Community Engagement

Edited by: Sheharyar.

It seems obvious that a community would be engaged in work that will impact that community.
However, many times decisions are made for a community without that community providing any
insight or offering any comments. Innovative leaders practice exclusion and are proactive to
include all the stakeholders during the planning and decision-making process. A proactive leader
first defines the community and then begins the process of engaging that community in a
conversation.

Community is defined by the project leader, based on the situation, and described by “who is
included and who is excluded from membership” (Community engagement, CDC, 1997). At other
times, community is defined as “a group of people united by at least one common characteristic
such geography, shared interests, values, experiences, or traditions. Community is also a feeling
or sense of belonging, a relationship, a place, or an institution (CDC, 1997).

In simplest words, A community is a group of people who share something in common. This could
be:

• Location (like a neighborhood, town, or country)

• Interests (such as a hobby group, sports team fans, or online forum members)

• Experience (such as unemployed students, female oppression, or underprivileged group)

• Identity (such as cultural, ethnic, or religious communities)

• Goals or values (like environmental activists or business professionals)

Communities can be physical (face-to-face) or virtual (online).

Engagement of the community is sometimes difficult to define and especially difficult to

measure. For most projects, engagement means that the individual understands the purpose of
the initiative, develops a sense of ownership, commits to the process and the outcome, and
works toward achieving success (CDC, 1997).

Community engagement was given a working definition by the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) when its first edition of Principles was published. The organization agreed that
community engagement was: …the process of working collaboratively with and through
groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interest, or similar situations to
address issues affecting the well-being of those people It is a powerful vehicle for bringing
about environmental and behavioral changes that will improve the health of the community
and its members. It often involves partnerships and coalitions that help mobilize resources
and influence systems, change relationships among partners, and serve as catalysts for
changing policies, programs, and practices (CDC, 1997, p 9 – published in CDC, Principles of
Community Engagement Second Edition, 2011, p. 3). As defined by the CDC, “the goals of
community engagement are to build trust, enlist new resources and allies, create better
communication, and improve overall health outcomes as successful projects evolve into lasting
collaborations” (CDC, 2011, p. 3).

According to another definition Community engagement can be defined as a process of

working with people in a community to address issues affecting their well-being, in order to
achieve common goals (MFSH, 2008).

Community engagement is based on effective communication between people. It also requires

respect and trust between the participants, and a common understanding and purpose. Engaging
communities in planning and decision making can strengthen their capacity to take action that
produces positive changes. It helps to give communities a sense of ownership of projects and
interventions, making them more sustainable into the future.

Community engagement is a key approach or strategy used to achieve community development.

Community Development is Positive change in the community’s condition. The aim of
community development is to improve living conditions, ensure provision of equity, services, etc.
Philanthropic organizations such as the Kellogg Foundation agree that “people have the inherent
capacity of solve their own problems and that social transformation is within the reach of all
communities.” The Kellogg Foundation clearly states that it seeks engagement through dialogue,
leadership development, collaboration, and new models of organizing. It wants to partner with
those who are committed to inclusion, impact, and innovation in solving public problems (W.K.
Kellogg Foundation).

Principles of Community Engagement

The following principles are intended to underpin the community engagement process and should
be taken into consideration as you plan engagement activities (adapted from MFSH, 2008):
• Transparency: Provide relevant information to the community in an understandable way.

• Recognize diversity: A community usually comprises a broad and diverse group of people
encompassing different ethnicities, gender, age, socio-economic backgrounds, values and
physical and mental ability. They may speak different languages and have a wide range of
literacy and numeracy skills. All their backgrounds, interests, needs, values and aspirations
should be considered.

• Inclusive participation: Provide all sections of the community with opportunities to

contribute to and influence outcomes that will directly affect their lives.
 • Equality: Encourage open discussion so that no sections of the community are left out and
all ideas are treated with respect. Decisions should not be controlled by one particular
section of a community.

• Cooperation: Schedule meetings at times and in places that are convenient for as many
people as possible.

• Responsiveness: Respond to concerns and complaints from members of the community

and provide feedback on the project process.
• Deliberation: Decisions should be made with careful deliberation to reach consensus
among those involved, following a process of thoughtful consideration of different options,
through reason and dialogue rather than power struggles.

• Influence: The outcome of the community engagement process should influence policy
making and the eventual decisions.

These guiding principles are an important foundation for effective community engagement so that
initiatives can be implemented, understood and reported appropriately.

Principles The literature on community engagement is extensive. Petts & Leach undertook a
review of some of this material, drawing together an overview of approaches and lessons learnt
from these approaches. One of the outcomes of the review was to develop a list of principles
underpinning effective community engagement activities. These principles can be used for choice,
design, implementation and evaluation of varying community engagement methods. The main
principles Petts and Leach recommend when planning engagement activities include:

• A need for clarity of objectives, and of legal, linked and seamless processes, where relevant.
• Consensus on agenda, procedures and effectiveness.

