How well is your engagement working?

Low (1 to 2)

Scope, timing and process of decisions are not clearly communicated. Participants are not clear about how or what they can influence. Roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined.

Middle (3 to 5)

Scope and roles were communicated, but not consistently. Some participants remain unsure what they can influence.

High (6 to 7)

Participants have a clear sense of the scope of the process and their role in it at all times.

Low (1 to 2)

Participants do not reflect the relevant characteristics of the stakeholder population. No opportunity to consider or discuss other values and viewpoints. Limited opportunities to participate, for example a high degree of self-selection or activities that favour one viewpoint or demographic.

Middle (3 to 5)

The main stakeholder groups took part but some are under-represented. A range of views was heard, though the opportunities suited some groups better than others.

High (6 to 7)

Participants strongly reflect the relevant characteristics of the stakeholder population, for example selected to match its profile. A variety of opinions, values and needs are heard and discussed. Participation opportunities address the communication needs of stakeholders.

Low (1 to 2)

No opportunity for informed debate and reflection. Inadequate information to participate meaningfully. Questions and issues are pre-set, as in a closed-response survey. Participants hold entrenched positions that do not vary.

Middle (3 to 5)

Information was provided and there was some discussion, but limited time to weigh options. Some increase in understanding.

High (6 to 7)

Opportunity for informed deliberation. Increased understanding. Movement towards identifying shared values and common ground.

Low (1 to 2)

Little promise that recommendations will be enacted. Scope of influence is not defined or understood by participants. Decision processes do not show the impact of participation.

Middle (3 to 5)

Scope of influence was defined and some input is reflected in the outcome, but how input was used is not clearly shown.

High (6 to 7)

Strong commitment to enact recommendations. Stakeholders play an active role in deciding how they will participate. A clear demonstration of how participants have influenced the outcomes.

Low (1 to 2)

Participants do not understand key elements of the discussion and feel unable to participate meaningfully. They do not believe their participation will have any impact. Low ownership of or commitment to the process. Marginalised groups are not involved and do not benefit.

Middle (3 to 5)

Most participants could take part meaningfully and some barriers were addressed. Confidence in the process is mixed. Marginalised groups were involved only in part.

High (6 to 7)

Participants are given adequate information and resources to participate meaningfully. They have a high degree of confidence in the process and believe their contribution will have impact. They share a high degree of ownership of the process and outcomes and benefit from it equitably.

Low (1 to 2)

Decisions and the role participation played are not clearly communicated. No evaluation of process or outcomes. Decision makers are not confident acting on participants' recommendations. Ongoing conflict, with relationships characterised by suspicion and mistrust.

Middle (3 to 5)

Decisions were communicated and some evaluation took place. Decision makers used parts of the output. Relationships are neither better nor worse than before.

High (6 to 7)

Participants can clearly see the impact of their contribution and decisions are understood. Participants are involved in evaluation. Decision makers act on the output with confidence. The process has built trust and good relationships.