Section 8. Identifying and Analyzing Stakeholders and Their Interests

 

The Community Tool Box strongly supports participatory processes. That means creating meaningful opportunities for people and groups who are affected by, have responsibilities related to, or have a significant interest in a project, initiative, intervention, policy, or other effort to participate in ways appropriate to their roles. In many situations, broad participation can bring more ideas into the process, improve understanding of the community context, identify concerns earlier, strengthen relationships, and contribute to a more effective and equitable effort. To conduct a participatory process and gain these advantages, you need to identify stakeholders, understand how they are affected, consider what influence and responsibilities they have, and decide what level and form of participation is appropriate. The same questions are useful when building support for an effort that is already underway, even if the earlier process was not fully participatory.

What do we mean by stakeholders and their interests?

Stakeholders are people, groups, organizations, institutions, or communities that may be affected by an effort, may affect its development or outcome, or have a significant responsibility or interest related to it. Some are directly affected by what happens. Others may be indirectly affected, have formal decision-making authority, contribute expertise or resources, carry out the work, or have a strong academic, philosophical, civic, economic, or political interest in the issue.

One way to characterize stakeholders is by their relationship to the effort in question. These categories can overlap, and their usefulness depends on the situation.

• Primary stakeholders are people, groups, or communities that stand to be directly affected, positively or negatively, by an effort or by the actions of an agency, institution, or organization. Different primary stakeholders may experience the same effort differently. A rent-control policy, for example, may provide greater housing stability for some tenants while creating financial or operational concerns for some landlords.
• Secondary stakeholders are people or groups that may be indirectly affected by the effort or its results. A program to reduce domestic violence, for instance, could affect emergency departments, schools, law enforcement, courts, service providers, employers, families, and others whose work or lives intersect with the issue.
• Key stakeholders are stakeholders whose responsibilities, decisions, knowledge, relationships, resources, or participation may have a substantial effect on the effort. They may include people directly affected by the issue, staff who carry out the work, funders, elected or appointed officials, organizational leaders, community advocates, or others whose involvement is especially relevant to the effort.

A stakeholder's interest in an effort may come from being affected by it, being responsible for implementing or regulating it, having a personal or organizational commitment to the issue, or expecting particular benefits, costs, responsibilities, or changes. Interest can be strong even when someone has little formal decision-making authority, and people with similar roles or backgrounds may still have very different interests.

Stakeholders' interests can be many and varied. A few common areas include:

• Economics. An employment-training program may affect participants' job opportunities, employers' hiring practices, service providers' responsibilities, and public or private funding.
• Social conditions and relationships. An effort focused on discrimination, inclusion, public safety, neighborhood development, or another community concern may affect groups differently and may influence relationships among community members and institutions.
• Work. Changes in policy, programs, or organizational practice may change workloads, responsibilities, working conditions, training needs, or opportunities for employees.
• Time. Flexible work hours, caregiver support, parental leave, participation requirements, and similar policies may affect how people balance employment, caregiving, health, education, and other responsibilities.
• Environment. Conservation, climate, land-use, transportation, energy, and development decisions can affect residents, businesses, governments, landowners, workers, and future generations in different ways.
• Physical health. Health programs and policies may affect access to care, costs, working conditions, service delivery, and community health outcomes.
• Safety and security. Violence-prevention efforts, workplace-safety policies, emergency planning, traffic changes, policing strategies, and other initiatives may improve safety for some people while raising concerns for others about access, rights, enforcement, cost, or unintended consequences.
• Mental and behavioral health. Community-based services, crisis-response systems, prevention efforts, and other programs may affect people receiving services, families, providers, schools, employers, emergency systems, and the broader community.

Both the nature and intensity of stakeholder interests are important to understand.

Why identify and analyze stakeholders and their interests?

One of the most important reasons for identifying and understanding stakeholders is to make sure that people who are affected by or responsible for an effort are not overlooked. Stakeholder analysis can also help you decide what kind of participation, communication, decision-making role, or support may be appropriate for different stakeholders.