• Representativeness and inclusiveness.

• Deliberation. • Capability and social learning.

• Decision responsiveness. • Transparency and enhancement of trust.

Other principles identified as important through DSE/DPI’s experience in community engagement

include:

• Being in the present. • An intent to ‘connect with’ citizens and stakeholders.

• Balancing the logical development of a plan with intuition.

The six C’s of successful community engagement

The six C’s of successful community engagement are:

Capability: the members are capable of dialogue.

Commitment: mutual benefit beyond self-interest.

Contribution: members volunteer and there is an environment that encourages members to ‘have
a go’ or take responsibility / risks.

Continuity: Members share or rotate roles and, as members move on, there is a transition process
that sustains and maintains the community corporate memory.

Collaboration: Reliable interdependence. A clear vision with members operating in an environment

of sharing and trust.

Conscience: Embody or invoke guiding principles / ethics of service, trust and respect that are
expressed in the actions of the community.

Note: the six Cs may be seen as targets or as filters to measure the quality of the functioning of
the community.

Levels of community engagement

Community engagement activities can be categorized as different levels, as shown in below
Figure The levels indicate increasing involvement and active participation by the community in
the process.

Community engagement model (MFSH, 2008)

The first level is information sharing. This is a two-way process in contrast to just providing
information, which is a one-way flow of information from government (or other authority) to the
community. Under information sharing, the government considers information from the
community as well as providing the community with information.

The second level of community engagement is consultation. This is another two-way process in
which the government or service provider seeks and considers the views of citizens, clients or
communities on policies, programmes or services that affect them directly or in which they may
have a significant interest.
 The different levels of engagement illustrated in Figure may not all apply in all community
engagement initiatives. However, as the levels of engagement extend from consultation (Level 2)
through the higher levels, the amount of community participation increases and so does the level
of community empowerment. Empowerment is the process whereby individuals or communities
gain confidence, self-esteem and power to articulate their concerns and ensure that action is taken
to address them. Each successive level enables communities to be more active and empowered
participants, having a greater voice and greater influence in decision making on policies and
programmes. At the highest level, Level 5, the community takes over management and control of
the project.

Levels of community engagement and their objectives. (Adapted from MFSH, 2008)

Level and type Explanation

of engagement

1 Sharing Objective: To share accurate, timely, relevant and easily understood

information information about decisions regarding policies, services or issues that have
arisen.
Information can be passive (poster or brochure) or active (face-to-face
meetings).
This level is the primary form of community engagement, on its own it offers
no further involvement – but it underpins all other levels and is necessary for
successive levels of engagement.

Information assists the community in understanding the issues and increases

their capacity to effectively contribute in successive levels of engagement.

2 Consultation Objective: To actively seek community opinions, before a decision is made.

Communities’ views help inform the final decision.

3 Planning Objective: To collaborate with the community in identifying and analysing

together issues, developing alternatives and identifying preferred solutions,
communities provide input into the planning and evaluation.

May involve short-term collaboration or more permanent partnerships, and a

reporting mechanism so that contributions are monitored.

4 Acting Objective: Similar to planning together, except that the community will be
together involved in implementing as well as identifying preferred solutions, i.e. the
 WASH practitioner and communities share in the planning and evaluation and
also share responsibility for making decisions and implementing them.

May involve sharing additional resources.

5 Community Objective: To support or enable the community to identify issues and solutions,
directed make decisions and implement them and hence forward to manage a service.
Community may be referred to as a partner.
Provides a framework with financial resources to enable communities to plan,
commission, manage, deliver and evaluate their own services.
Builds community capacity for planning and delivering services and
addressing community issues.

Methods of community engagement

There are many different methods of community engagement. Below table gives some examples.
Some are only suitable for one level of engagement and others can be used more widely.

Community engagement methods. (Adapted from MFSH, 2008)

Level and type of Methods of engagement

engagement

1 Sharing information Face-to-face meetings

Newsletters, posters in public places, letters and flyers

Press releases for local radio and television

Advertisements, notifications or articles in local newspaper

Website

2 Consultation Stakeholder meetings, interviews

Public meetings and forums

Surveys, questionnaires
Focus group discussions
Distribution of documents
3 Planning together and Stakeholder meetings
and acting together
Workshops, discussions, action planning meetings
4
In-depth interviews and discussions

Participatory stakeholder mapping

Participatory planning and implementation

Advisory committees, area councils or steering committees

Taskforces, planning groups, strategic alliances and formal

agreements

5 Community directed Community development

Participatory planning, implementation, expenditure tracking and

performance monitoring, with public authority support

A high level of community engagement, such as collaborating to develop partnerships and

provide recommendations at the project design stage, will help to sustain a project, empowering
the community to make decisions and to implement and manage change.

