10 minutes
Asking is not the same as sharing power What meaningful participation requires, the five things an engagement can offer, and the honest test for which one you are actually running.
What you’ll be able to do Distinguish informing, consulting, involving, partnership and co-design by what each one actually gives people power over, and name which one a project you are working on is really doing. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What should the unit do? Document a next step for Asking is not the same as sharing power: Take the last engagement your unit held. Write down what was genuinely still changeable that day, and what changed afterward because of what people said. The distance between input and influence Public work has a standard move. A decision is developed internally, a draft is produced, and then people are invited to say what they think about it. The invitation is genuine, the staff who send it mean well, and the session often goes reasonably. Months later, the people who came look at what was published and cannot find themselves in it. Nothing dishonest happened at any single step. The outcome is still that a process was described as participatory and was not.
The gap is almost never caused by ill will. It is caused by sequence. By the time an engagement is convened, the approach has been chosen, the authority has been cited, the resources have been committed, and the effective date is on a calendar someone else controls. What is left to discuss is the wording. Asking people to weigh in at that point produces comments the division cannot use and a feeling the division cannot undo.
So the honest question is not how many people came or how many comments arrived. It is two plainer questions: what was still changeable when we asked, and what changed because of what we heard? A unit that can answer both, specifically, is doing participation. A unit that can only answer the first with a number is doing outreach.
Five different offers, often called the same thing Inform Consult Involve Partner Co-design
You tell people what has been decided and what it means for them. Nothing is open. This is legitimate and often necessary — a settled statutory change has to be explained, not negotiated. It becomes a problem only when it is dressed as something else. If nothing is changeable, say so, explain it well, and do not call it input.
You ask people for their views on something you will decide. Their expertise informs the decision; the decision stays with you. This is honest and useful when the scope is named, the timing is early enough to matter, and you come back and say what you did with what you heard. Without that last part it is data collection, and people stop responding.
You work through options with people over more than one sitting. They see the constraints, the trade-offs and the drafts; you adjust as you go. The decision is still yours, but the reasoning has been shaped in the open. This costs more staff time than consultation and produces far better decisions, because the objections arrive while they can still be answered.
You and community organizations, disability-led groups, families or advisory members share responsibility for a piece of the work, with an agreed scope, agreed resources and named decision rights. Something real is jointly decided — which options go forward, how success is described, what the plan says. Partnership without a decision right attached to it is consultation with a warmer name.
People affected by a system help build it from the point where the problem is still being defined. They are in the room when the question is written, not only when the draft is reviewed. This is the most demanding of the five and the only one that can change what a program is for rather than how it is worded. It requires compensation, time, and a genuine willingness to end up somewhere staff did not plan.
Four ways a well-meant session goes wrong The decision was already made The most common one. Everything downstream is affected: the agenda is about explaining rather than exploring, staff answer questions defensively because the answers are fixed, and people leave having spent an evening on something that was closed before they heard about it. The fix is not a better facilitator. It is moving the engagement earlier, or narrowing the invitation to what is genuinely open and saying so.
The same six people Standing advisory relationships are valuable and they are not a substitute for range. When the same organizations and the same individuals are asked every time, a unit hears a consistent and partial account, and mistakes consistency for representativeness. People who work shifts, who do not use the systems the invitation travels through, who communicate in a language the invitation was not sent in, or who have had a bad experience with the division are systematically absent, and their absence leaves no trace in the record.
Input becomes a category, not a claim Someone describes a specific, fixable failure — a form that cannot be completed by phone, a window too short to arrange a ride. In the summary it becomes “participants expressed concerns about accessibility,” which cannot be acted on by anyone. Summarizing is necessary; flattening is a choice. Keep at least one specific, quotable account attached to each theme so the finding still points at something.
Nobody came back The session happened, the notes were taken, and the people who came never heard another word. Sometimes the input did change the outcome and nobody told them. This is the cheapest failure to fix and the most expensive to leave alone, because it is the one that decides whether anyone answers the next invitation.
Keep these in reach What is the honest test for participation?
Two questions. What was still changeable when we asked? What changed afterward because of what people said? A number of attendees answers neither.
When is informing the right choice?
When the decision genuinely is settled — a statutory change, a court-ordered requirement, a budget already enacted. Explaining it clearly is good work. Calling it input is not.
What separates partnership from consultation?
A decision right. In partnership, something specific is jointly decided, with agreed scope and resources. Without that, it is consultation with a warmer name.
Why does the same advisory group need company?
Because a standing relationship gives you consistency, not range. Consistency from a partial set of voices reads as agreement and is not.
What is the cheapest failure to fix?
Never coming back. Telling people what changed, what did not, and why, costs an hour and decides whether anyone answers your next invitation.
Private reflection, kept by you and not collected anywhere: in the last process I helped plan, how might my role and my authority have shaped what I assumed was already settled?
Try a situation A Disability Services Division policy unit has drafted a change to how a service is authorized. The approach has been approved internally, the manual language is written, the effective date is set, and the case system change is already in the work queue. The unit schedules a two-hour input session for people who use the service and for family members, sends the invitation eleven days out, and titles it “Community input on the new authorization process.”
What should the unit do? Hold the session as planned. Input is valuable at any stage, and people will appreciate being asked.
Cancel the session. Nothing is changeable, so asking people would be dishonest.
Rename the session to match what is actually on the table, say in the invitation what has been decided and what has not, bring the specific open questions, and commit in writing to coming back with what changed and what did not.
Consider your choice Try another response Carry this forward The useful question is not whether people were asked. It is what was still changeable when they were asked, and what changed afterward.
There are five different offers, and they are often confused on purpose: telling people, asking people, working through an option with people, deciding alongside people, and building the thing together from the start.
An engagement held after the decision is settled is not consultation. It is an announcement with a comment card, and people can tell.
Participation is not a favor the division extends. People with disabilities, families and community organizations hold expertise about how a system actually lands that no amount of staff analysis produces.
A scenario about a policy unit convening an input session late in a process, and a knowledge check that separates the volume of input from the influence it had.
Take the last engagement your unit held. Write down what was genuinely still changeable that day, and what changed afterward because of what people said.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Course overview Next lesson 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.
