We received feedback that relates directly to the policy via 8 submissions, 18 survey responses, a focus group with 4 members of City of Melbourne’s Disability Advisory Committee (DAC), and a meeting with a resident group (25 attendees).

Overall, participants who provided feedback on the policy support that the draft updated policy represents an improvement to the previous policy adopted in 2021. Feedback regarding strengths of the revised policy highlighted:

• greater alignment with what is important and
• the readability and understandability of the document.

Some participants also suggested targeted improvements, changes and additions to further strengthen the revised policy and help ensure this document provides a solid foundation for practice.

Recommendations identified by two or more feedback sources (e.g. submissions, survey participants, focus group discussion) encompass 8 main themes.

1. include more details regarding practice in the policy document (overarching theme, 5 submissions)
2. outline processes used to evaluate community engagement projects (2 submissions, DAC feedback)
3. specify what information is shared when we close the loop (3 submissions, DAC feedback)
4. expand on criteria used to decide when and when not to engage (2 submissions)
5. expand on what methods could be used and criteria that will be applied to determine which methods must be used for each project (1 submission, DAC feedback)
6. include a requirement in the policy to clearly articulate engagement negotiables and non-negotiables at commencement / what is in and out of scope of a consultation (2 submissions)
7. strengthen inclusion and equity commitments in the policy (2 submissions, 1 survey participant)
8. provide greater clarity regarding deliberative engagement (2 submissions, 1 survey participant).

We received feedback on how to improve community engagement practice at CoM through each of the 139 interactions, survey responses and submissions received during this phase of consultation.

Overarching theme: representative engagement requires tailored methods, transparent information sharing and trust

• Build reciprocal relationships and knowledge of what council does before asking for feedback. Council staff should be more visible and human. Prioritise ongoing conversations and move away from transactional requests for feedback.
• People who live, work, visit and play in CoM are diverse, so no one size fits all for communication or engagement methods.
  • Inviting diverse voices into a conversation starts with tailored and targeted messaging, identifying the impact of a project or issue for each group (i.e. ‘what’s in it for me’), and use of multiple communication channels (preferrable channels community members already use such as WeChat and Business Precinct Association newsletters). Irrespective of the channel or audience, council should always be transparent and ‘tell it how it is’.
  • Engagement methods should also be tailored and targeted to groups and levels of interest, providing options, going where people already (e.g. business site visits, community centers, English language classes, universities) and co-delivering with partners who the community trust (e.g. Neighbourhood Houses, facilitators with lived experience).
• Consistent updates and follow-through are crucial to relationships and trust.
  • For the community, sharing what we heard and what we did as a result (known as closing the loop) is one of the most important phases of engagement. However, we heard this is where current practice often falls short. Updating CoM webpage is insufficient in isolation, and council should close the loop through multiple channels, preferably the method used to gather feedback. For example, if council staff gather feedback through an English class or individual stakeholder meeting, that same method should be used to close the loop.

Hearing diverse voices through this phase of consultation helps us understand how to realise tailored approaches to seeking feedback from different groups within the community.

Topics of interest

• “My four walls” and immediate or material operational issues, such as: safety, crime, cleanliness, amenity, construction works, disruptions and permits.
  
• Consultation overload: Businesses seeking fewer asks overall, and higher quality, more targeted engagement.
• Genuine opportunities for influence and recognising when council just needs to “do the thing”.

Communication

• Need for coordinated and direct communications from council to business.
• Clarity and transparency: “Tell us how it is".
• Clearly distinguish between levels of influence and participation from the outset.
• Use Business Precinct Association channels and networks.

Participation

• “Come to us”.
• Business Precinct Associations want to be used as trusted intermediaries.
• Targeted language support in multilingual precincts.
• Not closing the loop erodes trust: Regular updates are preferred (even if no decision has been made).
• Site visits.
• Attend existing Business Association meetings.
• Potential options for extending quarterly meetings that bring together council staff and all Business Precinct Associations.

Topics of interest

Neighbourhood House staff insights into user interests:

• social connection
• cohesion
• economic development
• volunteering opportunities.

International students:

• day-to-day survival
• cost of living
• public transport
• safety
• racism
• workplace rights
• entrepreneurship
• employability
• female empowerment
• civic participation
• volunteering
• free community spaces
• placemaking activation.

