More Power Sharing and Less Tick-A-Box Exercises...

Over the last few years, I’ve watched the word 'co-design' go from something radical and relational to something that’s now at risk of being hollowed out. It’s become a buzzword slapped onto project briefs, policy agendas, and grant applications. Everyone wants to “co-design with community”—but when you scratch beneath the surface, it often amounts to little more than a one-off workshop or rushed round of consultation.

As a Wiradjuri man and someone who has been in these spaces for a while now, I’ve seen firsthand the harm that happens when co-design is treated like a tick-box exercise. Our mob, and other communities with lived experience, are tired of being invited into processes that are already shaped by someone else’s agenda.

If we’re serious about impact, we need to talk honestly about the gap between intention and practice—and that gap, more often than not, is power.

Co-design without power-sharing is not co-design. It’s tokenistic.

Real co-design is about sharing decision-making, not just gathering feedback. That might sound simple, but in practice it requires a massive shift in how government and large organisations operate.

When we start co-designing at Impact Policy, the first thing I look for is who holds all the power and are they willing to redistribute it? If community voices are being heard but not being valued, that’s not co-design; it’s extraction. It’s using people’s stories and time to justify decisions that have already been made.

At Impact Policy, we start by asking the hard questions:

• Are you willing to give up control?

• Are you willing to shift timelines to honour relationships?

• Are you ready to be uncomfortable?

Because here’s the truth: the more you centre lived experience, the more you need to let go of traditional ways of doing business. And that’s where genuine change starts to take root.

The mindset shift: From saviour to partner

Many of the systems we work in—health, housing, justice, and education—are still deeply shaped by colonial mindsets. Even with the best intentions, organisations often show up with solutions in hand, ready to “fix” things for communities rather than work with them to understand what’s really going on.

What’s needed is a shift from a saviour mindset to one of partnership and humility.

This means recognising that communities aren’t broken or lacking—they’re full of strength, knowledge, and solutions that have been ignored or undervalued for too long. It also means letting go of the idea that you have to lead the process. Sometimes the most impactful thing you can do is step back and follow the lead of those who live it, breathe it, and carry it every day.

What does real co-design in policy look like?

Here’s what we’ve learned through years of doing this work across different systems and communities:

Community defines the start line. Too often, projects start with pre-set outcomes. 'True co-design' means pausing to ask the following: What matters to you? What’s missing? What does success look like for you? The answers might not align with what policymakers expect, but they’re always more grounded and more sustainable.

Lived experience holds expertise. Just because someone doesn’t have a degree or a fancy title doesn’t mean they don’t have deep knowledge. Aunties, uncles, young people, carers, people navigating systems every day—they are experts in survival, in community, in what works and what doesn’t. Their voices need to be in the driver’s seat, not just on the sidelines.

Transparency builds trust. One of the biggest barriers to community engagement is mistrust—often for good reason. People have been burned too many times by processes that felt extractive, tokenistic, or unclear. Be up front. Say what decisions are on the table and what’s already fixed. Be honest about constraints. Trust grows when people know you’re not playing games.

Capacity is mutual. A lot of the time, I hear people talk about "building community capacity", but the truth is organisations and systems need capacity-building too. Cultural capability, deep listening, and humility don’t always come naturally in bureaucracies—but they can be developed. Co-design should be a two-way learning journey, not a one-sided transaction.

A call to action for leaders

If you're working in policy, funding, or service design and you’re using the language of co-design—my ask is this: check your intention, and then check your practice.

Co-design isn’t just a methodology. It’s a commitment to do things differently. It’s about challenging top-down thinking, disrupting extractive ways of working, and holding space for communities to lead.

We can’t keep inviting mob and other people with lived experience into processes that don't truly value their knowledge. That’s not impact, that’s harm.

If you’re serious about creating systems that are fairer, safer, and more responsive, then be serious about sharing power. Because when we move from box-ticking to power-sharing, that’s when transformation becomes possible.

Authored by Sam Alderton-Johnson for Impact Policy