It may be impossible to fully engage the community at every stage and you should consider the
most appropriate level of engagement and participation for each particular situation. Most
programmes claim to have high community engagement but may actually provide very little
opportunity for the community to participate in the project implementation, so a key message is to
avoid promising a level of participation that cannot actually be achieved. But the more you engage
the community in decision making, the higher the level of ownership of the decisions made and
consequently, the greater the likelihood of success.

Process of Community Engagement

Simply knowing that community engagement is beneficial to developing and implementing a
project is not enough. Knowledge requires action to create impact. Russ Linden (2002) suggested
that certain conditions must be present before collaboration or engagement can occur. Conditions
include:

• Shared and defined purpose. • Willingness to collaborate.

• Commitment to contributing. • Participation of the right people.

• Open and credible process. • Involvement of a champion with credibility and clout.
The engagement process is complex but manageable. Initially the leadership will:
• Convene a small group to clarify and validate the vision. • Discuss and define the initiative and
its potential impact. • Set the purpose and goals for community engagement. • Define the
community. • Know and respect the community’s characteristics. • Develop a relationship with
the community, build trust, work with formal and informal leadership, find the community
gatekeeper, identify the project champion, meet with the local organizations, and learn the assets
and challenges for that community. • Find the common interests. With the community defined and
a relationship established, the work is ready to continue.

The following four phases provide an outline for the community engagement process.

Phase I: Set the Stage

• Invite the stakeholders to a conversation on the vision. Go to the community instead of having
the community come to you.

• Create a constructive environment for dialogue allowing time to get to know the participants
remembering that the community’s time is valuable and must be respected.

• Identify the person or the organization that has convened the group and will provide initial
leadership and organizational management until a management/leadership core team is in place.

• Outline the purpose and process for the conversation. Use a facilitator when appropriate.

• Define the issue and why it is important. Outline what is broken and focus on what is working.
Is the issue a people problem or a situation problem (Heath & Heath, 2010)? Can the problem be
solved with technical expertise or will it require something else (The Kettering Foundation,
personal communication, March 1, 2011)?

• Determine the interest and merit in hosting future discussions.

• Set the next steps if the group wants to move to Phase II.

Phase II: Gather the facts, brainstorm, & Select

• Create an environment for discussion where people are comfortable asking questions, expressing
doubts, and brainstorming new ideas (Linden, 2002).

• Gather the facts related to the issue and its impact. Use a SWOT, appreciative inquire, asset
mapping, and other tools during the fact-finding stage.

• Clarify the issue’s alignment with the community’s values, ethics, vision, and mission. Establish
the common ground on which conversations will be based.

• Brainstorm and gather alternative solutions. Ask the “what if” questions. Spend time discussing
the options, the alignment with the vision, and the potential impact. Allow the process to equip the
participants to “see the change, feel the , and then be prepared to change (Linden, 2002).
• Select the best practice/solution. Use decision-making tools to reduce the number of options. Too
many choices may be debilitating (Heath & Heath, 2010).

• Assess the community’s readiness to move to Phase III.

Phase III: Plan and Review

• Write the implementation action plan. Include the evaluation procedure that will answer the
question “What will it look like when the change has happened?” (Heath & Heath, p. 69).

• Discuss the proposal with the appropriate stakeholders searching for insight and response.

• Use the feedback to assess and revise the plan. Stay focused on the solution.

• Confirm the community’s readiness to move to Phase IV.

Phase IV: Implement and Evaluate

• Secure required funding, staffing, and management team. Should a coalition be formed ensure
there is a distribution of power and recognition always communicating and respecting the partners’
roles.

• Implement the plan. Remember, groups want a rapid success. Identify an action that will provide
a “meaningful win” within the “immediate reach.”

• Evaluate the impact. • Report the status to the community and gather feedback.

• Revise the plan and evaluate again. (This step may involve any of the previous steps.) Throughout
this process communication, diplomacy, patience, and flexibility are essential. The core team must
keep the participants informed through discussion agendas, written summaries of previous
discussions, goals/assignments for the next discussion, and progress reports providing
accountability for delivering what was promised. The CDC developed a chart to outline the
characteristics for levels of community involvement related to its health initiatives. This same tool
may be helpful in recognizing group behaviors throughout the engagement process. Butterfoss
(2002) created a flowchart of the coalition building process for health programs but it will also
apply to community engagement for all types of initiatives. Engaging a community may foster a
struggle for control and recognition. This need for power may lead to behaviors that are difficult
to manage in group situations. Some may arrive with a self-serving bias where they value their
own contribution more than listening to other participants. Engagement is risky when people feel
they are losing autonomy of their vision or control of their own turf whether it is space, expertise,
or thoughts. Ultimately it is the lack of trust and confidence in the process or in the other
participants that will undermine any initiative (Linden, 2002).
 For every risk that is overcome the rewards are abundant. Individuals are better informed, new
resources are discovered, relationships are strengthened, and an environment that enhances the
community’s capacity for problem-solving is established.