SayPro 100 example questions to better gauge the relevance and actionability of stakeholder feedback

General Relevance

1. Does this feedback align with the current needs and priorities of our community?
2. How well does this feedback reflect the realities and challenges faced by stakeholders?
3. To what extent does this feedback address the core issues of our social impact programs?
4. Is this feedback representative of the views of a diverse range of stakeholders?
5. Does this feedback highlight new or emerging issues that we haven’t addressed yet?
6. How relevant is this feedback to the strategic goals of SayPro’s initiatives?
7. Does this feedback reflect the evolving needs and expectations of our target demographics?
8. How closely does this feedback align with other feedback we’ve received from similar stakeholders?
9. Are the concerns raised in this feedback consistent with our previous research or data?
10. Is the feedback addressing the right issues at the right time in the context of our social programs?

Actionability

11. Can this feedback be turned into specific, actionable steps to improve our programs?
12. How feasible is it to implement the suggestions made in this feedback?
13. Does this feedback provide clear, actionable recommendations for program improvement?
14. Is the feedback specific enough to guide actionable changes in our social initiatives?
15. How practical is it to incorporate this feedback into our current and future strategies?
16. Does this feedback offer any immediate, quick-win solutions that we can implement right away?
17. Are there clear stakeholders or groups that this feedback pertains to, and can we address their concerns?
18. How easy is it for us to act on the feedback without significant changes to our current resources?
19. Does this feedback provide clear priorities for our next steps in community engagement?
20. What concrete actions can we take based on this feedback to improve our programs?

Context and Understanding

21. Does this feedback provide enough context for us to understand the underlying concerns?
22. How well does this feedback align with the data and trends we’ve been observing?
23. To what degree does this feedback reflect an understanding of our program goals and objectives?
24. Is there any ambiguity in the feedback that makes it difficult to translate into action?
25. Does the feedback provide enough details to help us make informed decisions about program adjustments?
26. Is the feedback coming from stakeholders who fully understand the scope of the programs they’re commenting on?
27. Is there a clear link between this feedback and measurable outcomes in our programs?
28. Does this feedback suggest a misunderstanding of the objectives or methods of the program?
29. How easy is it for us to interpret the intent behind the feedback provided?
30. Does this feedback consider the broader impact of our programs, or is it focused solely on specific issues?

Specificity and Clarity

31. How specific is the feedback in terms of identifying problems or areas of improvement?
32. Does the feedback provide clear examples of what is or isn’t working in our programs?
33. Can we pinpoint the exact aspects of the program that need to be revised based on this feedback?
34. How well-defined are the issues raised in the feedback, and can they be directly addressed?
35. Is the feedback actionable in a way that can be directly applied to existing strategies or plans?
36. How detailed are the recommendations made in the feedback, and do they offer clear paths forward?
37. Does this feedback point to specific barriers that need to be removed for success?
38. How precise are the suggestions for improvement, and do they align with our program scope?
39. Can we map this feedback to existing challenges or gaps in our current strategies?
40. How clearly does this feedback identify the necessary resources or changes to address the issues?

Stakeholder Representation

41. Does this feedback reflect the views of the key stakeholders in the program?
42. Are the perspectives represented in the feedback consistent with our target demographics?
43. How well does this feedback capture the voices of marginalized or underserved communities?
44. Is there any evidence that this feedback comes from a small, unrepresentative subset of stakeholders?
45. How balanced is the feedback in terms of addressing both positive and negative aspects of the program?
46. Does this feedback reflect the opinions of stakeholders who are directly affected by the program?
47. How well do the feedback contributors understand the local context and challenges?
48. Does the feedback reflect diverse viewpoints from different community groups?
49. Is the feedback inclusive of people with disabilities, low-income groups, and other vulnerable populations?
50. How representative is this feedback compared to the broader stakeholder population we serve?

Impact and Outcomes

51. Does this feedback indicate potential improvements in measurable outcomes for the community?
52. How will acting on this feedback directly impact the success of our social programs?
53. Can we track the impact of implementing this feedback in our programs’ effectiveness?
54. Does this feedback suggest improvements in long-term community engagement and sustainability?
55. How likely is this feedback to lead to positive changes in both short- and long-term program outcomes?
56. Does this feedback suggest that we will be able to increase community participation or buy-in?
57. How aligned is this feedback with our intended social impact goals?
58. Can we use this feedback to improve specific programmatic outcomes or KPIs?
59. How much improvement in social impact can we expect by integrating this feedback?
60. Does this feedback focus on areas of the program that stakeholders feel will have the highest return on impact?

Timing and Urgency

61. How urgent are the issues raised in this feedback in terms of program timing?
62. Does this feedback address immediate concerns that need to be prioritized right now?
63. How time-sensitive are the suggestions or recommendations made in this feedback?
64. Are the issues raised in this feedback critical to the program’s success within the next year?
65. Is this feedback suggesting changes that need to be implemented before the next program cycle?
66. How does this feedback affect the current timeline or milestones of our programs?
67. Does this feedback highlight critical issues that, if not addressed immediately, could harm program effectiveness?
68. How urgently do we need to act on this feedback to ensure the success of our social programs?
69. Is the timing of this feedback aligned with program planning or implementation schedules?
70. Does the feedback suggest that the timing of our program delivery needs to be adjusted?

Feasibility and Resources

71. Does the feedback identify specific resource requirements for implementing the suggestions?
72. How feasible is it to make the changes suggested in this feedback with our current budget?
73. Does the feedback highlight resource constraints that we need to address to improve program delivery?
74. Can we implement the changes suggested without significant additional investment or effort?
75. Does this feedback require a reallocation of resources or restructuring of program elements?
76. How realistic are the suggestions given our current staffing, funding, and logistical capabilities?
77. Does the feedback suggest solutions that require substantial external resources or support?
78. Is there a clear pathway for integrating these feedback suggestions into existing workflows and processes?
79. How easily can the resources needed to implement the feedback be secured or reallocated?
80. Can we implement these changes without compromising other critical aspects of our program?

Long-Term Sustainability

81. How likely are the recommendations from this feedback to lead to long-term sustainability for the program?
82. Does this feedback help ensure that the program will remain relevant and effective over time?
83. How does the feedback align with our long-term goals for community development and social impact?
84. Will implementing this feedback contribute to the scalability and growth of our initiatives?
85. How well does this feedback ensure that our programs will remain resilient to future challenges?
86. Does the feedback suggest actions that will increase program sustainability beyond the current funding cycle?
87. How does this feedback support the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices in our programs?
88. Does this feedback help in building long-term partnerships and community trust?
89. Will addressing this feedback lead to greater community ownership and self-sufficiency in the future?
90. Does the feedback ensure that the social impact initiatives will continue to evolve and adapt to future needs?

Community Trust and Engagement

91. Does this feedback reflect stakeholders’ trust in the organization’s ability to act on their input?
92. How likely is this feedback to strengthen community relationships and increase trust in SayPro?
93. Does the feedback indicate that stakeholders feel their voices are being heard and valued?
94. How well does the feedback reflect community engagement in decision-making processes?
95. How can we ensure transparency when responding to this feedback?
96. Does this feedback suggest ways to deepen community involvement in program design or implementation?
97. How does the feedback impact the level of ongoing engagement with stakeholders?
98. Does this feedback highlight any concerns about lack of trust or transparency in our programs?
99. How will acting on this feedback improve our community engagement strategies?
100. Does this feedback suggest new ways to enhance communication and collaboration with stakeholders?