Codesigning programmes full report

  • Introduction

    In traditional philanthropy, grantees often feel pressured to shape their work around a donor’s shifting and sometimes unclear priorities. This can be discouraging—from the time spent researching funders and navigating eligibility, to answering complex application questions and preparing for site visits. The process tends to centre the donor’s view of what matters, reinforcing a power imbalance that leaves grantees feeling undervalued and constrained. 

    Co-design is a collaborative approach to shaping services, strategies, or systems, where people with lived experience work alongside others to develop solutions. Unlike traditional consultation, which often stops at gathering feedback, co-design invites participants to actively shape the process. It values both formal expertise and community knowledge, recognising that better decisions emerge when diverse perspectives are involved from the start. 

    In the context of grantmaking, participation should be embedded throughout (from setting priorities to making funding decisions). However, this section focuses specifically on the co-design of grants as one of the earliest and most critical steps. Designing funding programmes with communities, rather than for them, helps ensure that resources are directed toward what matters most to those affected. It also builds trust, strengthens relationships, and lays the foundation for more inclusive and effective funding practices. 

    To do this well, it’s essential to be intentional about who is included. The makeup of the co-design group influences not only what gets funded but how decisions are made. Including people from historically underfunded or excluded communities helps challenge existing power dynamics and ensures that the process reflects a wider range of experiences and needs. Co-design takes time, care, and clarity, but when done thoughtfully, it can transform how grantmaking serves communities. 

  • Key issues and challenges

    While all three approaches aim to involve communities in shaping services or systems, they differ in depth and structure. Co-design invites users to contribute to the (re)design of a service, often working alongside professionals to influence decisions, though their role is typically more limited. It goes beyond consultation by valuing user input, but doesn’t necessarily give users control. Co-production takes this further, involving individuals and communities throughout the entire process, designing, delivering, and reviewing services together. It’s built on shared power and long-term collaboration. In contrast, a user-led approach places users at the heart of the organisation itself. Here, the work is driven by the needs and wishes of the community, with structures in place to ensure full participation and accountability. This model is often used to empower marginalised groups and ensure that their voices shape not just services, but the direction of the organisation. An equitable grantmaking model should be aiming for the last definition.  

    Key issues to consider:  

    • Timeline and costs

    Co-design takes time. Rushing the process to meet spending deadlines can undermine its quality and impact. It’s important to allocate enough time and resources for planning, recruiting diverse participants, and supporting their involvement. Online tools and networks can help reduce costs, but thoughtful investment is still needed to do it well. 

    • Building trust to sustain engagement

    Trust doesn’t happen automatically, it must be built through transparency, consistency, and mutual respect. Funders should be open about constraints like time and budget and demonstrate accountability throughout the process. Trust is the foundation for meaningful collaboration and long-term commitment. 

    • Supporting participants’ needs

    Effective co-design means creating inclusive spaces where everyone can contribute. This includes addressing language barriers, digital access, and varying levels of experience. Without this support, some communities may be excluded or underrepresented, limiting the reach and relevance of the process. 

    • Managing expectations

    Clear communication about what co-design can and cannot achieve is essential. If participants expect full control but only have limited influence, it can lead to disappointment and disengagement. Being honest about the scope of involvement helps build realistic and respectful partnerships. 

    • Ensuring access and representation

    Who participates matters. Relying on existing networks can lead to selection bias and limit diversity. Co-design should actively seek out voices that are often overlooked, ensuring that decision-making reflects the full spectrum of community experiences. 

    • Reviewing progress regularly

    Co-design is an evolving process. Regular check-ins allow teams to reflect, adapt, and respond to emerging challenges. These moments of review also help assess how well power is being shared and whether access needs are being met. 

    – Addressing power dynamics
    Power imbalances can persist even in participatory settings. It’s important to define roles clearly, establish accountability, and create shared decision-making structures. Without this, co-design risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative. 

  • Existing approaches 

    Co-design is increasingly being used across sectors to involve communities in shaping services, programmes, and funding. Organisations are adopting a range of approaches, from structured models with clearly defined roles and objectives, to more flexible, facilitative methods that keep community decision-making central. In youth-focused projects, for example, participants have been recruited through local services, peer networks, and social media, with some initiatives forming core groups to lead and advocate within the process. Staff roles vary with some providing structure and oversight, while others act as facilitators, creating space for participants to lead within broad parameters. 

    Evaluation of co-design tends to focus on qualitative feedback, often capturing personal outcomes like increased confidence, engagement, or a sense of being heard. While these are valuable, there’s growing recognition that co-design must also demonstrate broader impact on systems, services, and social outcomes. However, many organisations still struggle to define and measure what meaningful involvement actually changes, and data collection often stops at outputs rather than long-term outcomes. 

