Community Engagement That Actually Engages

Community Engagement That Actually Engages

Published: Friday, 22 May 2026
Category: Advocacy & Systems Change
Reading time: 7 minutes

The survey gets 12 responses. The community forum has 8 people (5 are staff). The online consultation form sits mostly empty.

Then the service announces: "Following extensive community consultation, we've decided..."

This isn't engagement. This is box-ticking.

Real community engagement doesn't happen through one-off surveys. It happens through relationships, over time, with genuine power-sharing.

It means going to community, not expecting community to come to you. It means compensating people for their time and expertise. It means actually using—and being changed by—what you hear.

Most importantly, it means being clear about what level of engagement you're offering. Because calling something "co-design" when you're really just informing creates cynicism and broken trust.

Let me show you what authentic engagement actually looks like.

The IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) created a spectrum showing five levels of engagement. Understanding these levels is crucial—because pretending you're at level 4 when you're really at level 2 causes harm.

Level 1: Inform

Goal: Provide information to the public.

Promise to public: "We will keep you informed."

Looks like:

• Newsletters

• Websites

• Fact sheets

• Community notices

• Information sessions (one-way)

When it's appropriate: When decisions are already made and you're communicating them.

NOT appropriate: When you claim to be "consulting" but you're really just telling people what's happening.

Level 2: Consult

Goal: Obtain feedback on decisions, analysis, or alternatives.

Promise to public: "We will listen to your concerns and ideas. We'll tell you how your input influenced decisions."

Looks like:

• Surveys

• Focus groups

• Public meetings

• Comment forms

• Public hearings

Key point: You're gathering input. Decision-making power stays with you.

When it's appropriate: When you have decision-making authority but want community perspective to inform your decision.

NOT appropriate: When you call it "engagement" but ignore all the feedback.

Level 3: Involve

Goal: Work with community throughout process to ensure concerns and aspirations are understood and considered.

Promise to public: "We will work with you to ensure your concerns are reflected in alternatives developed, and we'll tell you how your input influenced decisions."

Looks like:

• Workshops

• Deliberative processes

• Advisory committees

• Ongoing dialogue

Key point: More iterative than consultation. Multiple touchpoints. Community input directly shapes options.

When it's appropriate: When you have time, resources, and genuine willingness to be influenced by community perspectives.

Level 4: Collaborate

Goal: Partner with community in each aspect of decision-making including development of alternatives and identification of preferred solution.

Promise to public: "We will look to you for advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your recommendations into decisions to the maximum extent possible."

Looks like:

• Joint decision-making committees

• Co-design processes

• Shared governance

• Partnership agreements

Key point: Power is genuinely shared. Community has real influence on decisions.

When it's appropriate: When you're genuinely willing to share decision-making power and can commit to long-term partnership.

Level 5: Empower

Goal: Place final decision-making in hands of community.

Promise to public: "We will implement what you decide."

Looks like:

• Community-controlled programs

• Delegated authority

• Community ballots/voting

• Community-led design and implementation

Key point: Community leads. You support and resource.

When it's appropriate: When community has capacity and interest in leading, and you're genuinely able to hand over decision-making.

Why the Level Matters

The problem: Services claim to be at level 4 (collaborate) or 5 (empower) when they're really at level 2 (consult).

Example:

❌ Calling it co-design when you mean consultation: "We co-designed this program with community!" Reality: You ran one focus group, took some notes, and did what you planned anyway.

The harm:

• Broken trust

• Cynicism about engagement

• Wasted community time and energy

• Tokenism

• Communities less likely to engage next time

Be honest about the level you're at. Genuine consultation is better than fake co-design.

Principles of Authentic Engagement

1. Start Early

Don't engage after decisions are made.

❌"We've designed a program. What do you think?"
✅"We're thinking about this issue. What should we do?"

The earlier you engage, the more community can influence.

Late engagement = box-ticking.

2. Go to Community, Don't Expect Them to Come to You

Traditional engagement: "Community forum at our office, Tuesday 10am."

Who can attend? People with:

• Flexible work hours

• Transport

• Child care

• English fluency

• Comfort in formal settings

• No mobility barriers

Accessible engagement:

• Meet in community spaces (libraries, community centres, cultural spaces)

• Multiple times and locations

• Provide child care, transport assistance, food

• Accessible venues

• Interpreters

• Plain language

• Multiple ways to participate (online, phone, written, in-person)

Go where people already are. Don't expect them to come to you.

3. Compensate People's Time

Community members' time and expertise have value.

Pay people for:

• Attending consultations

• Serving on advisory groups

• Reviewing documents

• Sharing expertise

• Peer research

• Co-design processes

Typical rates: $50-100/hour for consultation, more for specialised expertise.

This:

• Respects their contribution

• Makes engagement accessible to people who can't afford volunteer time

• Signals you value their input

4. Build Relationships, Not Just Transactions

One-off engagement is extractive.

"We need input. Thanks. Bye."

Relationship-based engagement:

• Ongoing connection

• Regular check-ins

• Report back on outcomes

• Involve same people over time

• Build trust through consistency

This takes longer. It's worth it.

5. Be Transparent About Power

Be clear:

• What you can and can't change

• What decisions are already made

• What's negotiable

• Who has final say

Honesty about constraints builds trust more than pretending power is equal when it's not.

6. Report Back

Always close the loop.

"You told us [feedback]. Here's what we did with it. Here's what we changed. Here's what we couldn't change and why."

If you don't report back:

• People feel their time was wasted

• Trust breaks down

• They won't engage next time

Report back even if news isn't good. Honesty matters more than making people happy.

