Opening your page…
You can still use the navigation while it loads.
Opening your page…
You can still use the navigation while it loads.
Intercultural Practice and Equity · Foundations
Asking people what they think is not the same as letting them shape the decision. Four lessons on accessible engagement, the real difference between consultation, partnership and co-design, and one honest review of who is present and who is missing.
40–45 minutes · 4 lessons · Voluntary learning
What meaningful participation requires, the five things an engagement can offer, and the honest test for which one you are actually running.
The invitation, the hour, the format, the materials and the money decide who can take part. Most of those are decided by default, weeks before anyone notices.
The three approaches differ in when people enter, what is still changeable, who decides, what is paid for, and what is owed afterward. Naming the right one is most of the work.
The practical tool: a one-page review of a decision you are working on now, what to do with what it shows you, and what is owed when a process left someone out.
Choose one project or decision you are working on now. Run the presence-and-absence review on it, make the one change that is inside your own authority, and route the rest to the people who own it.
Most public processes include a moment where people are asked what they think. Far fewer include a moment where what people said changed the outcome. This module is about the distance between those two things. It covers what meaningful participation actually requires, how the invitation, the timing, the format and the money decide who can take part at all, and the real differences between consulting people, partnering with them, and designing something together. It ends with a review you run on a decision you are working on now: who is present, who is missing, and what you can change while there is still something to change.
The question is not whether people were asked. It is what was still changeable when we asked, and what changed afterward.
Keep the honest test, the access decisions and the presence-and-absence review in view while you plan an engagement or finish a decision.
Run the presence-and-absence review on one decision that is still changeable, make the one change inside your own authority, and route the rest with a follow-up date.
Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
The department's own editorial guidance on first-read understanding, descriptive headings and writing suited to the reader — the basis for the invitation and report-back standards in this module.
The department's public entry point for disability services, used here for the general structures the examples refer to — service authorization, waivers, lead agencies and provider agreements.
A long-running Minnesota body whose members include people with developmental disabilities and family members, and whose public work illustrates community-directed advisory practice in this state.
Minnesota's open appointments process for state boards, councils and task forces, including how vacancies are published and how member service and expenses are handled.
Practical guidance on involving people with disabilities early and throughout a project rather than only at review, including recruitment, compensation and avoiding tokenism.
U.S. Department of Justice guidance on Title II effective communication, auxiliary aids and services, and primary consideration of the person's expressed preference.
National standards for culturally and linguistically appropriate services, including the standards on partnering with the community and on collaborative planning, governance and evaluation.
The design reference for this curriculum: multiple ways to engage, culturally responsive materials and accessible instruction.