A participatory effort that includes a broad range of relevant stakeholders can have a number of advantages:

• It puts more ideas on the table than would be the case if development and implementation were confined to a single organization or a small group of people with similar experiences.
• It includes varied perspectives from the parts of the community affected, helping create a clearer picture of the community context, possible assets, barriers, tradeoffs, and unintended consequences.
• It can build shared understanding, trust, and ownership when stakeholders have meaningful roles in development, planning, implementation, evaluation, or decision-making rather than being asked only to endorse a completed plan.
• It can make the process fairer. People who may experience substantial effects from an effort should have meaningful opportunities to understand it and, where appropriate, influence decisions about it.
• It can identify concerns early. Stakeholders may see risks, barriers, conflicts, opportunities, or unintended consequences that planners have not considered.
• It can improve the way disagreement is handled. Bringing differing perspectives into the process early gives people an opportunity to clarify concerns, identify common ground, negotiate where possible, and understand unresolved differences before critical decisions are made.
• It can strengthen relationships and connections across groups. A participatory process may create relationships among people and organizations that otherwise have few opportunities to work together, increasing trust, reciprocity, and communication across community sectors.
• It can increase the credibility of your organization or process. Taking stakeholder concerns seriously, explaining decisions, and being transparent about what people can and cannot influence can strengthen trust.
• It can increase the likelihood that the effort is relevant and workable. Understanding the people, systems, responsibilities, and conditions affected by the effort can improve both design and implementation.

Who are potential stakeholders?

As discussed above, stakeholders may be primary, secondary, key, or some combination of these. The categories below provide a starting point, but each effort and community will have its own stakeholders.

Primary stakeholders

People and communities directly affected by the effort

These are people who may experience direct benefits, burdens, opportunities, restrictions, risks, responsibilities, or other changes because of an initiative, policy, program, or organizational action.

Some examples are:

• People connected by a relevant shared experience or circumstance, such as a racial or ethnic community, socioeconomic group, disability community, immigrant community, or residents of a particular type of housing
• Residents of a particular geographic area -- a neighborhood, town, tribal community, region, or rural area
• People experiencing or at increased risk for a particular condition or problem, such as homelessness, unemployment, diabetes, food insecurity, or barriers to education
• People who participate in or receive services through a particular organization or institution -- students at a school, people involved in a justice system, people receiving public assistance, patients, tenants, or program participants
• People whose behavior, circumstances, access, or choices are relevant to the effort, while recognizing that individual behavior is often shaped by environmental, economic, social, and structural conditions as well
• Policymakers, agencies, employers, institutions, or others whose decisions or practices are the focus of an advocacy effort

Secondary stakeholders

People and organizations connected with those directly affected

These may include individuals and organizations that live with, care for, work with, provide services to, or otherwise have close relationships with people directly affected by the effort.

• Parents, spouses, siblings, children, other family members, partners, friends, and caregivers
• Schools and their employees, including teachers, counselors, aides, administrators, and other staff
• Physicians, nurses, community health workers, and other health professionals
• Social workers, counselors, therapists, peer-support workers, and others who provide support
• Health and human service organizations and the staff who work directly with participants
• Community volunteers, mutual-aid groups, peer networks, and other people who contribute services or support

People whose jobs, responsibilities, or routines may be affected by the process or results

Some individuals and groups overlap with the categories above.

• Law enforcement, courts, regulatory agencies, emergency-response personnel, and other public systems whose responsibilities may change because of new policies or practices
• Teachers, health professionals, social service providers, and others who have legal or professional reporting, safety, or service responsibilities
• Landlords, tenants, property managers, and housing organizations affected by housing policies or regulations
• Contractors, developers, planners, environmental organizations, residents, and others affected by land-use or development decisions
• Employers, employees, labor organizations, and others affected by workplace requirements, employment programs, benefits, or safety initiatives
• Community members whose daily lives, jobs, travel, neighborhood conditions, services, or routines may be affected by an effort or policy change

Key stakeholders

Government officials and policymakers

These are people and institutions with formal responsibility for laws, regulations, public resources, permits, enforcement, or other decisions that may significantly affect an effort.