    With that in mind, Participatory Grant making (PGM) has emerged as a more formalised and widely recognised approach to shifting power in philanthropy. Usually it is considered involving ceding decision-making authority (including over strategy, funding criteria, and grant selection) to the communities most affected by the issues. PGM is built on the principle of “nothing about us without us,” and aims to democratise philanthropy by giving agency to those who have traditionally been excluded from funding decisions. 

    While PGM covers the full grant making cycle, this guide focuses on the early stages, specifically, the co-design of grant aims, priorities, and intended beneficiaries. This phase is critical because it sets the foundation for how funding will be distributed and who it will serve. By involving communities in shaping these initial decisions, organisations can ensure that funding reflects lived experience and real needs, rather than institutional assumptions.  

  • Benefits and disadvantages 

    Co-design brings a wide range of benefits to both participants and organisations, helping to create more inclusive, responsive, and effective programmes. One of the most powerful outcomes is the sense of ownership and shared purpose it fosters. This sense of responsibility often leads to increased confidence, stronger teamwork, and deeper engagement, especially among usually marginalised communities, who report feeling empowered and more connected to their peers and communities. 

    For participants, co-design can be a transformative experience. For example, young people involved in decision-making roles often develop life skills such as budgeting, planning, and communication, which extend beyond the project itself. The process of negotiating ideas, resolving differences, and working toward a common goal builds confidence, leadership, and meaningful relationships. It also creates a sense of achievement and belonging, reinforcing the idea that their voices matter. 

    Organisations also benefit significantly. Co-design leads to better understanding of user needs, more relevant ideas, and smarter decision-making. Staff often report improved skills in facilitation and collaboration, and a shift in mindset toward more open, flexible ways of working. These changes can result in more effective service delivery, stronger support for innovation, and improved relationships with communities. In some cases, co-design even reduces development costs by aligning services more closely with what people actually want and need. 

    Importantly, co-design helps to shift power dynamics. It moves away from top-down decision-making and toward shared ownership, creating more equitable relationships between funders, practitioners, and communities. When people are involved in shaping the aims and priorities of a grant or service, they are no longer passive recipients, they become co-creators. This shift builds trust, strengthens accountability, and opens up space for more honest conversations about challenges and needs. 

    Co-design also contributes to long-term impact and sustainability. By involving people from the start, organisations can build stronger foundations for collaboration, resilience, and ongoing engagement that adaptable to changing circumstances.  

    However, while co-design can lead to more inclusive and responsive programmes, it’s not without its challenges. One of the most common is the time and resource intensity of the process. Building trust, facilitating inclusive engagement, and managing diverse perspectives takes significant effort. Organisations often face pressure to deliver quickly, which can lead to rushed or superficial co-design phases. Without adequate time and capacity, the process risks losing its depth and impact. 

    Another key concern is the responsibility of funders and institutions. Co-design should not be used to shift the burden of decision-making entirely onto communities. Funders remain accountable for how the process is structured, facilitated, and supported. This includes being transparent about the limits of power-sharing, ensuring participants are safe and supported, and maintaining responsibility for the outcomes. When funders disengage or fail to provide clear guidance, co-design can become performative rather than transformative. 

    Safety and representation are also critical considerations. In some contexts, publicly identifying participants, especially those from marginalised or vulnerable communities, can pose serious risks. Organisations must take steps to protect participants’ identities and ensure that involvement does not expose them to harm.  

    Ultimately, co-design is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It requires thoughtful planning, clear communication, and a genuine commitment to collaboration. One of the most significant risks is assuming that co-design will automatically produce better outcomes. When treated as a “magic fix,” co-design can be poorly defined, rushed, or implemented without clear goals, leading to confusion among participants and missed opportunities for meaningful impact. 

  • Conclusion

    Co-design represents a meaningful shift in how programmes and funding strategies are developed, moving away from top-down approaches and toward more inclusive, collaborative processes. By involving people with lived experience from the outset, co-design helps ensure that services and funding priorities reflect real needs rather than assumptions. This approach not only improves the relevance and effectiveness of programmes but also builds trust and accountability between organisations and the communities they aim to serve. 

    The early stages of grantmaking, where aims, priorities, and intended beneficiaries are defined, offer a critical opportunity for co-design to make a lasting impact. When communities are involved in shaping these foundations, the resulting programmes are more likely to be equitable, sustainable, and responsive to change. Approaches like Participatory Grantmaking have helped formalise this shift in philanthropy, but co-design adds an important layer by focusing on the collaborative development of strategy, not just decision-making. 

    However, co-design is not without its challenges. It requires time, resources, and a willingness to share power responsibly. Organisations must be intentional about who is included, how participation is supported, and what structures are in place to ensure safety, representation, and accountability. When poorly managed, co-design can reinforce the very inequalities it seeks to address. But when done well, it creates space for innovation, learning, and deeper relationships between funders, practitioners, and communities. 

    Ultimately, co-design is more than a method, it is a mindset. It asks organisations to value lived experience as expertise, to be transparent about their limitations, and to commit to processes that are as inclusive as the outcomes they hope to achieve.  

  • References