the highest standards possible. The strategy
an agency develops should be grounded in the following principles. When
working with an agency to create a participation strategy, we often discuss
these principles and their implementation as part of our initial meeting with
the leadership team to both explore the agency’s readiness for and to educate about meaningful participation. As seen in the following, the first three
principles directly enact our definition of meaningful participation, and the
others support and further advance its implementation.
1. Practice Authentic Participation Only
Authentic participation requires that stakeholders’ views be given genuine consideration, just as input from experts and other elite advisors is
Meaningfully Engaging Stakeholders in Planning
163
considered. Ensuring that the organization’s decision-makers are committed
to authentic participation is vital to success (King et al., 1998; Woodford,
2010). In some cases, decision makers may need to be educated about
authentic participation and its benefits as well as the costs of inauthentic
participation. A particularly useful tactic we have used with agencies new to
participation is having an executive from another agency that has engaged in
authentic participation share her or his experiences, reflections, and lessons
learned. The overview of participation presented above also may be helpful.
2. Be Inclusive of All Stakeholders
As commonly accepted, an agency’s stakeholders include the individuals,
groups, and other organizations that have an interest in the agency and are
affected by the decisions made (Lewis et al., 2007). Participation should be
multiperspectival (Westhues et al., 2008) by involving as many directly and
indirectly affected stakeholders as possible (Pratchett, 1999). It is especially
important to engage service users and intended policy beneficiaries, given
their first-hand knowledge of the issues. Also, involving staff members and
others who will be expected to implement a new program or policy can
bring a frontline perspective (Richardson, 1983).
Inclusive participation also entails involving groups that may be against
the organization’s proposed plan (Pratchett, 1999). These groups can bring
a unique perspective that the agency and other stakeholders may overlook.
Further, by constructively engaging these groups, the organization has the
opportunity to educate them about the agency’s position (Bishop & Davis,
2002) and possibly find common ground on the issue. As discussed below,
special efforts may be necessary to involve these organizations and members
of marginalized groups.
3. Apply Participation to All Phases of Program/Policy Development
Stakeholder involvement should be possible at all stages of program/policy
formation (Phillips & Orsini, 2002; Pratchett, 1999). Of course, there are circumstances when it may be possible to involve stakeholders only at certain
phases, for example because of the time available. It is important to communicate clearly to stakeholders which phase(s) will use their involvement
and, if limited to one particular phase, the rationale for this. This will help
to promote legitimacy of the process.
4. Practice Ongoing Communication
Communication should occur throughout the participation process.
Technology may be useful here (Turnbull & Aucoin, 2006). Communication
must address aspects of the participation initiative itself. What is the purpose?
164
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
How can stakeholders get involved? What is expected of them? What is
their role in regard to decision making? How will they be kept informed
throughout the participation process? What is the timeframe? Depending on
the time involved, it is advisable to provide updates about the process and
any decisions made along the way. It is especially important to provide
stakeholders—even those unable to participate—with information about the
final decision (Phillips & Orsini, 2002), including the rationale for it (Abele,
Graham, Ker, Maioni, & Phillips, 1998).
5. Provide Information About the Issue and Share
it in Accessible Ways
If the goal is to truly engage stakeholders, then they must have sufficient
information about the issue(s) if they are to provide informed input or make
informed decisions. Having information is necessary for participation to be
empowering (Julian, Reischl, Carrick, & Katrenich, 1997). The agency needs
to identify all relevant information, including material that presents an alternate stance on the issue than that of the agency. The information should be
shared in a manner that makes it accessible to all stakeholders, including
those who have visual impairments, do not speak the dominant language,
or have special needs in terms of communication. Ideally, an agency will
provide materials in different formats. If particular background information
cannot be shared with stakeholders, it is advisable to communicate this,
including an explanation for the exclusion.
6. Provide Sufficient Time (Plus)
To participate in a meaningful way, stakeholders need adequate time to
consider the issue and prepare for engagement (Smith et al., 2000). If a
policy/program decision needs to be made quickly, it may not be appropriate
to engage stakeholders, or it may be possible to involve only select groups, such
as those most affected by the issue. When input is required quickly, Internet
technology may be useful and will allow 24-hr access. In our experience, it
is valuable to overestimate the amount of time required, if possible, because
unexpected delays can (and will) occur.
