Recently, we’ve seen several public sector RFP’s requiring that all engagement activities be delivered exclusively in person. While in-person conversations have an important and enduring role in community building, we believe that mandating only in-person engagement is an ineffective way to foster meaningful dialogue. It feels like a snap back to “the way things were” before COVID, but that model never fully served the diversity of voices in our communities, and it certainly doesn’t now. We wanted to share some thoughts on why relying solely on in-person formats risks undermining openness, inclusion, and transparency, and why a more flexible, hybrid approach is critical.

(Of course, everything that follows assumes that both in-person and digital engagement are thoughtfully designed and skillfully delivered.)

In-Person Engagement: Valuable but Not Sufficient

There’s no question that in-person interactions are valuable. They allow for spontaneous dialogue, human connection, and visible accountability. But an only in-person engagement strategy is inherently exclusionary. Consider the variety of practical and social barriers that prevent many community members from attending public meetings in person:

• Geography & transportation: Not everyone lives near City Hall or a community centre. Residents in rural or remote areas, or those without a car or reliable transit, may simply be unable to travel to an in-person event due to distance or cost.
• Social & trust barriers: Public meetings can be intimidating, especially for individuals from marginalized groups who have had negative past experiences with institutions or who feel outnumbered in a crowd. For example, a newcomer or someone who distrusts government might feel too uncomfortable to speak up in a room full of officials and outspoken citizens. The result is that their voice goes unheard. In-person formats, by their very nature, tend to favour those who are already confident, accustomed to civic processes, or have the privilege of time and access. This dynamic leaves out many others.
• Disabilities & health: Community members with physical disabilities, chronic illnesses, or mobility challenges can find it difficult or impossible to attend public meetings in person. The lack of accommodations (or the hassle of arranging them) can often keep people with disabilities away, even when they have strong opinions to share.
• Caregiving responsibilities: Many people who would otherwise participate are busy caring for children or elderly family members. A single parent might not have childcare at 6 pm for a town hall meeting. Similarly, someone caring for an aging parent can’t easily leave them alone to attend a two-hour public forum.
• Work & time constraints: In-person events are usually scheduled at fixed times that might not work for everyone. Citizens working night shifts, multiple jobs, or unpredictable hours are effectively shut out if meetings occur only at, say, 5–7 pm on weekdays. Even those with standard jobs may struggle to sacrifice an evening for a meeting, especially on short notice.

By acknowledging these barriers, it becomes clear that an only in-person approach leaves significant portions of the community on the sidelines. If our goal is truly to hear from all interest holders and create an open, transparent dialogue, we need to reduce these barriers through additional engagement channels.

How Hybrid and Digital Engagement Broadens Access

Embracing a hybrid approach to engagement should be the new norm. Hybrid engagement combines in-person and digital methods to create flexible, inclusive ways for people to participate in public processes. It ensures that residents can engage either face-to-face or virtually, depending on their needs, preferences, or circumstances. By blending these approaches, hybrid engagement removes barriers tied to geography, time, mobility, and comfort level, helping organizations hear from a broader and more representative cross-section of their communities. 

Acknowledging the Digital Divide

Hybrid models break down the barriers tied to geography, mobility, caregiving, and time constraints. In Canada, it is estimated that 95% of households have internet access, with 90% of households having smartphones. While digital inequity still exists, it affects a relatively small proportion of the population compared to the significant access barriers created by in-person-only formats. A hybrid approach gives people more ways to connect, meeting them where they are.

Benefits of a Hybrid Approach

Research and real-world experience show several significant benefits.

Supporting the involvement of underserved communities
A hybrid approach helps reach those historically left out of engagement processes. Marginalized groups, such as racialized communities, residents in remote areas, people with disabilities, and low-income families often face barriers to attending in-person meetings. Digital options lower these barriers. For instance, an engagement process might combine an online platform to capture input from youth or homebound individuals with in-person pop-up events in neighbourhoods with limited internet access. Hybrid engagement meets people where they are, ensuring that unheard and underrepresented voices can meaningfully participate.

Advancing equity and inclusion
Building on providing opportunities for underserved communities, hybrid engagement also advances equity and inclusion. It recognizes that people have different needs and provides multiple pathways for involvement. Some may prefer face-to-face workshops, while others may engage more fully through digital platforms due to mobility, health, or time limitations. Designing accessible, flexible engagement demonstrates a commitment to hearing all voices. Experts consistently emphasize that inclusive digital options allow for broader participation and richer discussions. Without hybrid models, we risk losing the voices of people who found empowerment through virtual channels during the pandemic.

Attracting higher participation numbers and more diverse input
Lower the barriers, and more people will engage. Hybrid engagement often leads to higher participation numbers because it gives individuals the flexibility to choose how they want to contribute. Canada's high digital connectivity means the potential reach is enormous. More importantly, hybrid methods attract a broader range of participants: youth, seniors, busy parents, newcomers, and people with diverse abilities. This not only increases the quantity of engagement but also improves the quality of perspectives gathered.

Convenience, Cost, and Environmental Benefits
Hybrid engagement makes participation easier and more sustainable.

• Environmental benefits: Hybrid engagement is also more sustainable. Every participant who attends virtually instead of traveling reduces carbon emissions. Fewer trips mean fewer cars on the road, fewer flights, and lower greenhouse gas emissions — all contributing to climate goals. Digital distribution of materials also reduces waste. In a country as vast as Canada, even a handful of regional interest holders participating remotely rather than flying can create meaningful environmental savings. Hybrid engagement aligns with the public sector’s growing emphasis on environmental responsibility.
• Convenience: Digital options make it easier for people to participate without disrupting their lives. Participants can join meetings from home or work, eliminating travel time and offering flexibility. Someone with childcare duties or an evening shift can still log on and contribute. This flexibility often translates into greater turnout because engagement fits more seamlessly into people’s busy schedules.
• Cost savings: Hybrid and virtual formats are more cost-effective for both organizers and participants. Organizations save on venue rentals, catering, and printed materials, while community members avoid expenses like gas, transit, parking, and lost work time. Especially for public sector agencies or nonprofits, offering online engagement makes it possible to 'do more with less' by reaching larger audiences at a fraction of the cost. Of course, there are some costs for technology and facilitation, but these tend to be much lower than the logistics of in-person gatherings. (And let's be honest, digitally transcribing feedback beats sorting through hundreds of sticky notes.)

Use The Full Toolkit Available

The solution is not to abandon digital tools, but to consider the full toolkit available to us today. Excluding large segments of the public, even unintentionally, works against the core purpose of public engagement. If our aim as leaders is to foster open, democratic dialogue, then we must use every tool at our disposal to hear from as many community members as possible. In 2025 and beyond, those tools absolutely include digital and hybrid formats. These are no longer fringe or “nice to have” options; they have proven their value in expanding participation and should become central in our engagement strategies.

The technology is here, the public is ready for it, and the benefits are clear. Train your staff, update your policies, and budget for inclusive online tools just as you would for a physical open house. By doing so, you’ll tap into new ideas and perspectives that were previously missing, and you’ll demonstrate a commitment to true inclusivity and transparency.

Curious about what a hybrid engagement strategy could look like for your community? Let’s chat. We’re always happy to share ideas and collaborate on building more inclusive participation.