Why organizations struggle to get results when they engage with communities, and how to change that

This article is part of the “First-voice expertise and social change” series.

Let’s start with an acknowledgement.

Across the non-profit, corporate, and public policy landscapes, leaders say they want to do right by community. They want to design programs and procedures that fulfill their community’s needs, preserve dignity and agency, meet regulations, and maintain a high level of productivity and quality of service. And yet … many organizations struggle. Somewhere between intentions and delivery, things go sideways.

Problem: Why aren’t we getting the results we’re looking for?

This article is about that tension between intent, effort, and result – the frustration with engagement that feels difficult and doesn’t lead to the outcomes we expected, and trust between community and organizations that feels fragile.

Whether the community in focus is 2SLGBTQIA+, newcomers, low-income, or those navigating multiple intersections, organizations often have genuinely good intentions. The reality is we’re operating inside systems designed for compliance and managing processes, not for sharing power.  Communities that have been pushed to the margins have, by definition, been excluded from decision-making at the top and at the critical junctures that produce the most impact.

Premise: Systems built for control are not compatible with community wisdom

Here’s the core tension:

Institutions and organizations want the insight, trust, and legitimacy that comes from community. We have to ask: Who or what constitutes community? Is it an entity or is it everyday people? Many of us operate inside systems designed for efficiency and predictability, and to limit risk. In this reality, engagement becomes transactional rather than relational. Too often, we choose an organization to represent a group, and we pass over grassroots community voices. Instead of influence, we look for consultation.

Status quo: Well-intentioned misses

The most common approach to engaging equity-demanding communities looks like this: It starts with an internally designed solution, based on policy, precedent, or regulation. Then, it calls on a small number of representatives – perhaps a well-known service provider – late in the process. It prioritizes speed, requiring feedback within a limited timeframe. Then it moves forward by integrating the lowest-hanging fruit, or whatever the organization deems to be the most feasible.

From an organizational perspective, this feels reasonable. From a community perspective, it feels extractive and disingenuous. People are asked to share personal stories, sometimes painful ones, without clarity about how their input will be shared or shape outcomes. Imagine what it feels like to allow yourself to be vulnerable, to trust those who have invited you to share – and then to see your story misrepresented publicly. Or ignored. When change that can be actively felt by those most impacted doesn’t follow, trust erodes deeply.

Engagement that does not influence decisions is merely information gathering.

This pattern shows up across all sectors, whether the issue is transit, entertainment, public safety, education, or health care. As a community member, I have felt exposed, left out, or like my time has been wasted. We have a tendency to create engagement that looks good on paper but falls flat in practice.

Let’s look at what needs to change both in process and perspective.

Paradigm shift: First-voice leadership at the helm

The shift required is not simply to more  engagement, but to a different understanding of what engagement is for and how to approach it. Communities are not a step in a predefined user test; they are expert designers of solutions.

The IDEAL framework for community participation is a holistic view of participation rooted in community experience. It was developed by Realize, the leading national non-profit organization in Canada working to improve the health and well-being of people living with HIV and other episodic disabilities through integrated research, education, and policy change.

The development of the IDEAL framework was a response to the community’s assertion that, even in the presence of Inclusive organizational practices, a Diverse workforce, Equity-laden vision and mission statements, and Accommodation supports (IDEA), people were still experiencing a significant amount of stigma and exclusion. Working with IDEA was still missing something: a sense of belonging and connection that is integral to equity and access.

Realize expanded on the established IDEA acronym to IDEAL, to include Leading to belonging. If inclusion, diversity, equity, and accommodation don’t result in belonging, real change cannot be achieved.

IDEAL provides a framework for engaging with people and communities:

• Inclusion means early and ongoing involvement.
• Diversity recognizes that communities are not monolithic.
• Equity requires different approaches for different contexts.
• Accessibility is about removing participation barriers, not just providing information.
• Leading to belonging means people see themselves reflected in outcomes.

Let’s look at how one organization put these principles into action.

Case study: Canadian Air Transport Security Authority supports blind and low-vision travellers in airports

Federally regulated organizations in Canada must meet the requirements of the  Accessibility Canada Act, which came into force in 2019. The legislation requires institutions to identify, remove, and prevent barriers to people with disabilities, with the goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040.

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), responsible for airport security screening nationwide, falls under this legislation. Several years ago, CATSA, along with the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), identified the need to improve tactile signage in airport screening areas to better accommodate blind and low-vision travellers.

Tactile signage typically includes raised lettering, Braille, and high-contrast elements that allow people to orient themselves independently within a particular space. In theory, tactile signage is straightforward. In practice, airport screening areas are crowded, highly regulated spaces with physical constraints that make standard wall-mounted signage difficult or impossible to install and impractical for people to use. Faced with these constraints, CATSA did what many organizations do under pressure to comply: It developed a workaround.

CATSA, with CBSA, developed a ten-page laminated and reusable booklet explaining the security screening process. The booklet included three formats: Braille, large print, and raised lettering.

The process that led to developing the booklet included consulting with a national organization that serves people who are blind or low vision, commissioning the booklet from that same organization, and applying for an exemption from installing the tactile signage. From CATSA’s perspective, the issue had been addressed. They believed their plan met both the spirit and the letter of the legislation.

