Answers exist in the communities being served and it is our job to support our public sector partners in uplifting them. The issues we take on do not have “one-size-fits-all” fixes; context matters to both defining the problem and crafting the solution. As such, local champions who know the landscape and can commit to carrying out a vision play a critical role in shaping success. They are also well-positioned to improve newly implemented programs and policies over time to ensure intended and sustained impact. 

To tap into the wisdom of the community, engagement must be pursued with intention. We recommend eight key practices to create meaningful opportunities that result in rich and actionable insights.  

PRACTICE #1: Come into engagement activities curious, without assumptions or predetermined ideas. 

As facilitators of the Governor’s Workforce Commission on Equity and Access in Illinois, we started by exploring the needs of the workforce development system users to understand their challenges and pain points. With our colleagues at MDRC, we created job seeker personas and journey maps and conducted many focus groups with workforce providers and job seekers. Notably, we uncovered specific issues for undocumented workers who felt they could not access good jobs because of work authorization requirements. We also learned that they feel their education, skills, and work experience gained in their home countries are not appreciated or valued in the U.S. They wanted more guidance in using those skills beyond the employment market that overlooked them.  With that input in mind, the resulting recommendations included expanded support for those interested in entrepreneurship and self-employment. 

PRACTICE #2: Include the most impacted individuals, with particular focus on historically underrepresented groups. 

Illinois’ transition to a new unified Department of Early Childhood prompted the creation of robust new engagement channels to include input from impacted parties in the agency design process. While they were successful in hearing from nearly 1,400 individuals, only a small percentage of them were parents or providers. With the help of Afton Partners, the state doubled down on their efforts to reach those groups. We implemented a regional listening session plan, inviting local organizations across the state to serve as hosts. Leveraging local networks proved successful: the 1,700 new participants represented every county in the state, and 98% identified themselves as parents or providers. Of those who were parents, 40% identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 25% identified as African American. Over half of the participants represented rural communities. The more robust participation ensured we had insights that better reflected different communities’ experiences with the current system and what improvements they would deem helpful. 

PRACTICE #3: Make engagement accessible for participants. 

With the Colorado Early Childhood Compensation and Benefits Task Force, we conducted focus groups and surveys in English and Spanish. Additionally, we offered meeting times in both the afternoon and evening to accommodate participants’ work schedules.  Participants received incentives and professional development credit for their contributions and time. To ensure an inclusive process, communications came in multiple formats and included sign language, ADA-compliant accessibility in print and online materials, and the avoidance of jargon in favor of language everyone could relate to. All of these measures led to robust input, and the insights played a valuable role in the development of the task force’s recommendations.  

PRACTICE #4: Set norms and expectations from the start. 

Afton facilitated the development of the Great Start for All Minnesota Task Force’s guiding principles that set the conditions for their process and final recommendations. Co-developed by members, the principles reflected the task force’s values and provided shared expectations for engagement.  

Revisiting the guiding principles at every meeting kept everyone aligned in productive conversation that valued input from all members.  The 12 norms and expectations included: 

• Attend meetings prepared and on time 

• Engage in respectful dialogue 

• Everyone’s input is important 

• Assume best intent 

• Listen with an open mind, and for commonalities 

• Don’t say or type anything you wouldn’t want to have shared in public 

• Don’t just disagree, offer a doable alternative idea 

In complex processes, co-created norms and expectations offer built-in accountability that has full buy-in from the start. The result is less conflict, quicker course correction when needed, and more efficient discussion in pursuit of the end goal.  

PRACTICE #5: Demonstrate respect, transparency, honesty, and genuine appreciation for all perspectives shared. 

In any community engagement activity, people want their input to be heard, valued, and impactful. In our focus groups conducted with the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, we made sure to clearly articulate why input is needed, what it will be used for, who it will be shared with, and how it will influence final recommendations. We made it clear that there is “no wrong answer” and guaranteed anonymity in our notetaking to encourage sharing and disclosure. Finally, to ensure we close the feedback loop with participants, we shared the final report with our summary findings and results so they can know how their perspectives shaped outcomes and their efforts made a difference. 

PRACTICE #6: Pursue broad and diverse participation when analyzing and making meaning of data. 

Individual, structural, and institutional biases can emerge in community engagement work, and it’s also important to consider statistical bias. In our data analysis and financial modeling work for school districts and charter school networks, Afton emphasizes the significance of looking at site-level financial, academic, and student data in school-level funding allocation policy and budgeting. This must accompany district-wide data analysis to make sure important details aren’t missed.  

For example, certain schools may have higher or changing needs of students, or student outcomes may be on an undesirable trajectory. Examining funding variation across all sites with distinct characteristics and forecasting future expenditures and investments at the school level can reveal unintentional inequities in the school plan. Therefore, it’s critical to have broad participation from education staff, community members, and students and families in interpretive activities that inform decisions.  Those with lived experiences related to the data can explain what it means to them, providing enriched understanding and problem-solving possibilities. 

PRACTICE #7: Conduct iterative engagement activities at various points in the project; consider a variety of methods or approaches. 

Our work with the Office of the Deputy Mayor of Education in Washington DC sought to develop a funding policy that provides equitable and adequate resources to serve each student well and to make a clear case for policy change. In collaboration with our project partners, we identified four primary groups to engage with through a variety of methods: district leaders; school personnel; families, students, and the community; and city leadership. The strategies to engage with each of these groups varied to meet the needs and positioning of participants. For example, we used a survey to capture straightforward financial data from district leaders who deal with the funding policy daily. However, a focus group proved more appropriate for parents and families, allowing for nuanced conversation about the resource needs of students. Finally, we interviewed key school personnel and leaders to gather their insights on the implications of the work at hand.  

Taken together, some groups and methods provided foundational information while others provided valuable reactions to proposals as they took shape. We synthesized all of the feedback to discover recurring themes across the district that either fortified quantitative data or showed important areas of tension, all of which informed the final policy recommendations. 

PRACTICE #8: Ask for feedback along the way and at the end. 

How do you know your process works for participants? Do they feel they have adequate opportunity to share? Do they walk away from each encounter feeling informed? Empowered? Something else? What could be improved for the next community engagement activity?  

In addition to gathering responses to make short-term adjustments, collecting feedback at the end of an initiative offers teams an opportunity to reflect on both the outcomes of a process and the methods used to create them. For instance, every phase of a project brings about a new host of questions. And yet, survey fatigue is real. Narrowing in on the most important questions and choosing the appropriate approach (“is a survey the right way to get what we need?”) can facilitate high-quality responses and reduce attrition over time.  

Done well, community engagement offers unparalleled insight into the reality of complex problems and their workable solutions.  

But we can’t just go through the motions.  

Employing the eight practices will ensure you harness the power of collective wisdom to create the transformational change your communities want and deserve.