Civil Society Participation in Service Design

Outcome

extent to which civil society and other partners participate in the planning of [specify] services

This qualitative indicator assesses the degree and quality of participation of civil society organisations (CSOs), community-based groups, and other partners (e.g. private sector, academia, citizens) in the planning of public services at local, regional, or national levels. It measures how meaningfully these actors engage in identifying priorities, co-designing plans, contributing evidence or expertise, and influencing service delivery decisions. The indicator thus provides insight into how participatory, transparent, and inclusive the service planning process is.

Determine the indicator’s value by using the following methodology:

1) With key project partners and other relevant stakeholders, discuss and agree on clear indicator criteria and definitions.

• Specify the public services being planned and the relevant authorities responsible for their planning.

• Define which actors are considered “civil society and partners.” This may include CSOs, networks, community-based organisations (CBOs), private sector, local associations, academia, or citizens.

• Clarify what counts as “participation.” Participation refers to structured engagement in planning processes, such as consultation or collaboration. It may include, but is not limited to, information sharing, consultation, dialogue, joint analysis, or co-drafting. The quality of participation should be assessed independently of whether authorities ultimately adopt specific inputs.

2) Set the reference period for which you will collect evidence of civil society and other partners participating in planning of selected services. Typically assess the development within the current reporting year or project period (e.g. past 12 months).

3) Develop a tool to record evidence of civil society and other partners participating in planning of selected services. Prepare a simple tool (table or checklist) to document participation in each relevant service planning process as per the predefined criteria (step 1). The tool may record for example the following information for each observed case of civil society and other partners participating in planning of selected services:

• location

• period / date

• level (local, regional, national)

• type of service

• type of civil society or other actors involved

• form of participation

• description of participation

• significance of change

• source of verification / evidence

• project contribution

• external contribution

4) Collect evidence through two or more suggested methods:

• Document and media review: Review planning meeting minutes, attendance lists, reports, draft plans, media articles, and social media posts to verify civil society involvement.

• Key Informant Interviews: Interview authorities, civil society representatives, and other stakeholders to assess the quality and influence of participation.

• Focus Group Discussions: Facilitate discussions with participating civil society and community representatives on the inclusiveness, frequency, quality, and influence of their participation.

• Observation: Attend planning sessions or consultations to assess participation dynamics, representation, and decision-making.

5) Record the collected and verified information into the developed tool / database (step 3).

6) Develop a set of clear criteria and standards for assessing the extent of CSO / partner participation. One option is to use rubrics (more guidance in resources below) - a structured assessment tool that uses descriptive levels to judge the achieved level of performance. Rubrics provide clear narrative criteria for each level, allowing users to classify progress in a consistent, systematic, and comparable way. The rubric in this case should describe how far and how substantively civil society and other partners participated in service planning process. Users should always formulate their own project-specific rubrics at the inception (e.g. during a joint workshop with project partners), which are informed by baseline findings. An illustrative example of a simple rubric scale and the description of each level can be:

• Minimal (=1) – Authorities share plans publicly but hold no consultations, civil society and partners are informed but do not participate.

• Emerging (=2) – Civil society and partners are consulted occasionally, with limited interaction and no regular feedback mechanisms.

• Moderate (=3) – Civil society and partners participate regularly through consultations or working groups, with opportunities for dialogue and exchange.

• Significant (=4) – Participation is structured, inclusive, and ongoing; civil society and partners actively engage throughout planning stages.

• Institutionalised (=5) – Participation is formalised and continuous, with recognised roles for civil society and partners in planning processes. Participation is sustained without external facilitation.

Use participatory scoring workshops or expert(s) to assign a level (1–5) for each service planning process, based on triangulated evidence. Using a numerical score (e.g. 1–5) can make comparisons easier.

When formulating rubric levels, you may also draw on progress marker language (more guidance in resources below) such as Expect to see, Like to see, and Love to see. You could also formulate Wouldn’t like to see progress marker to capture negative change, as well as Need to see progress marker to report on the outputs necessary for the outcome to happen.

7) Assess the indicator’s achievement. Use the collected information recorded in the developed tool/database (step 3) to assign a level - minimal, emerging, moderate, significant, institutionalised - to each assessed service planning process. To determine the appropriate level, engage expert(s) or, if you want to promote participation and strengthen ownership, organise participatory workshop(s) with representatives of civil society and other relevant partners.

Using a numerical score (e.g. 1–5, as suggested in step 6) can make comparisons and aggregation easier.

If desired, summarise how many service planning processes fall into each rubric level to show overall progress.

Consider engaging an external expert or evaluator to substantiate/validate your results during project’s evaluation.