The proposal was posted publicly for feedback for a limited period of time. That’s when the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), an intersectional, cross-disability network of agencies led by and serving people with disabilities, first became aware of the proposed booklet and the exemption application. Their response was clear and respectful: Hold on a minute!

CCD reached out to CATSA and CBSA, and asked for an extension to properly review the materials and consult with their impacted constituents.

At first, the issue was not the booklet itself. The issue was the consultation process. A meeting was organized, and first-voice experts came, full of curiosity. They asked important questions such as “What other options were considered? How was this solution chosen? Who was involved in shaping it?”

The proposed solution reflected an engagement approach that didn’t incorporate lived reality. This was not a simple failure to engage. It was a failure of when and how to engage. CATSA and CBSA had designed a solution first and consulted narrowly before seeking approval. “When we looked at the booklet,” Janet Hunt, a CCD member and first-voice expert living with sight loss recalled, “the issue became even clearer. This was not meaningful engagement. This was being asked to comment on a finished product we had no role in shaping.”

Relevant CCD members spoke with blind and low-vision travellers, white cane users, and guide dog users, and the message was consistent. A booklet does not help when your hands are full. A booklet does not answer questions. A booklet does not reduce stress in a fast-moving, high-pressure environment such as airport security.

The blind, deaf-blind, and low-vision community was honest and transparent. They acknowledged CATSA’s initiative and good faith. However, they also pointed out that the proposed solution was not practical or appropriate for the context.

Turning point: Changing the approach to engagement led to a better solution

What happened next is what makes this case study stand out.

Instead of digging in and defending their choice of a booklet, CATSA paused and listened. They expanded their engagement and met with multiple grassroots organizations serving blind and low-vision individuals, as well as first-voice experts.

The fact is that only about 10 per cent of blind people read Braille. (I am not one of them.) Travellers moving through airport security often have their hands full with luggage, mobility canes, service dogs, or children. In addition, this took place during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when concerns around sanitation were very prominent. A reusable booklet that would be touched and shared by many people was not keenly regarded. Most importantly, people navigating security can be anxious. Printed information alone is not enough. As Janet put it, people “need reassurance, clarity, and the ability to ask questions in real time.”

CATSA accepted that those closest to the experience understood the context better than policy or internal effort alone ever could. They shifted their thinking – instead of focusing on how to comply, they thought about their potential to improve how they support travellers.

Impact: A human rights model of care that works universally

CATSA put the IDEAL principles into action. They moved away from a static product and toward a human-centred, rights-based model of support that is embedded directly into daily operations. They created a facilitator role within airport security screening.

Facilitators are trained to look out for when someone may need assistance, who appears uncertain or overwhelmed, who is navigating a second language, managing children, travelling with a disability, or simply unfamiliar with the process. They approach respectfully and ask a simple question: “May I help?” They provide guidance, reassurance, and real-time support. They are present, responsive, and adaptable to the needs of the person in front of them.

This model now operates in major airports nationwide. The impact has been significant. The approach works because it reflects how people actually move through airports. It supports many communities, not just one. And it recognizes two core truths: Accommodation is about people, not products. It’s about connection, not just access.

This outcome was possible because the organization was willing to let go of a solution that looked compliant on paper and replace it with one shaped by first-voice expertise. It worked because their engagement moved from consultation to collaboration.

In the end, this was not about a Braille booklet. It was about who gets to define what accessibility looks like, and whether organizations are willing to listen when communities say, “We can help you do this better.”

To connect robustly, particularly with equity-demanding communities, organizations must shift their internal culture from risk avoidance to shared responsibility, from compliance to potential, and from speed to sustainability.

Tips: Apply this thinking in your organization

If your organization is trying to do better and finding engagement harder than you expected, try these questions to help shift both your mindset and your practice.

1. Engagement timing and scope

• At what point do we typically invite communities into our processes?
• What decisions are already locked in by then?
• Can we start earlier and rework our timelines, even if it is not comfortable?

2. Engage beyond the “usual suspects”

• Have we connected with the people who are most impacted, directly and broadly?
• Who is missing from the conversation? What barriers might be preventing their participation?
• Are we focusing only on organized groups to act as proxies or representatives for everyday people?

3. Slow down to build trust

• What are speed and dedication to a timeline costing us?
• What would change if we treated relationship building as essential work, not a delay?

4. Make influence and action visible

• Where does community input directly shape our decisions or actions?
• Where does it tend to stall?
• Are we clearly communicating what we are open to changing, what we are not, and why?

5. Put IDEAL into practice as a decision-making lens

• Which IDEAL principles guide our engagement efforts today?
• Which principles are most vulnerable to political or operational pressure?
• How do we ensure our practices lead to stronger connections and a sense of belonging?

6. Defining success

• How do we measure success beyond outputs and deliverables?
• How do communities themselves define success?
• What role do trust, dignity, and connection play in our evaluations?

7. Share what you learn

• Are our findings and recommendations publicly accessible?
• How do we ensure communities can use the knowledge they helped create?