PNP 6013 Module 5 Stakeholder Engagement Plan Example

Up the Ladder of Participation: A Stakeholder Engagement Plan for a County Overdose Prevention Coalition

Student Name

American College of Education

PNP6013: Stakeholders and Roles in Public and Nonprofit Organizations

Module 5 Assignment

Instructor Name

November 9, 2026

Introduction

This course opened with a map on which those living closest to overdose held the least formal sway, and it continued through structures, a partnership analysis and a design for shared accountability. An engagement plan brings these together: it states, for each stakeholder group, what kind of participation the coalition seeks and how it will get there. The plan pays particular attention to people with lived experience of drug use, recovery and loss, because the earlier modules found their claims the most urgent and their voices the least heard.

A Standard for Participation

Arnstein (1969) pictured participation as an eight-step ladder. Its lowest two steps, manipulation and therapy, are not participation at all; the middle three, informing, consultation and placation, she called tokenism; only the top three, partnership, delegated power and citizen control, give people real power. The ladder offers a standard against which to judge the coalition's current practice. Today, people who use drugs are informed through the harm reduction organization's newsletter and occasionally consulted at meetings; bereaved families are consulted and sometimes placated with a moment of silence before business begins. By Arnstein's standard, the coalition's engagement of the people most affected sits on the rungs she labeled tokenism. The plan's central aim is to move them to partnership within two years.

Engagement Goals by Group

Not every stakeholder needs the same level of participation, and the goals below follow the power and interest analysis of Module 1, an approach consistent with matching engagement to stakeholder position (Bryson, 2004). Core members (health department, harm reduction organization, hospitals, state program): shared decision making through the co-chaired steering group. High-power, lower-interest agencies (sheriff, police, detention center, school district): collaboration on specific projects that serve their own goals, such as jail-release planning and school naloxone policy, with a designated contact in each. People with lived experience (current users, those in recovery and relatives who lost someone to overdose): partnership, with seats on the steering group and authority through the community panel. Supporting members (smaller providers, recovery ministry): involvement through working groups. Missing stakeholders (tribal health programs, pharmacies): initial consultation leading to membership.

Making Partnership Real for People With Lived Experience

Seats alone do not create partnership. Five practices will. First, compensation: community members will be paid $50 an hour for meetings and preparation, the same rate the coalition pays outside consultants, funded through the hospitals' community benefit contributions. Second, access: meetings will alternate between daytime and evening, with one in each quarter held at the harm reduction organization's drop-in center, and transportation and childcare will be covered. Third, safety: no law enforcement members will attend community panel meetings, and the panel's discussions will not be minuted by name. Fourth, preparation: data and agenda materials will be sent a week ahead in plain language, with a pre-meeting briefing for anyone who wants one. Fifth, authority: the panel will approve the coalition's annual priorities and can require any member to present and explain its results.

Engaging the Missing Stakeholders

The tribal health programs will be approached through government-to-government channels, with the county health director writing to tribal health leadership and offering to meet on their terms, recognizing tribal sovereignty and a history of research and programs done to rather than with Native communities. Pharmacies will be approached through the state pharmacists' association and the two largest chains' regional managers, with a concrete request: stock naloxone visibly and display the standing order. Independent pharmacies in neighborhoods with high overdose rates will receive personal visits from the harm reduction organization's outreach staff.

Engaging Agencies With Lower Interest

For the sheriff's office, police, detention center and schools, engagement succeeds when it serves their own priorities. The plan frames each request in their terms: for the detention center, fewer deaths after release and lower liability; for the police, fewer repeat overdose calls; for schools, clear guidance that protects students and staff. Each agency will be asked for one named liaison and one commitment, not for full participation, which respects their limited interest while securing what the coalition needs from them. Ansell and Gash (2008) found that collaboration depends on incentives to participate, and these targeted requests supply them.

Timeline

Months 1 to 3: secure compensation funding, adopt panel rules and invite the first eight panel members through the harm reduction organization and the family support group; send letters to tribal health leadership and the pharmacists' association. Months 4 to 6: first panel meetings, first agency liaisons named, first pharmacy visits. Months 7 to 12: panel approves next year's priorities; two community members join the steering group; tribal health and pharmacy representatives invited to membership if consultation goes well. Year two: review progress up the ladder and adjust.

Risks and Responses

Three risks could undo the plan. Core members may resist sharing authority with the community panel, especially when the panel questions a hospital's results; the co-chairs will need to defend the panel's role and point to the steering group's own vote creating it. Community members may burn out or face crises that interrupt participation, so the panel will have alternates and no member will be expected to attend every meeting. And a single public conflict, such as a panel member criticizing law enforcement in the press, could push agencies away; the panel's rules will distinguish between frank discussion inside the coalition and public statements, which members remain free to make as individuals but not in the coalition's name. Each of these risks calls for preparation rather than retreat.

Who Leads the Plan

The coalition coordinator will manage the plan day to day, with the harm reduction organization's peer outreach lead as co-lead for community engagement, since that person already holds the trust of many participants. The co-chairs will report progress to the steering group each quarter. Compensation, food and transportation are budgeted at about $24,000 a year, shared by the two hospital systems through their community benefit programs.

Measuring Engagement

Engagement can be counted badly, by attendance alone, or well, by influence. The coalition will track four measures: the number of community members on the panel and steering group and their attendance; the share of panel recommendations adopted by the steering group, with reasons recorded when one is not; panel members' own ratings, collected anonymously each year, of whether their input changed decisions; and the number of previously missing stakeholders who have become members. The third measure matters most. If community members say their participation is still token, the plan has not succeeded, whatever the attendance figures show.

Conclusion

The engagement plan matches each group's participation to its position and stake: shared decisions for the core, focused collaboration for agencies with lower interest, partnership for people with lived experience and outreach for those still missing. Payment, access, safety, preparation and authority give partnership substance, and measures of influence, including participants' own judgments, keep the plan honest. If it works, the coalition will move from consulting the people most affected by overdose to sharing decisions with them, which is where its legitimacy, and likely its effectiveness, depends.

References

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030410001675722