Ideas

A Note on This Series
Power Shifting, Community Engagement, and Responsibility in Community Change

Across funders, public agencies, nonprofits, and community partners, I keep hearing the same set of questions, framed differently, but rooted in the same tension: What does it actually mean to shift power? How is that different from engagement? And how do we do this work responsibly, without overpromising or causing harm? This three-part series is an effort to slow that conversation down and bring greater precision to the discussion.

Community Science coined Transformative Community Engagement™ to signal a move toward shared authority and structural power shifting. The approach centers equitable decisionmaking and co-ownership. Over time, we learned that language alone cannot compel structural change. Even when the deeper intent was introduced, institutional practice often gravitated toward familiar participation models where decisionmaking authority remained unchanged. For that reason, this series centers clarity around decisionmaking authority rather than advancing new terminology.

This first piece is intentionally definitional. Before we can talk about when or how power should move, we need shared language for what we mean by power in the first place. Community engagement and power shifting are often treated as interchangeable though they involve different levels of authority, responsibility, and risk.

The second piece focuses on judgment. It looks at how to decide, case by case, when engagement is appropriate. It also explores when power shifting becomes necessary and when either approach can cause harm. Rather than offering a how-to-guide, it stays grounded in real constraints and the consequences communities carry when power is misrepresented. The third piece widens the lens to an ecosystem view. It explores how power operates differently across hyperlocal, regional, and national levels and why no single organization can shift power alone.

These pieces are not meant to offer a framework or a checklist. They are an invitation to think more clearly about roles, responsibility, and accountability, especially in systems where power is unevenly distributed and trust has often been broken. For those navigating these complex, power-imbalanced systems, this series is meant to create space for that kind of precision and honesty.

Ethical and effective community change calls for honesty about where power actually sits, what can be moved, and what cannot. Resistance or shifts in context do not move power on their own; they clarify what must be accepted, renegotiated, or redesigned. (We’ll talk about this later in the series.) This series is offered in service of that clarity.

Part 1 of 3

What’s the Difference Between Community Engagement and Power Shifting and Why It Matters?

In this piece, I use “the work” to refer broadly to community change efforts across sectors, roles, and contexts. Community engagement improves how the work is done by bringing community voice into planning, implementation, and feedback. Power shifting changes who decides. More fundamentally, it changes who the work is done by, for, and with whom. When decisionmaking authority shifts, accountability, ownership, and outcomes move with it.

As someone who spent several years as a community organizer, I keep getting the same question from funders, public agencies, nonprofits, and intermediaries alike:

What’s the difference between community engagement and power shifting?

It’s a fair question. And an important one.

These terms are used interchangeably so often that the distinction between them has blurred. They appear in strategies, grant guidelines, evaluation plans, and public commitments as if they mean the same thing or as if one naturally leads to the other.

When engagement is confused with power shifting, the issue isn’t just imprecise language. It creates expectations that can’t be met, leads to processes that sound participatory without actually changing who makes decisions and how, and in some cases, causes real harm, especially to communities that are already over-consulted, under-resourced, and repeatedly asked to show up with little to show for it.

So, let’s slow this down.

Community engagement and power shifting serve different purposes and lead to different outcomes. And they require different levels of change behavior, actions, and resources from institutions.

What We Usually Mean by “Engagement”

When people talk about community engagement, they are often referring to activities like stakeholder engagement, outreach, consultation, listening sessions, focus groups, advisory committees, or town halls. Though these are different labels, overall, they have the same function — input.

It is about:

• Gathering lived experience;
• Testing ideas or strategies;
• Improving relevance and design; and
• Building awareness, buy-in, or legitimacy.

When done well, community engagement can improve how the work is done. Programs are better informed. Policies are more responsive. Evaluations are more grounded in lived reality. Relationships between institutions and communities can be strengthened.

Engagement can surface unexamined assumptions. It can prevent avoidable mistakes. It can make resources and services more usable and policies more humane. In many cases, it is the right and responsible approach.

None of that is trivial.

Here’s the key point that often gets overlooked:

In most engagement processes, decisions are already made, or they will ultimately be made by the institutions seeking input.

The scope of influence may vary. Some details may shift. Language may change. Implementation may be adjusted. But authority — the ability to decide, to allocate resources, to set direction — typically remains with those who already hold power.