• Legislators and other elected representatives who introduce, debate, and vote on laws and public budgets
• Governors, mayors, council members, county officials, tribal leaders, and other executives or elected officials responsible for public administration
• Local board and commission members, such as boards of health, school boards, planning commissions, zoning boards, and similar public bodies
• Local, state, federal, tribal, or other government agencies responsible for regulation, funding, reporting, enforcement, or service delivery
• Advisers, analysts, commissions, research bodies, advocacy organizations, and others whose information or recommendations may influence public decisions even when they do not have formal decision-making authority

People and organizations with trusted relationships or broad communication reach

• News organizations, community media, and other information networks
• People whose professional or community roles may give them broad connections or credibility, such as faith leaders, physicians, educators, nonprofit leaders, business leaders, or institutional leaders
• Community leaders, organizers, advocates, residents, elders, youth leaders, and others who have developed trust through long-term relationships, service, organizing, or lived experience

People and organizations with a significant interest in the outcome

Some stakeholders may not be directly affected by an effort but may care strongly about its outcome because of their mission, values, responsibilities, research, economic interests, or community commitments.

• Businesses, employers, trade groups, labor organizations, and economic-development organizations whose interests may be affected by workforce, regulation, infrastructure, public health, safety, environmental, or other changes
• Advocates and advocacy organizations that support, oppose, or seek changes to the effort
• Community activists, organizers, and organizations with a philosophical, civic, cultural, or political interest in the issue
• Researchers, academics, evaluators, and professional organizations with relevant knowledge or interest
• Funders and potential funders whose resources, requirements, or priorities may affect whether and how an effort proceeds
• The broader community when an effort has widespread effects or requires broad public participation, trust, or support

When should you identify stakeholders and their interests?

Regardless of the purpose of your effort, stakeholder identification should usually begin early. Early identification helps you understand who may be affected, who has relevant responsibilities or knowledge, whose participation is important, and what concerns or barriers may need attention.

• If you want a participatory process, relevant stakeholders should be involved early enough for their participation to influence important decisions. Their knowledge of the community and their own experiences may help identify problems, strengths, barriers, and opportunities that others have missed.
• If your effort involves participatory action research, people affected by the research should have meaningful opportunities to contribute to assessment, research questions, methods, interpretation, planning, implementation, and evaluation where appropriate.
• If transparency is important, involve stakeholders before major decisions are finalized and be clear about what decisions remain open to influence.
• If changes will affect people differently, involve affected groups early so that impacts, tradeoffs, barriers, and possible alternatives can be identified before implementation.
• If the effort involves legal, regulatory, contractual, land-use, safety, privacy, or other formal responsibilities, identify affected stakeholders and relevant requirements early. This can improve planning and help prevent avoidable conflicts or failures to meet legal or procedural obligations.

In most cases, the earlier relevant stakeholders can be meaningfully involved, the more opportunity there is for their knowledge and concerns to shape the work.

How do you identify and analyze stakeholders and their interests?

The first step is identifying the stakeholders. The categories above provide a starting point, but the actual list will be different for each community and effort. Pay particular attention to people directly affected by the issue, including those who may have less formal authority or may not already participate in established organizations.

Once you've identified stakeholders, try to understand how they may be affected, what responsibilities or interests they have, what influence they hold, what concerns they want addressed, and what level of participation makes sense. Some stakeholders may support the effort, some may oppose it, some may have mixed views, and others may not yet have formed an opinion.

Stakeholder analysis, sometimes called stakeholder mapping, can help organize this information. The purpose should be to understand relationships, impacts, interests, responsibilities, and influence so that participation and communication can be planned appropriately -- not simply to sort people according to how useful they are to your preferred outcome.

Identifying stakeholders

In identifying stakeholders, think beyond the most obvious groups. Indirect effects can be easy to overlook. A new regulation, service, development, or transportation change may affect workers, suppliers, caregivers, nearby residents, people who rely on public transportation, people with disabilities, or others who are not the immediate focus of the policy.

There are several ways to identify stakeholders, and using more than one approach will often yield better results.

