How to do community engagement well: a practical guide to IAP2

Start with the decision, before choosing the activity

When I think about community engagement, I start with the relationship between people’s everyday experience and the decisions an organisation needs to make. In local government, community development and social planning, that might mean understanding how a neighbourhood uses a community centre, what makes a service difficult to access, or which priorities should shape a local plan.

Before booking a workshop or writing a survey, name the decision. Who will make it? What is still open? What is fixed by funding, an earlier commitment or a technical requirement? When does community input need to reach the people making the decision?

For example, a council may have funding to improve an existing reserve, but no scope to buy more land. Residents could influence how the space supports walking, play, rest and social connection. Explain that boundary at the beginning, while there is still time to consider different uses and layouts. Asking people to imagine an unrestricted redevelopment creates expectations the project cannot meet.

The examples in this guide are hypothetical planning situations, offered to show how the principles can work in practice.

Put the IAP2 principles into everyday practice

The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) provides Core Values and a Spectrum of Public Participation. The values establish an ethical foundation; the Spectrum helps describe the public’s role in a particular decision. They work together, but choosing a level on the Spectrum does not, by itself, make a process inclusive or useful.

• Treat affected people as participants in the decision process, with a contribution that can make a difference.
• Consider the needs of communities and decision-makers when developing a direction that can last.
• Actively reach people with a stake in the outcome, including those who rarely attend formal consultations.
• Ask participants what would help them take part, and provide usable information.
• Explain afterwards how their contributions shaped the decision.

Understand the IAP2 Spectrum: Inform to Empower

The five levels describe different amounts of public influence. Choose a level that the decision-maker can honour. Empower is appropriate where the public can make the final choice; it is not a general promise to attach to every project. A programme can use different levels for different decisions or stages, provided those differences are clear.

The descriptions below are my plain-language explanation of the IAP2 Spectrum, with suggested methods. They are not a reproduction of the official chart.

• Inform: help people understand the issue, options and decision. Accessible fact sheets, translated updates, briefings and on-site notices can support this. If works are already approved, explain the timing and impacts clearly; information alone does not offer influence over that approval.
• Consult: seek feedback to inform a decision the organisation will make. Surveys, interviews, submissions and pop-up conversations can test draft service options. Explain what feedback will be considered and report how it affected the outcome.
• Involve: work with people throughout the process so their concerns help shape the options. Repeat small-group sessions, neighbourhood walks and workshops can help develop and test a community-facility brief as it changes.
• Collaborate: work in partnership on the problem, alternatives and preferred direction. A co-design group or joint planning forum needs agreed roles, access to relevant evidence and a real route into decisions. A single workshop called “co-design” does not establish that partnership.
• Empower: give the public the final decision within an explicitly agreed scope and commit to carrying it out. A community allocation process for a defined budget could fit where the organisation has authorised that decision. A panel that only recommends an option remains advisory.

Match the method to the influence being offered

The activity does not determine the level. A workshop might gather feedback on a completed draft, help people develop alternatives over several sessions, or support a partnership with shared responsibilities. Those are different offers of influence, even if all three use sticky notes and small-group discussion.

Write the public role in a sentence before selecting methods. For a community consultation on centre opening hours: “Your feedback will help us assess these three options. Council will decide the hours and explain the reasons.” For participatory planning: “We will work with this group to develop and test the options before recommending a direction.” The commitment needs to match the actual approval process.

Then check whether the method gives people enough time, information and support to fulfil that role. If participants are comparing complex trade-offs, a short online poll will rarely be enough on its own. If you need to understand an access barrier, a conversation in the place where it occurs may be more useful than a large public meeting.

In local government, agree the public role with the responsible officers and decision-makers before inviting participation. Check the council’s engagement policy, approval pathways and applicable requirements. Do not promise authority the project does not have.

Build a community engagement strategy around access

A stakeholder engagement list is a useful starting point, but organised groups are only part of a community. Map who uses the place, who depends on the service, who might be affected without living nearby, and who faces barriers to taking part. Include people who have stopped using a service as well as its current users.

Plan with those differences in mind. Offer suitable times and accessible venues, phone or paper options alongside digital participation, plain-language and translated information where needed, and interpreters or other support. Budget for access at the beginning. For substantial contributions of lived experience or ongoing advisory work, consider payment and make the arrangements clear.

