Unit of competency Outline
Date retreived
22/07/2026 11:44 PM AWST
22/07/2026 11:44 PM AWST
Whilst all efforts are made to provide accurate and timely information from the relevant source/documentation, please be aware that the information supplied may not be the most current version. The accuracy of the detail has not been confirmed by the Department and therefore should not be relied upon without first confirming the contents.
Develop and implement community engagement strategies
Develop and implement community engagement strategies
Unit of competency
National Code
PSPCOM502A
PSPCOM502A
State Code
C8085
C8085
TGA Status
Replaced
Replaced
DTWD Status
Replaced
Replaced
State Implementation and Classification
Approved Date
07/07/2014
Field of Education
090599 - Human Welfare Studies And Services, N.e.c.
Original Release Date
07/07/2014
Nominal Hours
50
Description
This unit covers the design and implementation of effective activities or programs that involve the community in government policy development, planning and decision making processes. It includes issue analysis, scoping, designing, implementing, reporting and evaluating on community engagement activities or programs.In practice, community engagement overlaps with other generalist or specialist work activities such as acting ethically, providing leadership, developing client services, developing policy, undertaking research, facilitating change, etc.No licensing, legislative, regulatory or certification requirements apply to this unit at the time of publication
Notes
Elements and Performance Criteria
1. Conduct an issue analysis
- 1.1 A framework is developed to assist in analysing an issue that requires community engagement.
- 1.2 Key stakeholders are identified and consulted in accordance with organisational policy and procedures.
- 1.3 The framework is used to conduct the analysis, and community engagement options are identified in accordance with organisational requirements.
2. Scope community engagement activity or program
- 2.1 Parameters and constraints of community engagement are identified, including time and resource limitations.
- 2.2 The purpose and objectives of community engagement are established in consultation with key stakeholders, including what is negotiable, and what is not is clarified with relevant personnel.
- 2.3 Objectives are developed that are relevant, achievable, measurable, flexible enough to allow for the emergence of new options or ideas and linked to program/project objectives.
- 2.4 The target community is defined in accordance with the purpose, objectives and scope of activity.
- 2.5 The level of community engagement, methods and techniques are determined to suit the purpose, objectives, target community and scope of activity.
- 2.6 Likely barriers to community engagement involvement and strategies to address them are identified.
3. Design community engagement activity or program
- 3.1 Opportunities are identified and used, where possible, to involve the community in the design of the engagement activity or program and its evaluation.
- 3.2 Benefits for community involvement in the engagement process are identified, both for the organisation and the community.
- 3.3 Relevant government/agency guidelines, protocols, systems and processes are identified and applied.
- 3.4 Program is designed to address risks and issues with appropriate mitigation measures and includes strategies to identify and include those missed in the community definition.
- 3.5 Communication, monitoring, reporting, feedback and evaluation processes are embedded in the activity or program.
- 3.6 Relevant commitment to/approval of the activity or program is obtained in accordance with organisational policy and procedures.
4. Implement community engagement activity or program
- 4.1 Resources and time are allocated to the implementation process, including a process manager/facilitator with the necessary capabilities, in accordance with the program design.
- 4.2 Implementation is coordinated across the agency and across government, where relevant.
- 4.3 The objectives and constraints of the engagement are communicated in a manner that is understood by all participants.
- 4.4 Clarity is established around the roles and responsibilities of all participants and the level of influence of the participants on the final decision.
- 4.5 The expectations of participants are identified and managed and the community is provided with all relevant information throughout the engagement process.
- 4.6 Feedback mechanisms are implemented in accordance with the process plan, and community requirements and barriers to community engagement involvement are addressed to maximise participation.
- 4.7 Risks and issues are addressed with appropriate mitigation measures.
- 4.8 Community diversity is acknowledged and respected throughout, and the process is transparent and managed in accordance with planned design.
- 4.9 The process is implemented flexibly enough to allow the community to raise new ideas or options and provide the community with opportunities to develop their engagement capacity.
5. Report on the outcomes of community engagement
- 5.1 Outcomes of community engagement are reported to relevant government/agency staff, all participants and those who may be affected or have a significant interest, in accordance with organisational policy and procedures.
- 5.2 Feedback on how the outcomes may inform government/agency planning or decision making is provided to all participants.
6. Evaluate community engagement activity
- 6.1 A good practice model is used to evaluate all components of the engagement activity or program in accordance with the design plan.
- 6.2 Feedback on the quality of the activity or program is obtained from participants.
- 6.3 The extent to which the engagement outcomes informed government/agency planning and decision making is analysed.
- 6.4 Achievements and lessons from the engagement activity or program are recorded, shared and used across the government/agency and with the community in accordance with organisational policy and procedures.
The Range Statement provides information about the context in which the unit of competency is carried out. The variables cater for differences between States and Territories and the Commonwealth, and between organisations and workplaces. They allow for different work requirements, work practices and knowledge. The Range Statement also provides a focus for assessment. It relates to the unit as a whole. Text in bold italics in the Performance Criteria is explained here.