• Brainstorm. Bring together people with different relationships to the issue and generate categories and names. Include community members affected by the issue rather than relying only on staff, officials, or established organizational leaders.
• Ask people in the affected community. Find out who they believe should be involved, which groups or perspectives are missing, who holds relevant responsibilities, and who is trusted.
• Consult organizations that have worked on similar issues, serve the affected area, or have relevant experience.
• Ask stakeholders whom else you should talk with as you identify them. This can help reveal informal leaders, affected groups, and perspectives that weren't visible initially.
• Use open invitations when appropriate. Community meetings, organizational newsletters, websites, social media, email lists, public notices, partner organizations, faith communities, and word of mouth may help identify people who consider themselves affected or interested but who weren't included in your initial analysis.

Discovering and understanding stakeholder interests

Stakeholder interests may vary greatly. Even stakeholders from the same community, profession, organization, or demographic group may have different priorities or concerns. Don't assume that someone's category tells you what they believe.

• People directly affected by an effort may strongly support it, oppose it, feel uncertain, or hold mixed views. Their response may be shaped by previous experiences with institutions, trust, expected benefits or burdens, accessibility, stigma, cost, cultural fit, time, safety, or other factors. Ask people directly rather than guessing why they feel the way they do.
• Stakeholders may have economic concerns. These concerns can reflect livelihoods, organizational sustainability, household costs, property interests, employment, public budgets, long-term community development, or other legitimate considerations. Describe the interests involved without assuming people's motives.

A classic example is the tension between open-space preservation and a landowner's ability to sell land for development. For some farmers and rural residents, land may represent both a livelihood and a substantial share of their financial security. Conservation strategies therefore sometimes seek ways to protect open space while recognizing the economic value of development rights.

Conservation easements and other land-preservation arrangements are examples of approaches that may attempt to balance these interests. The specific legal and financial arrangements vary by location and circumstance.

• Economic interests may also support an effort. A community health project, for example, could affect employment, purchasing, construction, local services, workforce stability, and public spending as well as health outcomes.
• Businesses and employers may have different views of health, labor, safety, environmental, tax, or regulatory policies depending on their size, workforce, costs, industry, customers, values, and community relationships. Avoid assuming that an entire business sector will have one position.
• Organizations, agencies, and institutions may have financial or operational interests because an effort affects their funding, staffing, reporting requirements, workload, or long-term sustainability.
• Issues involving deeply held values -- such as reproductive health policy, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, education, public safety, or other contested topics -- may generate strong support and opposition. Understanding these positions does not mean treating every disagreement as solvable, but it can help you communicate accurately and plan responsibly.
• Political and philosophical differences may shape views about the appropriate roles of government, nonprofits, businesses, families, and individuals in addressing community problems.
• Legislators and policymakers may consider public needs, evidence, legal responsibilities, budgets, constituent views, implementation requirements, political priorities, and other factors when deciding whether to support an effort.
• Staff members may experience significant changes in workload, procedures, training requirements, authority, or responsibilities when an effort is implemented. Their practical knowledge can be valuable in identifying problems and improving implementation.

Changes in laws, regulations, funding requirements, or organizational policies may affect professionals even when they aren't the primary focus of the change. Teachers, health professionals, police, social workers, counselors, and others may face new responsibilities or procedures. Include the people who will actually carry out those responsibilities when assessing feasibility and impact.

• Family and community values may also shape stakeholder interests. People can interpret the same policy as protecting safety and well-being or as interfering unnecessarily with personal or family decision-making. Understanding these differences requires listening to the stakeholders themselves rather than assuming what they believe.

Don't guess what stakeholder interests are when you can ask. Ask people what matters to them, how they expect the effort to affect them, what concerns they have, and what changes would make the process or outcome more workable. If some stakeholders don't want formal participation, respect that decision and consider whether there are other appropriate ways to understand their perspectives without treating another person as automatically speaking for them.

Stakeholder analysis/stakeholder mapping

Once you've identified stakeholders and begun understanding their interests, stakeholder mapping can help organize what you've learned. One common approach considers two dimensions: the degree to which a stakeholder is affected by or interested in the effort, and the degree of influence the stakeholder has over decisions or implementation.