Ask trusted community organisations how to make contact, while recognising that one organisation or community leader cannot speak for everyone. Work with Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities through appropriate local relationships and protocols; allow time to agree the process rather than treating them as one more entry on a general mailing list.

Be clear about what information you are collecting, how it will be used, who will see it and whether someone can participate without being publicly identified. Avoid asking people to repeat difficult personal experiences when existing evidence already answers the question.

Use place-based engagement to understand everyday life

Place-based engagement asks how a location works for people across an ordinary day. A map may show a nearby facility, while residents describe a difficult road crossing, limited evening transport or a space where they do not feel welcome. Those experiences help social planning connect population data and service provision with actual access.

For a neighbourhood plan, combine walks or conversations in local settings with service data, observation and sessions at different times. Speak with young people, older residents, renters, workers, carers and people with disability, according to the decision and local context. Ask concrete questions: Where do you meet people? What do you avoid? What would make it easier to use this place?

Carry what you learn into the planning brief. If people identify an inaccessible entrance, record the design implication and who will investigate it. If an issue sits outside the project, explain that and identify a referral or future planning pathway where one exists. Do not quietly discard it because it does not fit the original question.

Make room for disagreement and interpret findings carefully

Good facilitation helps people understand each other’s needs without requiring everyone to agree. Establish discussion expectations, offer quieter ways to contribute and distinguish a strongly held preference from a shared concern. Keep track of whose perspectives are missing.

A high response count does not automatically make consultation representative. An open survey shows what its respondents reported; it does not establish what all residents think. Record how people were recruited, the participation gaps and the limits of each method. Read patterns alongside minority experiences that may reveal a serious access issue.

Combine community knowledge with research, service information and practical constraints. Show where the evidence aligns, where it differs and what needs further investigation. Avoid reducing a complex planning question to a vote between options before people have had a chance to understand the implications.

Close the loop and connect engagement to delivery

Reporting back is part of the work. Tell people what you heard, what changed, what did not change and why. Give a date for the next update, including when the decision is delayed. Share the response through the channels participants used, as well as the project website.

A useful report links feedback to a decision and an action. For example: “Participants described difficulty reaching the centre after work. The final programme includes a trial evening session, with attendance and access reviewed after three months.” Where a request cannot proceed, explain the constraint and any next step without presenting a vague future possibility as a commitment.

Agree who owns each follow-up action, how it will be resourced and how progress will be reviewed. Evaluate both the process and its contribution: who could participate, whether the promise was met, what changed and what the organisation learnt. Community development also asks what relationships and capacity remain after the project team leaves.

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Inviting ideas after the important decisions have already been made.
• Calling consultation collaboration, or calling an advisory recommendation empowerment.
• Using a single digital channel and treating silence as agreement.
• Relying only on familiar stakeholders or the most confident voices.
• Collecting more personal information or painful stories than the decision requires.
• Counting responses without examining participation gaps and conflicting needs.
• Publishing a findings report without explaining the decision, responsibilities or next steps.

A practical check before you begin

A community engagement strategy should be usable by the team delivering it. Before launch, check that you can answer these questions in plain language.

• What decision are we asking people to influence, and what is outside the scope?
• Who makes the decision, and what public role have they agreed to?
• Who needs to participate, who might be missing, and what support will make participation possible?
• Do our methods match the influence, complexity and time available?
• How will we analyse contributions and explain the limits of the evidence?
• When will we report back, and who will carry the agreed actions into practice?

Community engagement support in Melbourne and Victoria

If you are looking for a community engagement consultant in Melbourne, Soft Infrastructure can help connect the purpose of your project with an appropriate process and practical follow-through. My work brings together local government, community development, social planning and place-based practice.

Explore Community engagement and co-design for engagement planning and participation, Facilitation and complex problem-solving for purposeful group work, and Strategy, policy and implementation to carry findings into organisational decisions and action.

Read more about making participation meaningful

Discuss your engagement project

Sources and further reading

This guide draws on IAP2’s Core Values, Spectrum and Code of Ethics. The practical examples and method suggestions are Alisha’s interpretation; they do not imply IAP2 endorsement.

• IAP2 International: Core Values for Public Participation
• IAP2 International: Spectrum of Public Participation (2024)
• IAP2 International: Code of Ethics