The Template
What the Plan Template Contains
The plan answers one question: who will take part in this evaluation, in what way, and when? It is written for the evaluation, so it is organized around the stages of the work rather than around a list of names. The plan is usually agreed in the inception report and rooted in the evaluation terms of reference.
| Section | What you write |
|---|---|
| Purpose and Scope | Why engagement matters for this evaluation, and what the plan covers |
| Stakeholder Register | One row per group, with role, interest, influence, level of engagement and owner |
| Engagement by Stage | For design, inception, data collection, analysis and validation, and reporting and use: who, why, how, when, by whom |
| Reaching Groups That Are Easy to Miss | The barriers you expect and what you will do about each |
| Communication and Feedback | What each group receives, in what form and language, and how it can reply |
| Roles and Responsibilities | Who runs the plan, who approves changes, who is the contact for each group |
| Risks and Ethics | Raised expectations, dominant voices, fatigue, safety, and the step for each |
| Reviewing the Plan | A short log of who was actually engaged and what changed as a result |
Start with the Stakeholder Map
Before you fill in the plan, list the groups and score them on a simple worksheet. The method behind this, including how to run a power and interest exercise, is in the stakeholder analysis entry. Give the worksheet three things for an evaluation:
- A role column that asks what each group does in this evaluation (provides data, reviews drafts, decides, uses findings), not just how much they care.
- Scores from 1 to 5 for interest and influence, with the quadrant (manage closely, keep satisfied, keep informed, monitor) filled in by formula.
- A level of engagement for each group: inform, consult, involve or collaborate. Choose it on purpose. Inform means one-way. Consult means you ask and they answer. Involve means they help shape a decision. Collaborate means they share it.
Treat the quadrant as a prompt for discussion, not a rule. A group with low influence but high exposure to harm, such as young women in a skills program, still needs deliberate engagement. Agree scores with a colleague, because one person's view is often shaped by whom they happen to meet.
Filled Example
Filled Example: Engagement by Stage
This example is for a made-up midterm evaluation of a youth skills program in three towns. Only part of it is shown here.
| Stage | Stakeholder | Purpose | Method | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design | Funder; program team | Agree the questions and what the decision needs | Two 90-minute online meetings; written comments on draft questions | Weeks 1 to 2 |
| Design | Youth councils | Check that the questions cover what young people care about | One in-person session per town, with travel costs paid | Week 3 |
| Data collection | Trainees; graduates | Hear what worked and what did not | Focus groups, separate for young women and young men; short survey | Weeks 6 to 9 |
| Analysis and validation | Program team; youth councils | Check that early findings are accurate and make sense locally | Findings workshop in each town; one-page summary a week before | Week 11 |
| Reporting and use | Trainees; parents | Tell them what was found and what will happen | Short summary in two languages, read out at community meetings | Week 15 |
Two points to notice. The funder is engaged early, because the questions have to serve its decision. And the people the program serves are engaged twice: once to shape the questions and once to hear what came of their answers. That second step is the one most often dropped, and it matters for trust the next time anyone asks.
The plan also records what happened. In this example, only 3 of 20 trainees who attended the first round of sessions were young women, so the team added women-only sessions with a woman facilitator and meetings in the daytime. That cost two extra field days and brought out a safety concern about evening practice hours that no one else had raised.
Filled Example: Reaching Groups That Are Easy to Miss
| Group | Likely Barrier | What We Will Do |
|---|---|---|
| Young women | Evening sessions are unsafe; caring duties | Daytime sessions near the training center; separate groups with a woman facilitator; childcare space; travel costs covered |
| Young people with disabilities | Venues without step-free access; no sign language | Check venues beforehand; offer home interviews |
| Out-of-school youth who did not apply | Not known to the program, so not on any list | Youth councils help recruit; referral from graduates |
| Speakers of the minority language | Written summaries in the main language only | Facilitators and summaries in both languages |
Link this table to the consent and safeguarding arrangements in the inception report and the ethics checklist. Engagement activities carry the same duty of care as data collection.
Common Mistakes
Common Mistakes
A plan that lists names but not actions. "Ministry of Health: manage closely" does not tell anyone what to do on Monday. Give each row a method, a date and an owner.
Engaging everyone at every stage. Stakeholders have limited time. Match the level to the stage: the funder at design and reporting, communities at data collection and feedback.
Leaving out the people the program serves. Good practice, including the UNEG norms and standards, asks evaluators to involve the people affected by the intervention, and a plan with only institutions falls short of that. See the participatory evaluation entry for ways to go further than consultation.
Treating it as fixed. The plan should change as the evaluation does. Keep the log in the last section and review it at the end of each stage.
No feedback loop. Telling participants what was found is part of the plan, with a date and a format, not a courtesy for later.