	Lower interest or effect	Higher interest or effect
Higher influence	Higher influence / lower interest	Higher influence / higher interest
Lower influence	Lower influence / lower interest	Lower influence / higher interest

These dimensions are continuous rather than fixed categories. A stakeholder can fall anywhere along each dimension, and their position can change as an effort develops.

A map like this can help you think about different engagement needs, but it has important limitations. Formal influence is not the same as importance. People with little institutional power may experience the largest effects from an effort and may therefore require especially meaningful opportunities to participate. Similarly, someone with high formal authority may have little direct knowledge of the issue.

For that reason, many community efforts may benefit from considering more than two dimensions. In addition to influence and interest, ask:

• How strongly will this stakeholder be affected?
• What rights, responsibilities, or decision-making authority do they have?
• What knowledge or lived experience do they contribute?
• What barriers may limit their participation?
• What level of involvement is appropriate and desired?

Understanding influence

Influence can take several forms:

• An individual or institution may have formal legal or governmental authority.
• An administrator, board, funder, employer, regulator, or other institution may control resources, policies, or organizational decisions.
• Some people have broad community connections or are trusted because of their professional role, community service, advocacy, lived experience, or long-standing relationships.
• People or organizations with large networks may be able to share information or connect an effort with many others.
• People may also have influence because others respect their judgment, integrity, expertise, organizing ability, or commitment to the community.
• Economic influence may come from employment, investment, property ownership, purchasing, philanthropy, or control over other resources. Consider how this influence affects the process without treating it as automatically more important than the interests of people directly affected.

Influence and interest may be internal or external to an organization or community. Staff members who actually carry out an effort, for instance, may have substantial influence over whether it works even if they have little formal authority. Participants and community members may also influence legitimacy, implementation, and long-term sustainability.

Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholder analysis is useful only when it informs practice. In community work, it is often more helpful to think in terms of stakeholder engagement rather than stakeholder management. People are not resources to be moved into favorable positions. They have their own interests, rights, responsibilities, choices, and perspectives.

Engagement can include communication, consultation, shared planning, partnership, negotiation, collaborative decision-making, formal representation, or other forms of participation. The appropriate approach depends on how someone is affected, what responsibility or authority they hold, what they want their involvement to be, and what the purpose of the effort is.

A useful stakeholder map can help you identify where different kinds of engagement may be needed:

• Stakeholders with high influence and high interest may have major roles in decision-making, implementation, funding, regulation, advocacy, or public communication. Engage them closely, while making sure their influence does not crowd out people who are more directly affected but have less formal power.
• Stakeholders with high influence and lower interest may still affect the effort through policy, resources, regulation, institutional authority, or public communication. Provide accurate information, understand their responsibilities and concerns, and invite participation when there is a genuine connection to the work.
• Stakeholders with lower formal influence and high interest may include many people directly affected by the issue. They should not be treated as less important because they have less institutional power. Look for ways to remove participation barriers and create meaningful opportunities to influence decisions.
• Stakeholders with lower influence and lower current interest may need only general information, or they may become more relevant as the effort develops. Don't spend unnecessary resources trying to generate interest where there is little connection, but remain open to changes in how the effort affects them.

Opposition or skepticism should not automatically be treated as something to "convert" or neutralize. Try to understand the underlying concern. Some disagreements can be resolved through better information, design changes, negotiation, or shared problem-solving. Others may reflect genuine conflicts of interest or values that remain even after everyone understands the issue clearly.

When disagreement remains:

• Represent other stakeholders' positions accurately.
• Correct factual misunderstandings without attacking the people who hold them.
• Identify areas of agreement where they exist.
• Be transparent about decisions and tradeoffs.
• Use appropriate conflict-resolution, advocacy, negotiation, or public decision-making processes when necessary.

Stakeholder engagement in a participatory process

If the main purpose is participation, the goal is not to move everyone toward one preferred quadrant or position. The goal is to make sure relevant perspectives are present, differences can be discussed honestly, and people have an appropriate degree of influence over decisions that affect them.