8) Report on the indicator. Provide a narrative description of the indicator’s achievement using the collected evidence and the assigned rubrics level (step 7), as well as any minutes or documentation from participatory scoring workshop(s) if available. Describe the extent and quality of civil society and other partner participation in each service planning process. Be sure to distinguish participation from influence on final decisions. In your reporting, combine any available quantitative information - number of service planning processes assessed or number reaching higher participation levels - with qualitative interpretation that explains the depth, consistency, and inclusiveness of participation. Use the rubric results to summarise overall patterns or shifts in the extent of civil society and partner participation across planning processes.

Report and interpret findings with reference to relevant contextual factors such as the type of service or sector, level (local, regional, national), type of actor (e.g. CSO, CBO, private sector, academia, citizens), as feasible and appropriate.

1) Use this indicator if you want to focus on the quality and influence of participation, not just the number of CSOs and partners participating in service design activities. Apply clear qualitative criteria (e.g. rubrics) to assess the extent and depth of participation rather than relying on attendance counts.

2) This indicator is intended to assess the extent and quality of participation of civil society and other partners in service planning processes, not the extent to which their inputs influence or are reflected in final decisions. Consultation and collaboration should therefore be considered valid forms of participation, even where authorities ultimately retain decision-making power or do not adopt specific inputs. When applying this indicator, ensure that assessment criteria and rubric levels focus on the inclusiveness, regularity, and quality of engagement, rather than on policy or planning outcomes. As part of the analysis, consider also reporting on which groups were excluded or under-represented to better contextualise progress.

3) Consider using Outcome Harvesting methodology to document and assess how civil society and other partners influence service planning. Outcome Harvesting can help systematically identify, describe, and verify concrete instances where civil society actors and partners contributed to shaping service planning. Take advantage of the guidance on Outcome Harvesting methodology provided in the resources below. For each “harvested outcome,” record:

• What changed? (e.g. CSOs or partners involved earlier, more regularly, or more substantively)

• Who changed? (which authority, CSO, or partner)

• When and where did the change occur?

• How significant is the change?

• How did the project contribute to it? (e.g. through facilitation of planning spaces, capacity strengthening, coordination, technical input, or networking)

4) To track progress over time, apply the rubric at baseline and again at planned reporting points (e.g. annually and/or at endline) to assess whether the level of civil society and partner participation shifts over time - e.g. from “emerging” to “significant.”

5) If using rubrics is too resource-intensive or if sufficient data cannot be collected to reliably justify scores (e.g. due to project scale or partner coordination constraints), adapt the methodology accordingly. In such cases, you may use Outcome Harvesting without rubric scoring, while still maintaining a results-based and evidence-driven approach.

6) Interpret results and scoring within the service-planning, institutional, and political context. For example, a small community-based organisation participating for the first time in a basic service-planning meeting may represent as meaningful progress as a larger network influencing the design of a multi-sector service plan. When assigning scores, encourage partners to explain what steps would be needed to reach the next level of participation in the following period, reflecting on enabling conditions and barriers that may need to be addressed. These may include the openness of authorities, capacity of civil society and partners, timing of planning cycles, donor support.  This approach helps avoid inappropriate comparisons across locations and provides insight into the contextual factors shaping participation in service planning.

7) Given that civic space has a lot of actors, to understand your contribution more in depth, examine how project activities may have influenced the extent of civil society and partner participation in service-planning processes. Determine whether observed improvements can be linked to project support. This might include capacity strengthening, advocacy, coordination, facilitation of planning spaces, funding, evidence generation, networking. When assessing contribution, check whether (a) project activities align with the outcome, (b) stakeholders confirm the project’s influence, and (c) whether there is stronger alternative explanation. Document contribution pathways through interviews, reflection sessions, or Outcome Harvesting to understand how the project helped strengthen participation in service planning.

8) If your project aims to strengthen participation and ownership of the key stakeholders, engage them in the indicator methodology design and/or indicator results validation. Involve civil society, partners, and/or government representatives in developing the rubric criteria, reviewing the assigned levels / numerical ratings, and discussing their shared understanding of the different levels of participation.

9) If your project has a strong Gender Equality and Social Inclusion component, consider assessing whether marginalised or underrepresented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities) are meaningfully engaged in the service-planning process. Examine whether their perspectives are considered in planning discussions or draft plans and whether they benefit from the resulting service design. Document any barriers these groups face in participating or influencing planning decisions, and use these insights to recommend ways to make service-planning processes more inclusive and equitable.

10) Link participation to resource decisions. If relevant, examine whether participation extends beyond planning discussions to include budget formulation or resource prioritisation within service design. Assess whether civil society and partners influence how resources are allocated, not only which priorities are identified, as this provides a stronger indication of meaningful and sustained participation.

11) For EU-funded projects, consider the following OPSYS indicators instead (more options can be found on Predefined indicators for design and monitoring of EU-funded interventions website):

• Extent to which civil society and other partners participate in the planning of social protection provision

• Number of government policies developed or revised with civil society organisation participation through EU support