7. Ensure Your Agency Has Adequate Capacity
Designing and implementing a comprehensive stakeholder participation
strategy requires that your agency have the necessary capacity. This includes
understanding the principles and steps outlined herein. It also means that
agency personnel, in particular the coordinator or coordinating team (see
step 2), must have the skill sets needed to accomplish the planning and
Meaningfully Engaging Stakeholders in Planning
165
implementation process. If these people do not have such knowledge and
skills, the agency can either train its staff to acquire them or seek outside
assistance from consultants, other agencies, or university-based researchers.
As outlined in step 12, implementing an engagement strategy will also
require some financial resources.
DEVELOPING A STRATEGY TO MEANINGFULLY ENGAGE
STAKEHOLDERS: A 12-STEP PROCESS
The following steps can lead to the creation of a participation strategy that
facilitates meaningful participation. We cannot stress enough that although
these steps are presented in a linear fashion, that overlap between steps
exists, and that it is common to revisit earlier phases later, because the
planning process is dynamic and iterative. Most stakeholder participation
initiatives are designed for, rather than by, stakeholders (Barry & Sidaway,
1999). Seeking to employ the values of partnership, self-determination, and
empowerment, we suggest that, when possible, agencies involve stakeholders or some representation thereof in the drafting of the participation
strategy. For instance, when working with a social service agency that
wanted to strengthen its services to culturally diverse groups in the community, we partnered with a local ethnocultural association to explore
appropriate ways to engage its member communities. This action facilitated
the development and eventual implementation of a successful participation
strategy.
1. Readiness to Engage Stakeholders
Before your agency undertakes any participation activity, it is necessary to
determine that the organization is prepared to engage its stakeholders in a
meaningful way. In this step, you consider many areas.
First, it is necessary to determine if the organization’s leadership team
is committed to meaningful participation. In answering this question, it is
useful to explore the agency’s motivations for engaging stakeholders, any
past experiences with participation, and the lessons learned. Commitment
to authentic participation is essential (King et al., 1998; Woodford, 2010).
As a gauge of leadership commitment, ask whether the organization is prepared to provide stakeholders with the information needed to support their
informed participation. There may be limits to the release of some information, such as certain financial records or personnel details. It is necessary
to acknowledge and explore these limits, and, if possible, to inform stakeholders of them. Second, the agency needs to examine its resources and
capacity. Even one-time consultation meetings require time, funding, and
166
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
human resources. If your organization does not have the needed capacity,
can it obtain or develop these resources? Finally, as part of this step, the
agency should scan the environment to determine if this is an appropriate
time to engage stakeholders. This relates to timing and other priorities that
may be occurring in the environment, which could affect the agency and
its stakeholders. It may be wise to postpone or even not proceed with an
engagement strategy if the environment involves crises or other significant
priorities for your agency or its stakeholders. It is often helpful to explicitly
ask what factors are present in the environment that might present risks if
your agency was to engage stakeholders at this time. The planned activities
can reflect the identified risks (see steps 5 and 8). In some cases, the agency
may decide now is not an appropriate time to involve its stakeholders.
2. Appoint a Coordinator
Once you conclude that the agency is ready to meaningfully engage its
stakeholders, a coordinator should be identified. If the strategy is expected
to be large in scope, a team should also be established. The coordinator
should be charged to work with the agency’s leadership group to establish
the strategy. In some cases, in doing so the coordinator may work with a
consultant or other resource person because of the specialized competencies required. Depending on her or his competencies and what the strategy
entails, the coordinator may or may not carry out the planned strategy, but
may turn to others who have the capacity.
The coordinator or team must be able to work effectively with the organization’s leadership group and the agency’s stakeholders, and should be
perceived as having credibility. The coordinator and team members should
possess strong organizational, planning, research, and communication skills,
as well as facilitation competencies, especially if the process involves direct
participation (King et al., 1998). The facilitator of interactive participation
activities must incorporate an understanding of and be able to respond to
group dynamics and power differentials among stakeholders. Moreover, a
facilitator must be committed to meaningful participation and be a champion
for the initiative.