People with less institutional power may face barriers that people with more power do not. These can include transportation, caregiving, inaccessible meeting spaces or materials, language barriers, unpaid time, unfamiliar terminology, limited access to technology, fear of retaliation, or a history of being ignored. Address those barriers directly rather than assuming people lack confidence, intelligence, education, or organizational ability.

Support might include:

• Clear orientation to the project and decision-making process
• Accessible meeting spaces and materials
• Interpretation, translation, captions, or other communication access
• Transportation or caregiving support
• Stipends, honoraria, or reimbursement when appropriate
• Flexible meeting times and remote participation options
• Technical assistance, mentoring, or training when participants request or benefit from it
• Clear explanations of how community input will affect decisions

People with substantial formal influence also need to understand participatory processes. They may be accustomed to making decisions within institutions and may need to share authority, listen to community knowledge, and accept that meaningful participation can change the original plan.

Personal stories can help others understand how an issue affects people's lives, but stories should never be treated simply as tools for persuading powerful stakeholders. People should choose whether and how their experiences are shared, understand the intended audience and purpose, and have appropriate privacy and consent protections.

Keeping stakeholders involved over time generally depends on:

• Treating people with respect
• Providing clear information and appropriate support
• Offering meaningful roles that match people's interests, skills, responsibilities, and desired level of participation
• Recognizing contributions in ways participants value and providing compensation or reimbursement when appropriate
• Including stakeholders in decision-making where their role calls for it
• Involving people early enough for their knowledge and perspectives to influence conception, planning, implementation, and evaluation
• Helping remove structural barriers and expanding opportunities for people with less formal authority to participate in and influence the process

Evaluation of the stakeholder process

As with other parts of an initiative, it is important to evaluate how well stakeholders were identified, understood, and involved. Stakeholder engagement should be part of the overall evaluation, and stakeholders themselves should help determine what meaningful participation and success look like.

Questions you might consider include:

• Whose perspectives did we miss, and why?
• Which engagement strategies worked well for different people and groups, and which created barriers?
• Did people remain involved at the level they wanted, and if not, what made participation difficult?
• What accessibility, financial, logistical, training, mentoring, or other support was provided? Was it useful? What was missing?
• Did stakeholder analysis actually improve communication, planning, implementation, conflict management, or decision-making?
• Did stakeholders -- especially people directly affected -- have meaningful influence, or were they primarily informed after decisions had already been made?
• Did participation change the design, priorities, implementation, or evaluation of the effort in identifiable ways?
• Did participants feel respected, heard, and clear about how their input was used?

The answers can help improve the current effort and inform future stakeholder-engagement processes.

Keeping stakeholders involved

Stakeholder engagement usually needs continuing attention for as long as the effort lasts. New stakeholders may emerge as circumstances change. Others may no longer be directly affected but may remain interested or connected to the work.

Keep people informed, maintain appropriate relationships, follow through on commitments, explain changes, provide meaningful opportunities to contribute, and periodically ask whether the level and form of participation still work for them. Long-term engagement is strongest when people understand the purpose of their involvement and can see that their time, knowledge, and perspectives matter.

In Summary

Stakeholders are people, groups, organizations, institutions, or communities that may be affected by an effort, influence its development or outcome, carry responsibilities related to it, or have a significant interest in it. Identifying stakeholders early can improve planning, fairness, transparency, implementation, and understanding of the community context.

Stakeholder analysis can help you understand who is affected, what interests and responsibilities are involved, where formal and informal influence exists, and what barriers or opportunities may shape participation. Influence alone should not determine importance: people with little institutional power may be those most affected by the decisions being made.

In community work, the purpose of stakeholder engagement should not simply be to gain support or move people toward a preferred position. It should help create appropriate opportunities for participation, understand and address legitimate concerns, include relevant knowledge and lived experience, navigate disagreement responsibly, and make decisions with a clearer understanding of who will experience their consequences.

Like other forms of community building, stakeholder engagement is an ongoing process. It requires relationships, transparency, respect, accessible participation, follow-through, and continued attention as both the effort and the community change.