Key stakeholders may include:
all those who may be directly affected or may have a significant issue in the engagement process, including:
individuals
local residents
community leaders
community groups
ethnic communities
non-government organisations
public sector officers
private sector organisations/business community
other public sector agencies in all tiers of government
media organisations
elected public officials who may need to be briefed or provide approval throughout the process
public land committees of management
Options for engagement may include:
alliances
partnerships
education and awareness campaigns
online consultation
deliberative processes
public meetings
consultation with stakeholders
response/s to questionnaires
media campaigns
community-based information
government announcements
correspondence with/to Members of Parliament
direct participation
scenario planning
think tanks
The level of community engagement may include:
information - a one-way relationship in which government disseminates appropriate and relevant information to citizens
consultation - a two-way relationship in which government asks for and receives the views of individuals or communities on issues that affect them directly or in which they may have a significant interest
active participation - opportunities for individuals and communities to propose options and be involved in government planning and decision making
Methods and techniques may include:
advisory bodies and steering committees
events
celebrations
launches
awareness activities or programs
public forums
workshops
face-to-face meetings and interviews
focus groups
value creation workshops
questionnaires (email, Internet or hard copy)
surveys
online interaction
negotiation tables
formal partnerships
citizens' juries
charettes
search conferences
deliberative polling
telephone interviews
written submissions
Barriers to community engagement may include:
access constraints
mobility issues
poor past experiences with engagement processes
time constraints
lack of interest in or commitment to the issues
lack of understanding about an actual issue - building knowledge and literacy, knowing the scenarios
lack of confidence or trust in government
previous over-consultation
lack of understanding or clarity about the engagement process
geographical isolation
socio-economic levels
diversity variables listed below
community perception that nothing ever comes from engagement with government - 'talk fest'
social capital gate keepers - residents who block broad participation
Community engagement risks may include:
political/ministerial imperatives
managing community expectations
adverse media attention
alternative agenda of interest groups
lack of commitment from decision makers
poor previous experiences with engagement
Those missed in the community definition may include:
those who may be affected by the engagement activity
those who have a significant interest in the engagement activity
Community diversity may include differences in:
age
cultural background
disability
educational level
English language proficiency
ethnicity
experience
expertise
family responsibilities
gender
intellectual differences
interests
interpersonal approach
language
learning styles
length of residence
life experience
marital status
mobility
physical differences
politics
race
religion
sexual orientation
socio-economic background
thinking styles
work experiences
working styles
Key stakeholders may include:
all those who may be directly affected or may have a significant issue in the engagement process, including:
individuals
local residents
community leaders
community groups
ethnic communities
non-government organisations
public sector officers
private sector organisations/business community
other public sector agencies in all tiers of government
media organisations
elected public officials who may need to be briefed or provide approval throughout the process
public land committees of management
Options for engagement may include:
alliances
partnerships
education and awareness campaigns
online consultation
deliberative processes
public meetings
consultation with stakeholders
response/s to questionnaires
media campaigns
community-based information
government announcements
correspondence with/to Members of Parliament
direct participation
scenario planning
think tanks
The level of community engagement may include:
information - a one-way relationship in which government disseminates appropriate and relevant information to citizens
consultation - a two-way relationship in which government asks for and receives the views of individuals or communities on issues that affect them directly or in which they may have a significant interest
active participation - opportunities for individuals and communities to propose options and be involved in government planning and decision making
Methods and techniques may include:
advisory bodies and steering committees
events
celebrations
launches
awareness activities or programs
public forums
workshops
face-to-face meetings and interviews
focus groups
value creation workshops
questionnaires (email, Internet or hard copy)
surveys
online interaction
negotiation tables
formal partnerships
citizens' juries
charettes
search conferences
deliberative polling
telephone interviews
written submissions
Barriers to community engagement may include:
access constraints
mobility issues
poor past experiences with engagement processes
time constraints
lack of interest in or commitment to the issues
lack of understanding about an actual issue - building knowledge and literacy, knowing the scenarios
lack of confidence or trust in government
previous over-consultation
lack of understanding or clarity about the engagement process
geographical isolation
socio-economic levels
diversity variables listed below
community perception that nothing ever comes from engagement with government - 'talk fest'
social capital gate keepers - residents who block broad participation
Community engagement risks may include:
political/ministerial imperatives
managing community expectations
adverse media attention
alternative agenda of interest groups
lack of commitment from decision makers
poor previous experiences with engagement
Those missed in the community definition may include:
those who may be affected by the engagement activity
those who have a significant interest in the engagement activity
Community diversity may include differences in:
age
cultural background
disability
educational level
English language proficiency
ethnicity
experience
expertise
family responsibilities
gender
intellectual differences
interests
interpersonal approach
language
learning styles
length of residence
life experience
marital status
mobility
physical differences
politics
race
religion
sexual orientation
socio-economic background
thinking styles
work experiences
working styles
The Evidence Guide specifies the evidence required to demonstrate achievement in the unit of competency as a whole. It must be read in conjunction with the Unit descriptor, Performance Criteria, the Range Statement and the Assessment Guidelines for the Public Sector Training Package.