3. Clearly Define the Participation Focus and Parameters
The topic or focus of the engagement process must be clearly defined. Using
the language of research, what is the research problem? For instance, is the
agency trying to determine how to increase service accessibility to particular
groups? Is the issue about the need to develop policies concerning referrals
to other agencies? Or, is it concerned with developing new services to meet
the community’s evolving needs? The process of defining the participation
Meaningfully Engaging Stakeholders in Planning
167
focus entails considerable thought and deliberation by the leadership team
and participation coordinator. Discussing the focus with others in the organization may be beneficial. Having a clearly defined focus underpins the
decisions made in the subsequent steps. Part of defining the issue is outlining its parameters. For example, if your organization is prevented from
providing a particular type of service because of a funder’s requirements
or because it lacks the resources to provide the service, this needs to be
acknowledged in your participation planning and may need to be communicated to stakeholders in the future. Communicating the issue’s parameters
will facilitate informed participation by stakeholders and help to prevent
unrealistic expectations from developing.
4. Define the Program/Policy Development Stage
and Type of Participation
Here the agency decides at which stage(s) of program/policy formulation
to engage stakeholders. When considering this topic, many factors are
influential, in particular the amount of time available for program/policy
development. Again, when possible, it is best to engage stakeholders
throughout all phases of program/policy planning. In doing so, it may be
necessary to develop specific plans and activities for each planning phase
that reflects the goals for that stage.
The leadership team also needs to determine the type of stakeholder
participation that is desired. In other words, will participation be partial or
full (Pateman, 1970)? The participation approach is critical as it will influence the questions asked and the activities implemented. If stakeholders are
being invited to give input for the agency’s consideration, you must decide
if you are looking to understand the range of views on the issue or if some
sense of shared agreement among stakeholders is desired. If stakeholders
are vested with decision making authority the agency needs to establish
the criteria for the decision (i.e., majority vote and what constitutes this, or
consensus). Being clear about the type of participation will help to guard
against stakeholders developing unrealistic expectations or ones that cannot
be fulfilled about their level of involvement (Watt, Higgins, & Kenrick, 2000).
5. Identify the Stakeholders and Their Interest
With the previous steps addressed, the agency identifies the stakeholders to the participation focus, aiming to apply principle 2 and include all
stakeholders. This is similar to identifying stakeholders in strategic planning
(Allison & Kaye, 1997). This step should produce a comprehensive list of
stakeholders affected by and/or interested in the issue. Clearly, an organization needs to involve groups that can answer the proposed participation
168
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
questions (see next step). If resources are limited, it may be necessary to
prioritize the stakeholders involved or to ask organizations to put forward a
representative.
In this step, also consider the potential interest of each stakeholder
group in becoming involved. Do the group’s members see themselves as
being affected by the issue? If not, how can you help them understand that
their participation is important and worthwhile? In addition, consider the
circumstances of each stakeholder group and how best to encourage their
involvement. Are there constraints on some groups, for example in terms
of time or resources? Are special arrangements needed to foster participation by some stakeholder groups, such as those who are marginalized in
some way? It is essential that the planned participation activities take into
account stakeholders’ circumstances. In some cases, special outreach efforts
may be needed. A basic guideline for direct participation (Richardson, 1983)
events is to hold them at times and locations that are convenient for your
stakeholders. Further, provide supports such as transportation or childcare
for those who may need them, to encourage their participation. Here the
agency also considers the nature of the organization–stakeholder relationship. If no relationship exists, then you may first have to work to establish
one to encourage stakeholder participation. If a negative relationship exists,
the agency may have to consider how likely the stakeholder is to participate
and the best way to engage the group in terms of participation activities
(discussed in step 8).
6. Establish the Participation Questions
Here the organization identifies the specific questions it wishes to explore
with stakeholders. In the past, we have found it helpful to brainstorm questions and then evaluate their significance. We often develop a series of broad
questions that are each supported by subquestions, which are later further
developed into actual questions asked of stakeholders. In the spirit of participatory research, the agency could provide stakeholders or a representative
group with a draft list of questions and ask for feedback and make revisions
as needed. This would help to ensure that the questions reflect those areas
that stakeholders perceive as critical to the issue at hand. This is not to say
that questions that agency staff views as important would be excluded if
not valued by the other stakeholders; rather, those questions could be supplemented by questions put forward by stakeholders. Once the questions
are finalized, it is good practice to review the list of stakeholders and identify any questions that apply to specific groups. In this process, you may
also create additional questions or eliminate others. When we have asked
stakeholders about proposed consultation questions in the past, we have
also asked for their feedback about the proposed list of stakeholders, which
helped to ensure the list was inclusive.
