Before you fund
Stage 2

Co-designing Programmes

Funding programmes are often designed without the people they're meant to serve. Co-design changes that, bringing lived experience into the room from the beginning.

980x550px_cc_2_codesign

  • Setting the scene

    Traditional programme development tends to start with institutional assumptions: what the funder knows, what the data shows, what has worked before. Co-design starts somewhere different. It starts with the question: what do the people most affected by this issue actually think?

    That shift in starting point changes everything that follows. When communities help define what a programme is for, who it reaches, and how it operates, the result tends to be more grounded, more accessible, and more effective than anything designed behind closed doors.

    Co-design sits on a spectrum. At one end, it looks like structured consultation. At the other, it means communities holding real decision-making power. The most important thing is being clear, with yourself and with participants, about where on that spectrum you actually are.

  • What the evidence tells us

    Research on co-design draws from participatory grantmaking, co-production, community-led development, and social justice practice. Across these bodies of work, one finding recurs: co-design works best when it is transparent about its own limits.

    Processes that are honest about scope, constraints, and where decision-making authority actually sits are more likely to build trust and deliver genuine insight. Those that overstate their openness tend to produce frustration, disengagement, and a community less willing to engage next time.

    The evidence also makes clear that co-design is not a single method. It is a family of practices, varying in depth, duration, and degree of power-sharing. The right approach depends on context, and getting it wrong in either direction, too superficial or too ambitious without the infrastructure to support it, carries real risks.

  • Key issues and challenges

    Co-design takes time, and that time costs money. Building relationships, recruiting diverse participants, designing inclusive processes, and compensating people properly for their involvement cannot be squeezed into a simple timeline. Funders who treat co-design as a low-cost consultation exercise tend to get low-value results.

    Trust is the foundation everything else rests on, and it’s built slowly. Funders must demonstrate, repeatedly and consistently, that what they hear will shape what they do. That means being transparent about constraints, honest about where final authority lies, and accountable for the gap between what participants hoped for and what the process delivered.

    Inclusive participation requires active design. Language barriers, digital exclusion, differing levels of confidence, and unequal access to networks all determine who ends up in the room. Flexible formats, translation, training, and genuine outreach are not optional extras. They are the difference between a diverse process and a well-intentioned one.

    Even within funding organisations, co-design can face resistance. Governance structures, institutional norms, and trustee decision-making can all limit how far staff are able to act on what they learn, even when the intent to share power is genuine. Naming this tension openly, rather than leaving participants to encounter it as a surprise, is both more honest and more respectful.

  • Existing approaches

    Co-design in practice looks different across contexts. Some organisations work with structured frameworks that define roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes from the outset. Others take a more facilitative approach, allowing community leadership to shape the process as it develops.

    In youth-focused initiatives, recruitment often happens through peer networks, local services, and social media, reaching participants who would rarely engage through formal channels. Participatory grant making has emerged as one of the more formalised expressions of co-design, particularly at early stages of programme development, where communities help determine not just how a programme runs but what it is for.

    The effectiveness of any approach depends less on the model and more on the culture behind it: whether funders are genuinely willing to be surprised, challenged, and changed by what they hear.

  • Benefits and disadvantages

    Co-design builds ownership. When communities have genuinely shaped a programme, they are more likely to engage with it, champion it, and hold it to account. It strengthens trust, improves organisational understanding, and tends to result in funding that is more responsive, more equitable, and more likely to achieve lasting impact.

    But co-design can also go wrong. Superficial processes, undertaken under time or resource pressure, risk producing exactly the consultation fatigue they set out to avoid. Poorly facilitated spaces can surface tensions without the support to navigate them. And when funders overstate the degree of shared power, they create expectations they cannot meet, which is worse than being honest about constraints from the start.

    Done well, co-design is one of the most powerful tools available to funders who want their investment to land. Done poorly, it erodes the trust that makes future engagement possible.

  • Something to consider

    The value of co-design shows up in the outcome. When a programme launches, it’s worth being able to point to where community voices changed something: a priority, a criteria, an assumption. If that’s hard to identify, it may be worth revisiting how the process was designed before the next one begins.

Explore our recommendations

  • Be clear about goals and boundaries from the start

    Set out the purpose of the co-design process early, including any constraints around budget, timeline, or decision-making authority. Transparency about what can and cannot be influenced helps manage expectations, builds trust, and reduces the risk of frustration further down the line.

  • Build trusting relationships before anything else

    Strong, respectful relationships between staff and participants, especially among peers, are the foundation of effective co-design. The most meaningful ideas tend to emerge when professional expertise and lived experience are brought together in a space where both are genuinely valued.

  • Allow real time and resources for participation

    Effective co-design takes time. It requires space to build relationships, adequate resources to support those involved, and enough flexibility to let the process develop at a pace that works for everyone. Rushing it undermines its value and signals that participation is performative rather than genuine.

  • Clarify roles and aim for genuine partnership

    Define the roles of everyone involved from the outset and aim for collaborative relationships rather than transactional ones. This includes being honest about the influence of governance structures such as trustees or boards, and ensuring decision-makers are sufficiently connected to the communities and issues affected by their choices.

  • Make space for reflection and learning throughout

    Even in short-term processes, build in time for participants to reflect on what is working, what isn't, and what they are learning. Collaborators should have opportunities not just to respond to the co-design process but to help shape it. Ongoing feedback and flexibility improve both the quality and the impact of what emerges.

  • Avoid tokenism by keeping purpose central

    Involvement should be meaningful, not symbolic. If the purpose of participation is unclear to those taking part, it leads to frustration and missed opportunities. Every element of the process should connect clearly to real decisions and real outcomes.

  • Invest in inclusive infrastructure

    Design systems that genuinely welcome diverse participation: accessible formats, clear communications, flexible options for getting involved, and fair payment arrangements. A well-planned structure from the beginning ensures that small or new organisations are not inadvertently excluded by the way the process is set up.

  • Foster ownership through regular engagement

    Consistent involvement in co-design activities helps participants feel a genuine sense of responsibility and pride in their contributions. Making co-design part of a regular rhythm, rather than a one-off event, strengthens commitment and builds confidence over time.

  • Respect cultural differences and diverse perspectives

    Co-design should honour the cultural contexts of participants, including their social, community, linguistic, and lived experiences. Avoid pushing toward a single mode of engagement. Offer multiple ways to contribute, whether through smaller group conversations, creative sessions, or written input. Diversity of perspective strengthens both the process and its outcomes.

  • Be honest about power and commit to sharing it

    Funders hold significant power in any co-design process. Genuine participation requires a long-term commitment to sharing that power, not just in principle but in practice. If that commitment isn't there, it is better to be honest about the limits of the process than to invite participation that cannot meaningfully shape the outcome.

Read the full report on co-designing programmes

Access the full report

Case studies

Stages of grant making