Engagement does not inherently redistribute power. It does not automatically change who decides. And it does not, on its own, alter the underlying rules of the system.

That doesn’t make engagement meaningless. But it does mean we need to be honest about what it is.

What Makes Power Shifting Different

Power shifting is not a more intense form of engagement. It is not engagement done “better.” And it is not just about deeper listening or more inclusive facilitation.

Power shifting is about authority, not only input and it will cause conflict.

It raises a different set of questions:

• Who sets priorities?
• Who defines success?
• Who controls resources and timelines?
• Who has the ability to say no, pause, or change course, and what happens when they do?

When power shifts, communities are not only providing input on decisions made elsewhere. They are shaping outcomes because decisionmaking authority has moved — not symbolically, but in practice. That shift may be partial or bounded, applying to some decisions and not others, but it is real.

Power shifting reshapes decisionmaking — whose knowledge carries weight, how disagreement and conflict are resolved, and who is accountable to whom.

This is why power shifting feels harder. It requires institutions to give up something, not everything, but something real: control, certainty, or unilateral authority. And, it can feel like a “zero-sum” game for some.

Problems arise when engagement is labeled “power shifting,” but decisionmaking authority stays the same.

Why This Distinction Matters

When organizations talk about “power” but only offer participation, a predictable set of dynamics follows. Communities are asked to:

• Share time, stories, and expertise;
• Relive experiences of harm or struggle; and
• Offer insight without clarity about what will change.

Input is collected. Notes are taken. Reports are written. And then decisions proceed largely as they would have anyway.

Over time, people notice.

Trust erodes, not because communities do not care, but because they have learned that their participation does not carry real weight. That the invitation to engage is not an invitation to really help decide.

Calling engagement “power shifting” raises expectations that the process cannot meet.

That gap between what is promised and what is delivered is where harm happens. It leads to disengagement. It reinforces cynicism. And it makes future collaboration harder, not easier. This is not about intent. Many of these efforts are well-intentioned. The harm comes from misalignment between language and structure — what is promised does not match what is practiced.

Alignment Check

If you are not sure which one you are doing, a few questions can help clarify. Ask yourself:

• Who sets the agenda?
• What decisions are actually on the table?
• Who has the authority to change or stop something?
• What shifts because the community is involved?

If the answers point to institutional control, the work is likely engagement, not power shifting. For some institutions, engagement is the responsible limit. Problems arise when organizations feel pressure to claim power shifting before they are structurally prepared or willing to do it.

Engagement Isn’t Bad and Power Shifting Isn’t Always Appropriate

There is a growing assumption in some spaces that power shifting should always be the goal, and that anything less is insufficient or unjust. That framing is not only unrealistic, it can also be harmful. Not every decision, moment, or institution is positioned to shift power. Emergency timelines, regulatory constraints, fiduciary responsibilities, and technical requirements are real. Pretending otherwise does not make them disappear. In some cases, asking communities to take on decisionmaking authority without adequate support, protection, or resources can create new risks rather than reduce harm.

What is harmful is not choosing engagement.

What is harmful is promising power when what is actually being offered is participation. Clarity builds trust. Overstatement erodes it.

Why Naming This Clearly Helps Everyone

When the difference between engagement and power shifting is named honestly and explicitly, and the level of authority being shared matches the language used, everyone benefits.

Communities can decide whether participation is worth their time and energy. Funders can better align strategy with intention and avoid performative commitments they are not prepared to support. Nonprofits and intermediaries are not forced to overpromise on behalf of systems they do not control. Public agencies can design engagement processes that are transparent about constraints, rather than masking them with aspirational language.

For institutions overall, this kind of clarity makes it possible to act responsibly, without overstating what is being offered or shifting risk onto communities.

Engagement and power shifting are not the same. Treating them as interchangeable serves no one.

***

In my next blog, we will build directly on this distinction by making it practical. It focuses on judgment — how to decide when engagement is appropriate, when power shifting becomes necessary, and when either can cause harm. It examines the responsibilities power shifting creates and why it is not always the right or safest choice. Rather than offering a checklist, it stays grounded in the realities and constraints institutions and communities already face.