Units to be assessed together
Pre-requisite units that must be achieved prior to this unit:Nil
Co-requisite units that must be assessed with this unit:Nil
Co-assessed units that may be assessed with this unit to increase the efficiency and realism of the assessment process include, but are not limited to:
PSPCOM501A Prepare for community engagement
PSPCOM503A Build and maintain community relationships
PSPETHC501B Promote the values and ethos of public service
PSPGOV504B Undertake research and analysis
PSPGOV507A Undertake negotiations
PSPGOV508A Manage conflict
PSPGOV511A Provide leadership
PSPGOV512A Use complex workplace communication strategies
PSPGOV514A Facilitate change
PSPLEGN501B Promote compliance with legislation in the public sector
PSPOHS501A Monitor and maintain workplace safety
Overview of evidence requirements
In addition to integrated demonstration of the elements and their related performance criteria, look for evidence that confirms:
the knowledge requirements of this unit
the skill requirements of this unit
application of the Employability Skills as they relate to this unit (see table following for examples)
community engagement strategies developed and implemented in a range of (3 or more) contexts (or occasions, over time)
Resources required to carry out assessment
These resources include:
community information, case studies or scenarios, including current journals, international case studies
community engagement theory, principles, practices and techniques
procedures and protocols for community engagement, including occupational health and safety
policy and legislation related to community engagement
public sector values and codes of conduct
Where and how to assess evidence
Valid assessment of this unit requires:
a workplace environment, or one that closely resembles normal work practice and replicates the range of conditions likely to be encountered when designing and implementing community engagement activities/programs, including coping with difficulties, irregularities and breakdowns in routine
community engagement strategies developed and implemented in a range of (3 or more) contexts (or occasions, over time)
Assessment methods should reflect workplace demands, such as literacy, and the needs of particular groups, such as:
people with disabilities
people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
women
young people
older people
people in rural and remote locations
Assessment methods suitable for valid and reliable assessment of this competency may include, but are not limited to, a combination of 2 or more of:
case studies
portfolios
projects
questioning
scenarios
authenticated evidence from the workplace and/or training courses
For consistency of assessment
Evidence must be gathered over time in a range of contexts to ensure the person can achieve the unit outcome and apply the competency in different situations or environments
Units to be assessed together
Pre-requisite units that must be achieved prior to this unit:Nil
Co-requisite units that must be assessed with this unit:Nil
Co-assessed units that may be assessed with this unit to increase the efficiency and realism of the assessment process include, but are not limited to:
PSPCOM501A Prepare for community engagement
PSPCOM503A Build and maintain community relationships
PSPETHC501B Promote the values and ethos of public service
PSPGOV504B Undertake research and analysis
PSPGOV507A Undertake negotiations
PSPGOV508A Manage conflict
PSPGOV511A Provide leadership
PSPGOV512A Use complex workplace communication strategies
PSPGOV514A Facilitate change
PSPLEGN501B Promote compliance with legislation in the public sector
PSPOHS501A Monitor and maintain workplace safety
Overview of evidence requirements
In addition to integrated demonstration of the elements and their related performance criteria, look for evidence that confirms:
the knowledge requirements of this unit
the skill requirements of this unit
application of the Employability Skills as they relate to this unit (see table following for examples)
community engagement strategies developed and implemented in a range of (3 or more) contexts (or occasions, over time)
Resources required to carry out assessment
These resources include:
community information, case studies or scenarios, including current journals, international case studies
community engagement theory, principles, practices and techniques
procedures and protocols for community engagement, including occupational health and safety
policy and legislation related to community engagement
public sector values and codes of conduct
Where and how to assess evidence
Valid assessment of this unit requires:
a workplace environment, or one that closely resembles normal work practice and replicates the range of conditions likely to be encountered when designing and implementing community engagement activities/programs, including coping with difficulties, irregularities and breakdowns in routine
community engagement strategies developed and implemented in a range of (3 or more) contexts (or occasions, over time)
Assessment methods should reflect workplace demands, such as literacy, and the needs of particular groups, such as:
people with disabilities
people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
women
young people
older people
people in rural and remote locations
Assessment methods suitable for valid and reliable assessment of this competency may include, but are not limited to, a combination of 2 or more of:
case studies
portfolios
projects
questioning
scenarios
authenticated evidence from the workplace and/or training courses
For consistency of assessment
Evidence must be gathered over time in a range of contexts to ensure the person can achieve the unit outcome and apply the competency in different situations or environments
Replaced By
| State Code | National Code | Title | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| AWV29 | PSPGEN074 | Develop and implement community engagement strategies | Unit of competency |
| State Code | National Code | Title | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| J302 | PSP50212 | Diploma of Government (Community Capacity) | Qualification |
| J322 | PSP52612 | Diploma of Government (Road Transport Compliance) | Qualification |