Communication

• Low awareness of council: communication strategies should start by building foundational knowledge of what council does.
• Council (and City of Melbourne community engagement) should be more visible in the community and ‘human’.
• Targeted messaging so everyone feels invited to get involved.
• Make content conversational and use storytelling technique.
• Digital access (e.g. council website and Participate Melbourne) is currently difficult.
• Print and in-person translation are key.
• Channels that audiences already use (e.g. WeChat) preferred to City of Melbourne channels.

Participation

• Engagement should be ongoing and seek to build relationships (rather than once off, transactional requests for feedback).
• Surveys can be effective, but not in isolation or instead of in-person methods.
• Collaborate and co-deliver with Neighbourhood Centres, peak bodies and social groups.
• Make in-person activities conversational and interactive.
• Value and incentivise participation and consider non-monetary incentives.
• Tailor closing the loop activities to audience and methods used to gather feedback.
• Go where people already are (e.g. universities, hospitality venues, Neighbourhood Centres).

Topics of interest

• Topics and projects that relate to physical accessibility and access (e.g. transport, footpaths, crossing the street, e-scooters, bike riders, safety as a pedestrian).
• The accessibility of built infrastructure (e.g. community centres, libraries).
• Digital accessibility.
• Safety.
• Cost of living issues.
• How people with a disability (including hidden disabilities) are represented in council policies, projects, services and other work.

Communication

• Keep the complexity of council systems, information and communication in mind when planning and delivering community engagement projects.
• Use plain language and ensure materials are inclusive of all disability types.
• Clarify decision-making and feedback pathways from the start.

Participation

• The City of Melbourne Disability Advisory Committee are seeking earlier and higher-level involvement, including genuine co-design.
• Meet people where they are and use networks to expand reach beyond those who seek out opportunities to have their say.
• Accessible and inclusive methods.
• Use trusted facilitators and community-led models.
• Incentivise and value lived experience participation as advisory level input.
• Close the loop in transparent and tailored ways to build trust.
• Above all: Build trust through consistency and respect.

Topics of interest

• Engagement often misaligns with youth values.
• Young people’s motivations for participating shifts frequently.

Communication

• Mix of online and in-person communications channels preferred over print.
• Hard to reach young people not already engaged in civics or youth networks and reliance on existing stakeholders can exclude new or diverse voices.
• Values-driven messaging and promotion presents opportunities.
• Limited reach to underrepresented young people not already connected.

Participation

• No one method preferred: Offering a variety of activities and options ideal.
• Systems and processes created by adults can unintentionally exclude young people.
• Incentives and remuneration to recognise time and expertise.
• Strategic partnerships to co-design projects and amplify youth voices.
• Inclusive design and delivery: “By us and for us” model.

• Build trust and accountability: Genuine engagement and feedback should visibly influence decisions to build trust. 
• Close the loop: Clearly show how community input influences decisions.  
• Support informed participation: Use plain language, visuals, and diverse formats. 
• Be inclusive: Offer flexible, culturally appropriate engagement options.  
• Improve communication: Before, during and after engagement.  
• Recognise varied motivations: People engage for different reasons (e.g. connection, incentives, civic interest). 

• Staff interactions are generally positive and appreciated.  
• Online surveys are a preferred method for many. 
• A wide range of engagement activities are offered. 
• Some communities feel heard and see genuine opportunities to contribute.  

• Transparency: Show how feedback informs decisions. 
• Representation: Ensure participants reflect the diversity of City of Melbourne. 
• Trust: Address perceptions of tokenism or predetermined outcomes.  
• Awareness: Many people don't hear about opportunities to engage.  
• Timing: Avoid short consultation windows and later-stage engagement. 
• Inclusive practices: Increased resources and training to boost engagement.  

• Motivations vary by topic and values. 
• Prefer online surveys but value in-person workshops for connection.  
• Want to co-design engagement processes.  
• Need better awareness via youth networks and social media. 

• Limited understanding of the City of Melbourne’s role and engagement opportunities.  
• Prefer trusted channels like WhatsApp and university networks. 
• Need clear messaging on benefits of participation.  

• Low engagement due to time constraints, low trust and unclear relevance.  
• Prefer direct, tailored approaches over generic surveys. 
• Need better understanding of their preferred engagement methods.  

• Desire for partnership in engagement design and delivery.  
• Emphasis on restoring trust and valuing community-led work.  
• Need for inclusive, culturally competent and accessible methods.