Demystifying the IAP2 Spectrum

Organisations have much to consider when developing a planning process for community projects, and one such factor is the extent to which the public will participate in decision-making, known as the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum. Max Hardy, a highly-regarded community engagement specialist in Australia, joined Granicus Engagement Consultant Leanne Robb for a webinar discussion of the IAP2 Spectrum and its role in shaping decision-making processes.

Defining the IAP2 Spectrum

The IAP2 Spectrum was first developed in the mid-1990s as engagement practitioners discovered a gap in community consultation. Often, the primary goal and the effort needed to undertake the engagement were unclear. Experts needed to define the public’s level of influence on the process, which became the basis for the IAP2 Spectrum.

The IAP2 Spectrum was somewhat informed by Arnstein’s Ladder, which defined eight levels of public participation in government decision-making. The IAP2 Spectrum differed by displaying various levels of engagement horizontally, rather than vertically. All levels might be appropriate depending on the nature of the issue or project, whereas in Arnstein’s Ladder processes at a higher level are more highly regarded. The Spectrum refers not only to community concerns, but also aspirational notions, such as what the public hoped for in its community, and distilled it into these five levels:

• Inform: Continuously update the public on what’s being done throughout the process.
• Consult: Obtain feedback on analysis, alternatives, or decisions.
• Involve: Ensure public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.
• Collaborate: Partner with the public throughout the process, including development of alternatives and identification of the preferred solution.
• Empower: Place final decision-making in the hands of the public and implement what they decide (delegated decision-making).

Identifying opportunities to collaborate using IAP2 Spectrum

It is important for organisations to identify the public’s level of interest in an engagement process, and the complexity of the matter with which to be engaged. Where interest is high, and the matter is more complex, community leaders should generally consider processes further to the right on the Spectrum. Rather than decide, announce, and defend, Hardy said an organisation would benefit by moving to a higher level of engagement, particularly if past strategies have not worked.

Some organisations have misunderstood and misused the IAP2 Spectrum (Hardy talks about these elsewhere in his blog). It’s just as important, if not more so, to apply IAP2 Core Values. Hardy also says that it is unwise and inappropriate for organisations to believe they can select the Spectrum Levels arbitrarily, or for convenience. The community and key stakeholders are likely to push back on a Consultant-level engagement approach when they believe they can contribute useful information and they care a great deal about the potential impacts of a project.

The IAP2 Spectrum does have its limitations, Hardy points out. It is not a framework that is sufficient or appropriate for every project or initiative. Where there are multiple decision-makers involved, and a long-term ambition—for instance to substantially reduce waste going to landfills, or to respond to mental health and well-being concerns—the Collective Impact 3.0 framework might be more appropriate, or an Authentic Co-design approach.

“If you’re trying to affect behavioural change, you really need to engage people in the process,” he said. It is imperative to consider the flexible nature of IAP2 and recognise that engagement may happen at different levels with different groups of people at different times. The key is making engagement meaningful for all groups. 

The overall communication plan is integral to determining the public’s level of influence from the start.

“It comes down to the planning process,” Robb noted. “It’s important to unpack whatever program, initiative, or project you’re working on and consider the risks of not engaging the public.”

Enhancing IAP2 with digital tools

Websites and other digital tools have taken on a more prominent role in the IAP2 Spectrum in recent years. Early on, websites were meaningful at the “Inform” level of the spectrum because the capability to interact through websites wasn’t yet well-defined. Websites now have many more engagement functionalities that provide opportunities to involve users in every other part of the spectrum.

Digital tools and websites afford the public the chance to easily participate in community initiatives.

“In the collaborate space [of the IAP2 Spectrum], for example, you can have dedicated pages for people to have conversations, ask questions, share information, and work through ideas,” Hardy said. Additionally, digital solutions like EngagementHQ by Granicus help enforce the IAP2 principles and evoke two-way dialogues.

The IAP2 Spectrum serves as a valuable guide for community engagement practitioners, providing a flexible framework to enhance decision-making processes through meaningful engagement. By adhering to its principles, employing appropriate tools and techniques, and being mindful of the emerging trends and challenges, you can foster inclusive, transparent, and accountable public participation.

Click here to view the full webinar.