7. Make It Culturally Safe

Different communities have different engagement norms.

Aboriginal engagement:

• Follow cultural protocols

• Work through community-controlled organisations

• Allow time for community decision-making processes

• Recognise cultural governance structures

• Pay respect to Elders

CALD communities:

• Provide interpreters

• Recognise cultural communication styles

• Work through community leaders where appropriate

• Provide materials in community languages

Disability community:

• Ensure physical accessibility

• Provide information in multiple formats

• Allow extra time if needed

• Recognise various communication methods

Don't impose your engagement style. Adapt to community.

Practical Engagement Methods

Beyond Surveys

Surveys are easy for you, hard for many people.

Consider:

• Yarning circles (Aboriginal communities)

• Kitchen table conversations (small, informal gatherings)

• Walking interviews (some people talk more easily while moving)

• Creative methods (art, photovoice, mapping)

• World café (small group rotations)

• Appreciative inquiry (focus on what works)

Match method to community preference, not your convenience.

Advisory Groups

If you're creating advisory groups:

• Diverse membership (don't just recruit usual suspects)

• Clear terms of reference (what's your role, what power do you have)

• Genuine influence (not just rubber-stamping)

• Resourced properly (paid, supported, skilled)

• Accountable (how does your advice get used)

Tokenistic advisory groups do more harm than no group at all.

Co-Design Processes

Real co-design means:

• Community involved from problem definition through implementation

• Shared decision-making power

• Adequate time and resources

• Iterative process (not one workshop)

• Community members paid for participation

• Results actually implemented

Co-design is not: One workshop where you collect Post-it notes and then do what you planned.

Digital Engagement

Online engagement can increase access OR exclude people.

If using digital:

• Always offer non-digital alternatives

• Keep platforms simple

• Test accessibility

• Provide tech support

• Don't assume internet access

• Recognise privacy concerns

Never make digital the only option.

What Good Engagement Looks Like: Examples

Example 1: Redesigning a Community Centre

❌Poor engagement: "Fill out this survey about what programs you'd like." Result: 15 responses, mostly from current users.

✅Good engagement:

• Pop-up consultations at local shops, parks, school pickup times

• Workshops in community languages

• Kids drew their "dream centre."

• Disability access audit with disabled community members

• Aboriginal Elders consulted about cultural programs

• Six months of iterative design

• Community members on building committee

• Opening day reflected community input visibly

Example 2: NDIS Planning Changes

❌Poor engagement: Government announces changes. Disabled people are angry because they weren't consulted.

✅Good engagement:

• Co-design process led by disabled people

• Multiple formats (written, video, Easy Read, Auslan)

• Paid advisory group of disabled people

• Testing of changes with real participants before rollout

• Iterative refinement based on feedback

• Ongoing monitoring with disabled people

Example 3: Youth Homelessness Service

❌Poor engagement: "We asked young people what they need and they said..." Reality: Two young people in one focus group.

✅Good engagement:

• Peer researchers (young people with lived experience) paid to conduct research

• Engagement where young people already are (skate parks, drop-in centres, online)

• Young people on governance committee

• Service co-designed with young people

• Ongoing youth advisory group

• Young people employed in service

When "Engagement" Goes Wrong

Signs you're doing it badly:

• Same 5 people at every consultation

• Only "easy to reach" people engage

• No one from priority groups shows up

• Feedback ignored or dismissed

• Community members say "you never listen"

• High effort from you, low response from community

What to do:

• Stop and reflect on why

• Ask community members for honest feedback

• Change your approach

• Invest more time in relationship-building

• Examine barriers you're creating

Don't blame community for not engaging. If they're not engaging, your process has barriers.

The Investment

Good engagement takes:

• Time (months, not weeks)

• Money (paying people, multiple methods, accessible venues)

• Staff capacity (can't be add-on to full workload)

• Genuine willingness to be changed by what you hear

• Humility (they're the experts, not you)

But the outcomes:

• Services that actually meet needs

• Community ownership and support

• Better uptake and sustainability

• Stronger community relationships

• More effective services

The investment pays off.

The Bigger Question

Engagement isn't just about getting input.

It's about power.

Who gets to decide what services exist? What they look like? Who they serve? How they operate?

Traditional model: Professionals design. Community receives.

Engagement model: Community has voice in design. Professionals listen.

Co-design model: Community and professionals partner in design.

Community-led model: Community designs. Professionals support.

Each level is valid in different contexts. But be honest about which you're doing.

And push toward sharing more power, not less.

Because the people closest to issues usually have the best solutions.

We just need to create space for them to lead.

Key Takeaways

• IAP2 spectrum has five levels: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, empower

• Be honest about what level you're offering—fake collaboration breaks trust

• Go to community, don't expect them to come to you

• Compensate people for their time and expertise

• Build relationships over time, not just one-off transactions

• Report back always—close the loop on what you heard

• Good engagement takes time and resources but creates better outcomes

Reflection Questions

• What level of engagement does your service typically operate at? What level do you claim to be at?

• Who's missing from your engagement processes? Why?

• When did you last genuinely change a decision based on community input?

• What would it take for your service to move up the engagement spectrum?

Further Learning

Build authentic engagement practice with The Community Workers Hub:

• Community Engagement for Social Change - Practical tools for inclusive, meaningful engagement

• Co-Design Methods for Inclusive Service Development - Moving from consultation to genuine partnership

• Collaborative Advocacy: Partnering, Not Rescuing - Power-sharing in all aspects of work

Join The Hub for training in community-centred practice.

Sarah Smallman is the founder of The Community Workers Hub and believes community members are the experts on their own lives and communities.