Meaningfully Engaging Stakeholders in Planning
169
7. Prepare Information
As stated within principles 4 and 5, it is necessary for the agency to provide
stakeholders with accessible information that will help them to participate
in a meaningful way. Stakeholders should be given information about the
details of the engagement process (see principle 4). If partial participation
(Pateman, 1970) is to occur, you should include information about who
will make the decision and how it will be communicated to stakeholders.
Be very clear about how stakeholders can get involved. In regard to the
participation issue (see principle 5), present this information in a way so
that it encourages interest and facilitates informed participation. If resources
exist, provide a discussion guide outlining the relevant information. You can
present the information in a way that maximizes creative thinking, such as
providing case examples or posing reflection questions. Information should
not guide the readers toward a particular decision.
8. Determine Participation Activities
Many methods are available for engaging stakeholders, ranging from the
direct to the indirect (Richardson, 1983). The selection of activities is
influenced by factors such as the participation focus, the program/policy
development stage, the type of participation desired, the participation questions and subquestions, who the agency intends to involve, and how best
to engage the target group or groups. The choice of activities is also shaped
by agency resources and time. Who the stakeholders are and how best
to engage them deserves our attention. The activities your agency utilizes
should encourage participation, rather than discourage it. Therefore, we
highly recommend that a stakeholder-centered approach be taken in which
the best way to engage each particular stakeholder group is purposefully
determined and then an appropriate activity selected. If possible, utilize several activities, as different activities may reach particular stakeholder groups
and can also promote analytical rigor (Padgett, 1998). Most of the recent
participation strategies we have been involved in have consisted of a mix of
in-person meetings and online surveys and blogs.
When the relationship between a particular stakeholder group and the
agency is negative, strained, or involves considerable conflict, it is important
to be very purposeful about how you engage the group. We recommend
approaching the planned participation as a way to strengthen the relationship, and we have found direct participation to be more effective than
indirect participation in this regard. To facilitate open discussion, you may
want to meet with this group alone rather than in an open forum. This may
also help to minimize any concomitant risks for your organization.
Some of the most common participation activities used by human services agencies are surveys, community meetings, focus groups, and key
170
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
informant interviews (for a comprehensive discussion of contemporary
methods, see Abelson et al., 2003). The selected activities must match the
consultation questions, the stakeholder groups, and the intended outcomes
of the project. Similar to conducting a research study, it is critical that the
selected activity be well planned, organized, and conducted with the highest level of rigor possible. For instance, survey and interview questions must
be clear and obtain the information desired (Singleton & Straits, 1999). It is
always best to pilot-test questions. For qualitative data, how will you record
data? If you plan on audio-recording interviews and focus group meetings, who will transcribe the recordings? Further, an appropriate sampling
strategy should be employed. If the agency intends to conduct a survey
with community members, random sampling may be an appropriate and
feasible option if the community is large. If you wish to carry out a focus
group with service users, purposeful sampling that recruits diverse individuals who are able to speak to the issue is appropriate (Creswell, 2007) and
may provide a space for multiple voices to be heard (Madriz, 2003). If the
purposeful sample is large, you may consider selecting interviewees randomly or through stratification (Creswell, 2007). In any of these methods,
it is important that participants reflect all stakeholder groups, not just those
groups who are more visible, have more power, or are well connected to the
organization.
9. Prepare an Analysis Plan
Once the participation activities are determined, draft an analysis plan. The
types of questions you pose and the information gathered will determine if
you need a quantitative data, qualitative data, or a mixed-methods analysis
plan. Recognizing the importance of being multiperspectival, in the case
of qualitative data we reinforce the value of multiple coders, which will
enhance analytical rigor. Additionally, we hold that it is useful to think of
data analysis as iterative, in that initial results are presented to stakeholder
participants and member-checking occurs to ensure accurate reflections of
their input (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993).
