11 minutes
Consultation, partnership, co-design The three approaches differ in when people enter, what is still changeable, who decides, what is paid for, and what is owed afterward. Naming the right one is most of the work.
What you’ll be able to do Match an engagement approach to what is genuinely still changeable in a project, and state plainly which approach you are running and what it gives people power over. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What should the unit commit to, and how should it describe that commitment? Document a next step for Consultation, partnership, co-design: Write one sentence for a current project that names the approach, what is still changeable, who decides, and when people will hear what changed. Put it in the invitation. Three honest offers, five commitments Consultation, partnership and co-design are not three degrees of enthusiasm. They are three different arrangements, and what separates them is a set of commitments you either make or do not: when people enter the work, what is still changeable when they arrive, who holds the decision at the end, what the division pays for, and what is owed back afterward.
Written out that way, the choice becomes answerable. A unit facing a court-ordered change with a fixed timeline is not able to co-design it, and should not say it is. A unit describing what good quality looks like in a service it does not use can co-design that, and probably should. The approach follows what is actually open, not what sounds most generous in a memo.
What causes most of the damage is not choosing the smaller offer. It is choosing the smaller offer and describing the larger one. People who spend an evening on a process called community-led, and later read a document they did not shape, learn something about the division that no future invitation can unteach. Choosing consultation and calling it consultation costs nothing at all.
What each approach actually commits you to Consultation When people enter: after a question is framed, before the answer is settled. What is open: the content of the decision, within a scope you name. Who decides: you do. What you pay for: participants' time, access support, travel and materials. What is owed back: a written account of what you heard, what changed, what did not, and why. Consultation is honest, common and frequently the right choice. It goes wrong in two ways: when the scope is not named so people work on the wrong things, and when nobody reports back, which converts it into data collection.
Partnership When people enter: at the planning stage, with a role agreed before the work starts. What is open: a defined piece of the project, genuinely. Who decides: jointly, over that defined piece, with the boundary written down. What you pay for: time, access support, and often organizational capacity — a partner organization carrying part of this needs staffing, not just gratitude. What is owed back: shared visibility of how the joint decision was carried out. The test of a partnership is simple: name the thing that is jointly decided. If you cannot, this is consultation.
Co-design When people enter: while the problem is still being defined, before staff have written the question. What is open: what the work is for, not only how it is worded. Who decides: the group, within resources and legal limits stated honestly at the start. What you pay for: sustained compensation, access support, preparation time, facilitation, and the staff hours to do this properly. What is owed back: authorship — people can see their work in the result and are credited for it. Co-design requires a real willingness to end up somewhere staff did not plan. Without that willingness it becomes an expensive consultation with a disappointed group.
Where this module stops: Tribal Nations Engagement with Tribal Nations is not a form of community engagement, and nothing in this module applies to it. It is a government-to-government relationship carried out through required consultation and through the department offices that handle tribal matters, including the Office of Indian Affairs. This program defers to those offices rather than authoring guidance of its own. If your project touches Tribal Nations or their citizens, route it there before you plan any engagement.
Which offer is this? Paid participants review a draft service definition and tell staff what will not work; staff decide and report back what changed.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design A compensated group helps write the question before any draft exists, and their version of the problem is what the project addresses.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design A disability-led organization and the division jointly decide which three options move forward, with the boundary written into an agreement.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design A public comment period on a proposed change, followed by a published summary of what was received and what was revised.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design People who use a service hold the decision over how quality is described, within stated legal and budget limits.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design A community organization is resourced to carry part of the outreach and shares responsibility for how it is done.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design Staff bring two workable options and a set of named open questions to a paid advisory session, then choose.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design A family-led group and the division share authorship of the plan and are credited in the published document.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design Before staff frame anything, a compensated group spends four sessions defining what the actual problem is.
Choose a category Consultation Partnership Co-design Check matches Reset Why treating everyone the same is not the same as fairness This program uses a well-established description of how people and organizations relate to cultural difference, running from denial and polarization through minimization, and on to acceptance, adaptation and integration. It is a way of describing patterns in how a system behaves. It is never a label, a score or a record about any individual staff member, and it is not used that way here.
Minimization is the stage that matters most in engagement work, because it is the one that feels like fairness. It sounds like this: one meeting, open to everyone, same hour, same format, same materials, no special treatment. The intent is even-handedness. The result is that the format rewards people who are verbal, quick, available on a weekday, fluent in the division's vocabulary and able to absorb an unpaid evening. Everyone was treated identically, and the outcome was not remotely equal.
Acceptance begins when a unit stops treating those differences as irregularities to be accommodated and starts treating them as real facts about the people the work is for. Adaptation is the next move, and it is a practical one: the design changes. Sessions vary in day, hour and format. Materials go out early. Interpretation is standard. Participation is paid. Nothing about this lowers a standard. It changes who can meet it.
Keep these in reach What five commitments separate the three approaches?
When people enter, what is still open, who holds the decision, what is resourced, and what is reported back. Answer those five and the right name is obvious.
What is the one-line test for partnership?
Name the thing that is jointly decided, and show where the boundary is written down. If you cannot, this is consultation.
When is consultation the right choice?
When the question is framed, the answer is genuinely open within a scope you can name, and you will come back with what changed. That is a good, honest offer.
What makes co-design real rather than expensive?
A willingness to end up somewhere staff did not plan, plus sustained compensation, preparation time and stated legal and budget limits from the start.
Why is “one meeting for everyone” not fairness?
Identical treatment rewards people who are verbal, quick, free on a weekday and fluent in the division's vocabulary. Same treatment, unequal result. Designing differently on purpose is the fix.
Private reflection, kept by you and not collected anywhere: on the project in front of me, whose expertise is missing — and am I describing what we are offering people accurately, or more generously than it is?
Try a situation A Disability Services Division unit is reshaping how a set of supports is described and purchased. The statutory authority and the budget are fixed. The service definitions, the quality expectations written into the agreements, and how outcomes will be described are all open. A contracting timeline requires a draft in about four months. Senior leadership has asked the unit to make this “community-led.”
What should the unit commit to, and how should it describe that commitment? Accept the description. Convene a series of listening sessions, gather input on the service definitions, and present the result as community-led.
Tell leadership that community-led is not achievable in four months with fixed authority and budget, and run a well-designed consultation instead — with paid participants, materials in advance, named open questions, and a written report back on what changed and what did not.
Split the project by what is actually open. Inform people plainly about the fixed authority and budget. Consult broadly on the service definitions, with paid participation, advance materials and a report back. And convene a small, compensated co-design group with a named decision right over the quality expectations and the outcome descriptions — then describe each part in those words, including to leadership.
Consider your choice Try another response Carry this forward The three approaches are separated by five commitments: when people enter, what is still open, who holds the decision, what is resourced, and what is reported back.
None of the three is better than the others in the abstract. Choosing co-design for a settled statutory change wastes people's time; choosing consultation for a redesign you claim is community-led is dishonest.
The most common error is a naming error. Calling a consultation a partnership costs nothing on the day and costs the division trust it cannot buy back.
Treating everyone the same — one open meeting, same hour, same format, same materials for all — feels fair and is a form of minimizing difference. Moving toward acceptance and adaptation means designing differently on purpose because people's situations are genuinely different.
A scenario about a redesign with a contracting deadline, sorting practice that tells the three approaches apart by their commitments, and a knowledge check on naming an approach honestly.
Write one sentence for a current project that names the approach, what is still changeable, who decides, and when people will hear what changed. Put it in the invitation.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
