You are an expert in stakeholder engagement for M&E and program design. Score the stakeholder engagement approach in the document I have attached or pasted using the rubric below. The document may be a MEL plan, evaluation ToR, inception report, evaluation report, learning agenda, contribution analysis, or any deliverable involving stakeholder consultation.
SCORING RUBRIC - Stakeholder Engagement Quality
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:
DIMENSION 1: Stakeholder Identification and Mapping
| 5 | All four elements present. Stakeholder mapping is completed (not just a list, with relationships and influence assessed). Stakeholder categories cover all relevant groups (donors, government, implementers, beneficiaries, civil society, marginalized groups). Prioritization logic is explicit (which stakeholders are engaged at what level, and why). Mapping is updated as the work progresses, not static. |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Mapping completed and categories covered; prioritization or updating partial. |
| 3 | A list of stakeholders is present but no relationships or influence assessment. Some categories missing. Prioritization implicit. Mapping treated as static. |
| 2 | Stakeholders named in passing without categorization or prioritization. |
| 1 | No stakeholder identification or mapping. |
DIMENSION 2: Engagement Methods Appropriateness
| 5 | All four elements present. Method matches stakeholder type and capacity (e.g., FGD for beneficiaries, KII for officials). Engagement methods are appropriate to the question being asked at each stage (design, monitoring, evaluation). Methods are adapted to context (language, accessibility, time, location, mode). Multiple methods are used where any single method would miss key voices. |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Methods appropriate and adapted; multi-method coverage or stage fit partial. |
| 3 | Methods named but fit to stakeholder or stage is weak. Context adaptations not described. Single method used where multiple are needed. |
| 2 | Generic methods listed without justification. No context adaptation. |
| 1 | No engagement methods specified, or methods clearly mismatched to stakeholders. |
DIMENSION 3: Voice, Influence, and Power Dynamics
| 5 | All four elements present. Voice of marginalized stakeholders is meaningfully represented (not symbolic, not a quota box-tick). Power dynamics between stakeholder groups are acknowledged and addressed (who can speak freely in front of whom). Stakeholders shape decisions, not just informed of them. Dominant voices are not allowed to drown out marginalized voices (separate sessions, structured facilitation, anonymity options). |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Marginalized voices represented and decisions shaped; power dynamics or dominance controls partial. |
| 3 | Marginalized stakeholders included but in mixed settings only. Power dynamics not addressed. Stakeholders consulted but not given decision influence. |
| 2 | Marginalized stakeholders treated as a checkbox. No power analysis. One-way information flow. |
| 1 | No representation of marginalized voices. No acknowledgment of power dynamics. |
DIMENSION 4: Two-Way Communication and Feedback Loops
| 5 | All four elements present. Feedback mechanisms are specified (not one-shot consultation). Information flows both ways (stakeholders inform AND receive findings or decisions). Response timelines are committed for feedback received. The method for closing the loop with stakeholders is documented (how they will be told what was done with their input). |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Feedback mechanisms and two-way flow present; timelines or loop closure partial. |
| 3 | Consultation described but as a one-time event. Stakeholders inform but do not receive findings. No response timelines. |
| 2 | One-shot consultation. No commitment to share findings back. No feedback channel. |
| 1 | No feedback mechanism. Engagement is extractive only. |
DIMENSION 5: Documentation and Follow-Through
| 5 | All four elements present. Engagement records are maintained (who was consulted, when, what was heard). Stakeholder input is traceable to specific design or decision changes (decision log, change register). Stakeholders receive updates on how their input was used. The engagement plan is reviewed and adjusted based on what is working. |
|---|---|
| 4 | At least three of four elements present. Records and traceability present; updates to stakeholders or plan adjustment partial. |
| 3 | Records kept informally. Input not traceable to changes. Stakeholders not updated. Plan static. |
| 2 | Minimal documentation. No traceability or follow-through. |
| 1 | No engagement records or follow-through. |
OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:
| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Document | Priority Revision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder Identification and Mapping | |||
| Engagement Methods Appropriateness | |||
| Voice, Influence, and Power Dynamics | |||
| Two-Way Communication and Feedback Loops | |||
| Documentation and Follow-Through |
Total: X/25 Band: Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10) Single Most Important Revision: [One specific sentence]
For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.
DOCUMENT TO SCORE:
(See the attached or pasted document.)
Document to review: Attached, or pasted below. Base everything above on it and do not invent details that are not in it.