10. Create an Evaluation Plan
Similar to other organizational processes, the stakeholder engagement process needs to be evaluated. This is especially important when additional
stakeholder participation will likely occur in the future. The evaluation plan
should collect feedback from the stakeholders about the process, including
their perceptions of its authenticity and inclusiveness. It is also helpful to
ask for suggestions of ways to improve future participation activities. The
concept of pragmatic validity may be useful here (Kemmis & McTaggart,
Meaningfully Engaging Stakeholders in Planning
171
2005), wherein validity is contextualized based on the real experience of
participants and what works in practice (Worren, Moore, & Elliot, 2002).
Pragmatic validity as a benchmark could be used in terms of both the
engagement process itself and the outcome, with respect to how feedback
is translated into ideas as well as how ideas are implemented as actions.
11. Establish a Communication Plan
As put forth earlier, ongoing communication is important for meaningful
participation; therefore, we recommend that an agency develop a communication plan, even for a one-time consultation meeting. The plan can
specify how you intend to communicate about the strategy itself and the
program/policy decisions to be made (see principles 4 and 5, and step 7).
If feasible, a final report should be released, at least outlining what was
learned from the participation process, including core and divergent themes,
how the information learned was considered in the program/policy development process, and what the final decision is. Some agencies we have
worked with have shared their participation reports at open community
meetings and closed meetings with stakeholder groups directly affected by
the decision.
12. Identify Needed Resources and Prepare a Budget
With the completion of the previous steps, the agency should have a grasp
on the required expenses and can now estimate costs. Knowing the available
funds from the outset is helpful, and we have been able to design effective
strategies within specified limits. However, if the planned strategy exceeds
available resources, it will be necessary to revisit and revise the strategy. In
some cases, it may be possible to reallocate funds from an existing budget
line. For example, if the organization has funds allocated for consultant
fees, organization leaders may want to shift funds from that budget line to
support the participation strategy. If funding cannot be obtained, then it will
be necessary to adjust your participation strategy.
CONCLUSION
Stakeholder participation is part of contemporary practice in human services
agencies. The purpose of this article is to help human services managers and
practitioners develop a well-planned participation strategy as part of their
efforts to involve stakeholders in policy/program development decisions.
By adopting the principles and completing the steps presented herein, an
agency can create a comprehensive participation strategy that promises to
172
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
foster meaningful engagement in support of excellence in program/policy
development. Implementing the strategy according to the highest standards
possible, stakeholder participation can contribute to excellence in today’s
human services organizations.
REFERENCES
Abele, F. Graham, K., Ker, A., Maioni, A., & Phillips, S. (1998). Talking with
Canadians: Citizen engagement and social union. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian
Council on Social Development.
Abelson, J., Pierre-Gerlier, F., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Guavin, F. (2003).
Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation
of public participation processes. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 239–251.
Abers, R. (2000). Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder,
CO: Lynne Reinner.
Allison, M., & Kaye, J. (1997). Strategic planning for nonprofit organizations: A
practical guide and workbook. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Barry, M., & Sidaway, R. (1999). Empowering through partnership—The relevance
of theories of participation to social work practice. In W. Shera & L. M. Wells
(Eds.), Empowerment practice in social work: Developing richer conceptual
foundations (pp. 13–37). Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Beresford, P., & Croft, S. (1993). Citizen involvement: A practical guide for change.
London, UK: British Association of Social Workers.
Bishop, P., & Davis, G. (2002). Mapping public participation in policy choices.
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 14–29.
Brody, R. (2005). Effectively managing human service organizations (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive space. American Review of Public Administration,
36, 19–40.
Hardina, D. (2008). Citizen participation, In T. Mizrahi & L. E. Davis (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of social work (pp. 292–295). Washington, DC: NASW Press and
Oxford University Press.
Itzhaky, H., & Bustin, E. (2005). Promoting client participation by social workers:
Contributing factors. Journal of Community Practice, 13(2), 77–92.
