2026 IAP2 Spectrum updates: Why 'Inform' may no longer count as engagement
If you've worked in local government or public engagement over the last two decades, chances are you've used the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation. It's become the framework many of us instinctively reach for when we're designing an engagement process. If you've ever mapped a project against the five levels of participation (Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate, Empower), you've used it. If you've ever found yourself in a meeting debating about whether your process was really "Involve" or "Collaborate," you're not alone. Those conversations are common and they're one of the reasons Spectrum is evolving.
Pending approval by IAP2 International, the Spectrum is now poised to receive its most significant update yet, since it was introduced more than 20 years by three legendary engagement practitioners. Before we dive into what might be changing, it's worth recognizing the foundation they built. The Spectrum didn't become the global standard by accident. It gave our professional a shared language for planning public participation and has shaped thousands of engagement processes around the world.
These potential changes aren't about replacing that work. They're about honoring it by ensuring the Spectrum continues to evolve alongside the communities the serve, the technologies we use and the way meaningful engagement is practiced today.
As someone who has been part of the conversations shaping these recommendations, I want to share what might be changing, why it matters and what it means for the agencies we work with every day.
What's happening
A working group has spent several years evaluating whether the Spectrum still reflects how public participation actually works in practice. Their final recommendations were submitted to IAP2 International for their consideration in late July 2026, and action is expected in the coming months.
One thing became increasingly clear throughout those conversations: the goal wasn't to create a brand new framework. It was to ensure the Spectrum reflects what experienced practitioners have learned over the past two decades while remaining relevant for the next generation of engagement professionals.
The biggest shift: Inform is no longer engagement
This is the one that will get people talking.
Under the revised Spectrum, "Inform"would no longer serve as the first level of engagement. Instead, it becomes an activity that supports every level of engagement throughout the project life cycle: before, during and after.
The logic is straightforward. One-way communication, no matter how clear or well-designed, doesn't influence decisions being made. And without public influence, you don't have true public participation.
For agencies, this is a meaningful distinction. Sending a mailer, posting a notice or publishing a FAQ page are all essential communication activities, but communication alone doesn't given people influence over a decision. That's the distinction these recommended changes are trying to make.
New language for clearer distinctions
The proposed revisions to the Spectrum also replace terminology that created confusion in practice:
| Current | Revised | What Changed |
|---|---|---|
| Inform | Sharing Information | No longer a participation level; supports all levels |
| Consult | Providing Input | Refines language as "Consult" carries legal weight in many countries |
| Involve | Exploring Together | Emphasizes dialogue and shared understanding |
| Collaborate | Designing Together | Focuses on co-creating solutions, not just discussing them |
| Empower | Delegating Authority | Reflects actual transfer of decision-making power |
The clearest improvement is between the old "Involve" and "Collaborate." In practice, most agencies couldn't articulate the difference. The new framing draws a clean line: "Exploring Together" is about building shared understanding through dialogue. "Designing Together" is about co-creating the actual options and solutions. For practitioners, that's incredibly helpful because it gives us clearer language to explain both internally and externally what we're actually asking the public to do.
A new organizing principle: Influence and Commitment
At the heart of the revised Spectrum are two simple questions:
What level of influence does the public have over the decision?
What commitment are decision makers making in return?
These two concepts work together. One defines what the community can expect. The other defines what the agency is promising. This framing gives agencies a much clearer way to communicate what a participation process will actually deliver, and reduces the perception gap that erodes trust when expectations don't match outcomes.
What this means for organizations
For most agencies, these changes won't fundamentally alter how decisions are made, but they will change how organizations plan and communicate public participation, set expectations and communicate the role the public will play throughout the process.
So, what should your agency do with all of this?
1. Your engagement plans need clearer commitments.The revised framework pushes agencies to articulate not just what they're doing (hosting a meeting, opening a survey) but what they're promising. Will input be considered? Will dialogue shape the options? Will the public help design the solution? Naming that commitment upfront builds trust and manages expectations.
2. Information alone isn't true engagement. Agencies that rely heavily on notices, newsletters, and FAQs may need to examine whether they're truly engaging or simply communicating. Both matter. But the revised Spectrum makes the distinction explicit.
3. The "messy middle" gets clearer." Exploring Together" and "Designing Together" give practitioners better language for the engagement processes that live between basic input and full collaboration. If you've ever designed a process that felt like more than a survey but less than a co-design workshop, you now have vocabulary for it.
4. Expect the shift to take time. The Spectrum is widely referenced by advocacy groups, community organizations and engaged residents. When IAP2 formally adopts these changes, your staff and community members will take some time getting used to this updated framework. Understanding it now will help agencies stay ahead of the conversation.
What to do now
The recommendations haven't been formally adopted yet, but the direction is clear. Agencies that plan engagement around these principles will already be ahead:
Audit your current engagement plans. Are you calling information-sharing "engagement"? Be honest about where influence actually lives in your process.
State your commitment level upfront. Tell the public what role they're playing and what you'll do with their input.
Match your engagement methods to the decision. Not every process needs to be Designing Together, but if you default to surveys when the issue calls for conversation, you're leaving trust on the table.
Train your teams to distinguish communication from engagement. Both are critical. Conflating them creates mismatched expectations.
Why this matters to JPW
What strikes me most about the revised Spectrum is that it doesn't ask agencies to engage more. It asks them to engage more intentionally.
Those are principles we've long believed lead to stronger public trust and it's encouraging to see them reflected in the next evolution of the IAP2 Spectrum. This signals to where public participation is heading in the future and will position agencies well to build meaningful relationships with their communities in the years ahead.
The Spectrum is catching up to practice, and we'll be here to help our clients evolve alongside it. Let's talk about what the updated Spectrum means for your next project.
Susanne Bankhead is partner and senior vice president at JPW Communications and a certified public participation professional. She is actively involved in advancing public engagement practice through her work with IAP2.