Make better decisions by understanding who is affected and listening properly

Every service, policy and major decision affects people differently. Some stakeholders have formal authority. Others have influence, specialist knowledge or direct experience. Some voices are heard repeatedly, while others, often those most affected, are easily overlooked.

Barefoot Research and Evaluation helps organisations identify the people and organisations who matter, understand their different interests and experiences, and gather evidence that can be used to make fairer, better-informed decisions.

We do more than produce a list of stakeholders. We examine relationships, influence, competing priorities and gaps in representation. We then design an accessible consultation that enables people to contribute meaningfully—not simply confirm a decision that has already been made.

Who needs to be involved?

A good stakeholder analysis asks more than “Who should we invite?”

It considers:

Who is directly affected by the decision?
Who delivers, funds or oversees the service?
Who holds relevant professional or lived knowledge?
Who has the power to influence what happens?
Who may experience unintended consequences?
Whose voice is usually absent?
What barriers might prevent people from participating?
Where do interests align—and where are the likely tensions?

This groundwork helps us design consultations that are proportionate, inclusive and capable of producing useful evidence.

How we can help

We undertake stakeholder analysis and consultation for:

Service reviews and redesign.
Policy development.
Local authority and public-sector decision-making.
Organisational change.
Funding strategies and programme development.
Community engagement.
Partnership and systems reviews.
Equality, accessibility and inclusion work.
Decisions involving competing or sensitive interests.

Depending on the subject and the people involved, we may use interviews, surveys, accessible workshops, roundtables, focus groups, written submissions or participatory research methods.

We adapt the process rather than expecting everyone to communicate in the same way.

Everybody knows something

Our approach begins with a simple principle: everybody knows something, and that knowledge has a logic, a history and a value.

The people who use a service, deliver it, commission it or experience its consequences will understand different parts of the same problem. Our job is to bring that knowledge together carefully, make power and disagreement visible, and help organisations use the resulting evidence well.

Planning a consultation or service review?

We can help you identify the right stakeholders, reach people who may otherwise be excluded, manage difficult conversations and turn varied perspectives into clear, practical findings.

Talk to Barefoot about your consultation →

In practice: reviewing Newcastle’s Late Night Levy

Newcastle City Council commissioned Barefoot to undertake an independent consultation as part of its review of the city’s Late Night Levy.

The Levy affected a complex and sometimes competing range of interests. These included licensed premises, the hospitality and nighttime economy, public authorities, trade representatives, community organisations and people concerned with safety and the wider experience of the city at night.

Our role was to ensure that the review was informed by credible evidence rather than by the loudest or most powerful voices.

We designed and delivered a consultation that included:

Two facilitated stakeholder roundtables, involving 25 participants at the first session and 11 at the second.
Individual interviews providing space for more detailed or sensitive contributions.
Written submissions from businesses, representative bodies and other stakeholders.
Review and analysis of supporting evidence.
Identification of areas of agreement, disagreement and concern.
A clear and neutral report bringing the different strands of evidence together.

The consultation enabled strongly held and sometimes conflicting positions to be examined fairly. Rather than reducing the issue to a simple vote for or against the Levy, our analysis explored what people believed, why they held those views and how the Levy affected different parts of the city.