Lost in Translation: Courtney Henderson's Case for Engagement Done Right
Spotlight on success: March is our masterclass in community engagement. Rather than simply saying it matters, we’re showcasing the actual impact such efforts can make, from utility-led advisory structures and community organizing to regional partnership strategies and consumer advocacy. Each spotlight edition examines a different approach and the practical principles behind it. Don’t miss the step-by-step playbook for replicating similar programs in your organization!
Engagement isn't a phase of the work. According to Courtney Henderson, it is the work.
When Programs Meet People Or Miss Them Entirely
Too often, even well-funded, well-intentioned initiatives fall short of establishing actual connection with the communities at the other end of their efforts. This isn’t typically because the ideas are wrong, but because they never quite land where people actually live. There’s a lost-in-translation element at play that few organizations have figured out how to navigate.
This spotlight shifts the lens. Instead of examining a single program, it looks through the eyes of someone who has experienced effective engagement from the receiving end.
Courtney Henderson, founder of Hawks Peak Strategies and a seasoned elected official in local governments, has spent her career at the intersection of public health, energy, and community advocacy. Her perspective is shaped not just by policy or program design, but by lived experience, working directly with communities and seeing firsthand where systems fail them.
Her insight is simple, and a little uncomfortable: many programs aren’t designed for the people they intend to serve. They’re designed around funding, timelines, and assumptions, then handed to communities with the hope they’ll make the connection and participate.
Usually, this is a gap in communication that’s too far for audiences to leap.
Where It Breaks Down
The gap isn’t always obvious. On paper, many programs look thoughtful, even generous. But friction hides in the fine print and manifests as a lack of true understanding of the audiences these organizations are trying to reach.
Sometimes participation requires upfront investments that customers can’t realistically make—home upgrades, time commitments, paperwork hurdles. Other times, the value exchange simply doesn’t feel worth it. What looks like an opportunity to a program designer can feel like a burden to a working household or small business owner.
Then there’s the question of access.
Traditional engagement methods—public comment periods, town halls, formal hearings—often ask communities to come to the program, rather than meeting people where they already are. A three-minute microphone slot on a conference call doesn’t build trust. It checks a box.
Meanwhile, the real conversations are happening elsewhere: in community spaces, in local businesses, online, and among trusted networks.
And that raises a harder question: if people aren’t showing up, is it disinterest, or design failure?
Keeping It Real
At the core of Henderson’s work is a shift in mindset: engagement isn’t a phase of a program. It’s the foundation of it.
That means bringing consumer voices in at the very beginning—before the RFP is written, before the funding is secured, before the solution is defined. Because once a program is built, it’s much harder to retrofit it to fit real lives.
It doesn’t just mean rethinking who is in the room, but really considering them, their experiences, their perspectives, their challenges and priorities. Trusted community leaders—local officials, nonprofit organizers, and informal connectors alike—play a critical role in bridging that gap. They understand not just what communities need, but how they talk about those needs, what barriers feel real, and what participation actually requires.
Language matters, too. Terms like “low-income” may be technically accurate, but they don’t always resonate. “Income-qualified” can feel more accessible, more respectful, and more reflective of how people see themselves.
Even seemingly small barriers, like income verification, can quietly exclude the very populations programs are meant to reach. In some cases, fear of fraud has led to rigid requirements that discourage participation, despite limited evidence that fraud is a widespread issue. Henderson points to a more pragmatic path: pilot, measure, and adjust based on real data.
In other words, design with people, not around them.
What It Looks Like When It Works
For all the ways engagement can fall short, there are also clear signals when it’s working.
Henderson points to a broader shift already underway in the energy space. Success is no longer measured solely in kilowatt-hours saved. Increasingly, programs are being evaluated by how well they serve people; by accessibility, equity, and real-world impact.
One example is the Massachusetts Energy Burden and Affordability work, where utilities, advocates, and stakeholders came together in a more collaborative model. Instead of siloed decision-making, the process emphasized open dialogue, shared learning, and a willingness to listen.
Working groups brought multiple perspectives into the same room. Ideas were tested, challenged, and refined collectively. The result wasn’t just better policy—it was a stronger sense of alignment around what communities actually needed.
That’s the difference between engagement as a requirement and engagement as a purpose.
Why It Matters
There’s more than just participation rates at stake. When programs fail to connect, resources are wasted, goals go unmet, and the communities that need support most are left out of the equation. But when engagement is done right, the opposite happens: programs become more effective, more equitable, and more trusted. Trust, once firmly established, has a way of multiplying. It opens the door to deeper participation, better feedback, and stronger long-term outcomes.
A Model Worth Replicating
Henderson’s perspective offers a different kind of blueprint. Not a fixed structure, but a set of principles grounded in experience.
Start earlier. Listen longer. Design with intention.
Invest the time up front, even when funding cycles and timelines create pressure to move quickly. Because the cost of getting it wrong—launching a program that no one uses or that fails to reach its intended audience—is far greater than the cost of getting it right.
For organizations looking to strengthen their connection to the communities they serve, the lesson is clear: engagement isn’t an add-on. It’s the work itself.
Community Panel Playbook
For organizations looking to design programs that truly resonate, the following principles offer a grounded starting point::
☐ Engage early, before design begins Bring community voices into the conversation at the earliest stages, including during RFP development and program planning.
☐ Meet people where they are Shift engagement beyond formal settings. Show up in community spaces, local networks, and digital platforms where conversations are already happening.
☐ Reduce barriers to participation Identify and remove friction points—cost, time, paperwork, or eligibility requirements—that may prevent people from engaging.
☐ Work through trusted messengers Partner with community leaders and organizations that already have established relationships and credibility.
☐ Use language that resonates Be intentional about how programs are described. Choose terms that feel accessible, respectful, and relevant to the intended audience.
☐ Test, learn, and adapt Pilot new approaches, gather data, and refine based on real-world outcomes rather than assumptions.
