A defining characteristic of GE / HR responsive evaluations is the participation of stakeholders, including both men and women and, also, marginalised groups. The term stakeholder is broadly used to include those who deliver, influence and are impacted by the programme.
Types of Stakeholders
Evaluation stakeholders are people who have a vested interest in evaluation findings. Usually five main types of stakeholders are identified:
- duty bearers who have decision-making authority over the program, such as governing bodies, and other duty bearers, such as relevant government staff
- duty bearers who have direct responsibility for the program, such as program managers
- secondary duty bearers, such as the private sector or parents
- rights holders who are the intended and unintended beneficiaries of the program, and
- rights holders who are disadvantaged by the program
Partners and other Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), including women’s organisations, be they implementing partners or broader partners, are critical as evaluation stakeholders. They have deep knowledge of the intervention context and they represent civil society interests and needs, thus enhancing accountability throughout the evaluation. Existing regional and country evaluation networks can also be included under this category as relevant stakeholders. Beneficiaries, the target population(s) of the intervention, should be fully consulted in the evaluation process and their interests and information needs identified and reflected. It is crucial to engage these stakeholders in an evaluation to ensure its accountability and use.
From this universe of stakeholders it is important to define a sub-set of actual users, narrowing the list of potential stakeholders to a much shorter, more specific group of primary intended users.
Who to involve in the process will vary with each evaluation, based on who is involved in and impacted by the programme being evaluated. Key stakeholders typically include: governments and national counterparts; partners and other civil society organisations, including women’s organisations; beneficiaries; programme managers and decision makers; UN sister agencies; bilateral partners or donors; and other stakeholders (such as gender experts, academics, etc.). There is a need, however, to carefully balance the desire to be inclusive (to maximize broad input) against the challenge of managing the evaluation process efficiently. A Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Tool is provided with this Guide to assist in the identification and analysis of stakeholders and the level / extent of their participation.
Advantages to Stakeholder Participation
Participation means active and meaningful involvement in the design, management and conduct of the evaluation. Stakeholders will, of course, need to be contacted (such as through interviews or surveys) during the evaluation to provide information and data to the evaluators. This is not what is meant here as participation. Involving stakeholders in an evaluation means they actively participate in or co-own the evaluation, from defining the scope, through evaluation conduct, to decision making related to evaluation conclusions and recommendations. Participation and inclusiveness are important strengths of GE/HR responsive evaluation and thinking about how to identify and engage men and women, as well as marginalised groups, duty bearers, rights holders, and other stakeholders at the outset has several benefits.
Contributions – different programme perspectives will enrich the evaluation design and approach, including: identifying GE/HR issues and implications that may not have been explicit in the programme design and delivery; identifying and collectively finding solutions for evaluation constraints and challenges; facilitating and guiding the conduct of the evaluation; and bringing realistic, on-the-ground insights to the review and assessment of evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Use and Usefulness – the ultimate definition of evaluation success is its use and usefulness. Participatory approaches have demonstrated increased credibility of evaluation results, and thus use. Early engagement of stakeholders manages expectations for what the evaluation will / can provide by involving key players in the definition of why it is being done.
Capacity Building – being involved in the evaluation process is itself a learning experience and can serve to build the capacity of stakeholders through increased exposure to GE and HR issues. It can help draw explicit connections between programmes and the larger objectives of social change; encourage good practice in tracking and measuring GE and HR; and can be one step in helping duty bearers (i.e. state agents) to become committed to GE and HR obligations.
Accountability – bringing together duty bearers and rights holders generates a space for mutual accountability, transparency, and key HR and GE principles.
The manager should undertake a stakeholder analysis to identify the priorities of participation, who should participate, how and when, as well as the relevance of a particular group to the purpose and use of the evaluation. Involving stakeholders in the design and planning of the evaluation can be used to build trust and agreement about how to ensure both participation and disclosure, in accordance with UNEG Norms and Standards. However, the manager will need to weigh the benefits of stakeholder participation against the credibility, independence and rigor of the evaluation. As far as possible, the evaluation manager needs to optimize both.
The participation of all stakeholders in the evaluation process can be challenging to manage, and may have cost and time implications. However, it is instrumental to building trust and promoting evaluation use.
Tips: The stakeholder analysis can also be appended to the ToR to aid the evaluation team in understanding the programme’s reach. However, also allow opportunity for external consultants to provide input and additional suggestions on how they will meaningfully engage stakeholders.