Julian, D. A., Reischl, T. M., Carrick, R. V., & Katrenich, C. (1997). Citizen
participation—Lessons from a local United Way planning process. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 63(3), 345–355.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative
action in the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (3rd ed.; pp. 559–603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meaningfully Engaging Stakeholders in Planning
173
King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. (1998). The question of participation: Toward
authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration
Review, 58(4), 317–326.
Lacy, W. B. (2000). Empowering communities through public works, science, and
local food systems: Revisiting democracy and globalization. Rural Sociology,
65(1), 3–26.
Lewis, J. A., Packard, T. R., & Lewis, M. D. (2007). Management of human service
programs (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Brooks/Cole.
Madriz, E. (2003). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 363–388).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manning, E., Clifford, G., Dougherty, T. D., & Jolette, D. (1998). Renovating
governance: Lessons from sustainable development. Journal of Public Sector
Management, 28(3), 27–35.
Manning, S. S. (2003). Ethical leadership in human services: A multi-dimensional
approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Moynihan, D. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizen summits in Washington, D.C. American Review of Public
Administration, 33(2), 164–188.
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National
Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/
pubs/code/code.asp
Padgett, D. K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and
rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pawlak, E. J., & Vinter, R. D. (2004). Designing & planning programs for nonprofit
& government organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Petts, J. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case-studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
44(2), 207–226.
Phillips, S., & Orsini, M. (2002). Mapping the links: Citizen involvement in policy processes. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Network. Retrieved from
http://www.cprn.org/documents/11418_en.pdf
Pratchett, L. (1999). New fashions in public participation: Towards greater democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4), 617–633.
Reisch, M., & Lowe, J. (2000). “Of means and ends” revisited: Teaching ethical
community organizing in an unethical society. Journal of Community Practice,
7(1), 19–38.
Richardson, A. (1983). Participation: Concepts in social policy. London, UK:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Shera, W., & Page, J. (1995). Creating more effective human service organizations
through strategies of empowerment. Administration in Social Work, 19(4),
1–15.
Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (1999). Approaches to social research (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Smith, B. C. (1998). Participation without power: Subterfuge or development?
Community Development Journal, 33(3), 197–204.
174
M. R. Woodford and S. Preston
Smith, R., Grandbois, G., & Tremblay, J. F. (2000). Sustainable development strategy consultations. Optimum, the Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(1),
24–41.
Turnbull, L., & Aucoin, P. (2006). Fostering Canadians’ role in public policy: A
strategy for institutionalizing public involvement in policy (Research Report
P/07. Public Involvement Network). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Policy Research
Network. Retrieved from http://www.cprn.org/documents/42670_en.pdf
Watt, S., Higgings, C., & Kenrick, A. (2000) Community participation in the development of services: A move towards community empowerment. Community
Development Journal 34(2), 120–132.
Westhues, A., Ochocka, J., Jacobson, N., Simich, L., Maiter, S., Janzen, R., et al.
(2008). Developing theory from complexity: Reflections on a collaborative misxed method participatory action research study. Qualitative Health Research,
18, 701–717.
Wharf Higgins, J., Cossom, J., & Wharf, B. (2003). Citizen participation in social
policy. In A. Westhues (Ed.), Canadian social policy: Issues and perspectives
(3rd ed.; pp. 301–318). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
White, D. (2000). Consumer and community participation: A reassessment of process, impact and value. In G. Albrecht, R. Fitzpatrick, & S. C. Scrimshaw (Eds.),
Handbook of social studies in health and medicine (pp. 465–480). London, UK:
Sage.
Woodford, M. (1997). Understanding organizational commitment in voluntary nonprofit human service agencies: An empowerment perspective. In P. Sacdev
(Ed.), Social work discussion papers: Trends in social work education (Research
Notes; Issue 2, 25th anniversary ed.). St. John’s, NL: Memorial University of
Newfoundland.
Woodford, M. R. (2010). Successful community–government collaborative policymaking: A case study of a workgroup to improve income support services to
victims of intimate violence. Journal of Policy Practice, 9(2), 96–113.
Worren, N., Moore, K., & Elliot, R. (2002). When theories become tools: Toward a
framework for pragmatic validity. Human Relations, 55, 1227–1250.
Worth, M. J. (2009). Nonprofit management: Principles and practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zimmerman, M., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control,
and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,
16(5), 725–750.