Designing With, Not For: How Community Voices Redefine Public Programs

When programs fail to serve the people they’re designed for, it’s usually because they were built without them. Across cities and counties, well-intentioned initiatives stumble on real-world barriers—shift work schedules, language differences, or digital access gaps- that only those experiencing them can truly explain. But when community members become co-designers, service delivery transforms from top-down to side-by-side. The result isn’t just more equitable outcomes- it’s smarter, more effective governance grounded in trust, relevance, and shared accountability.

Centering Community Voice in Program Design

Creating pathways for underserved populations to directly shape programs is not only respectful, it is operationally effective. When individuals with lived experience are involved from the beginning, policies and services tend to reflect practical needs rather than theoretical assumptions. Participatory design methods, such as community advisory committees, co-design workshops, and focus groups, can be structured to ensure diverse representation and mitigate power imbalances. These tools help agencies avoid implementing solutions that are well-intentioned but disconnected from daily realities. For example, transportation programs that fail to account for shift work schedules or childcare responsibilities often see poor adoption, despite significant investment.

Research shows that community engagement efforts are more successful when they go beyond one-time consultations and instead foster ongoing collaboration. The National Civic League emphasizes that sustained engagement requires consistent communication, transparency, and shared decision-making power, particularly when working with historically marginalized groups¹. Local governments that institutionalize these practices—by embedding them into program cycles and budgeting processes—are better positioned to build trust and achieve long-term outcomes. Listening must be continuous, not conditional.

Addressing Structural Barriers to Access

Underserved populations often face systemic barriers that limit access to services, including language differences, transportation gaps, digital divides, and institutional distrust. These are not incidental obstacles but structural features that require intentional dismantling. For example, digital access remains a critical issue for low-income residents, particularly in rural areas and among older adults. According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 25 percent of adults with household incomes below $30,000 do not own a smartphone, and 40 percent do not have broadband internet². Government services that default to digital platforms without offering in-person or multilingual alternatives risk excluding those most in need.

Solutions must be layered and adaptive. Offering flexible service hours, translating materials into multiple languages, or deploying mobile service units can significantly improve accessibility. These adjustments should not be viewed as add-ons but as core design principles. In my own work, I have seen how co-locating services—such as housing assistance, mental health support, and childcare—can reduce the burden on residents who would otherwise have to navigate multiple agencies. When we meet people where they are, both geographically and situationally, we signal respect and increase the effectiveness of our outreach.

Building Trust Through Consistency and Accountability

Years of exclusion, discrimination, or neglect cannot be repaired through a single outreach campaign or program launch. Trust is built incrementally, through consistent presence and follow-through. For underserved communities, government promises have often been made without meaningful results, leading to deep skepticism. A 2021 study by the Urban Institute found that only 36 percent of low-income individuals felt local government officials understood their needs³. This gap in perception is not accidental; it reflects a legacy of decisions made without inclusive processes or accountability mechanisms.

To bridge this gap, practitioners must commit to transparency and responsiveness. This includes setting clear expectations, providing regular updates, and creating feedback loops where residents can evaluate performance. Community benefit agreements, participatory budgeting, and neighborhood scorecards are practical tools to hold agencies accountable while deepening relationships with residents. These tools also provide a framework for tracking progress and adjusting programs based on real-time input. Accountability should be mutual, not unidirectional.

Leveraging Cross-Sector Partnerships for Holistic Solutions

Serving underserved populations effectively often requires coordination across sectors, including health, education, housing, and workforce development. No single agency can address the full scope of challenges these communities face. Cross-sector collaboration allows for more comprehensive service delivery and minimizes bureaucratic fragmentation. For instance, integrating housing support with behavioral health services has proven effective in improving housing stability among individuals experiencing homelessness, a strategy supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration⁴.

However, partnerships must be more than symbolic. They require shared goals, clear roles, and aligned incentives. Data-sharing agreements, joint training programs, and collaborative funding models can help operationalize these relationships. In practice, this might look like a school district partnering with a local food bank and a health clinic to provide wraparound services to students and their families. These efforts must be coordinated at both the strategic and frontline levels to ensure seamless service experiences for community members.

Reframing Success Through Community Outcomes

Traditional performance metrics often fail to capture the nuanced impact of serving underserved populations. Quantitative indicators like service counts or application volumes provide limited insight into whether programs are actually improving lives. A shift toward community-defined outcomes is needed. This means asking residents what success looks like to them and adjusting evaluation frameworks accordingly. For example, a workforce program might track not only job placements but also job retention, wage progression, and worker satisfaction, particularly for populations facing systemic employment barriers.

Qualitative data, such as participant stories and community testimonials, can complement quantitative measures and provide richer context. Tools like outcome harvesting and most significant change methodology are useful for capturing these dimensions. Government agencies should invest in building internal capacity to collect and interpret this kind of data. When success is defined collaboratively, it becomes more meaningful and more likely to drive equitable improvements.

Conclusion: Sustaining Commitment Beyond Pilot Programs

Serving underserved populations is not a project with an endpoint but an ongoing responsibility that requires institutional commitment. Too often, initiatives begin with enthusiasm but lose momentum when leadership changes or funding cycles shift. Embedding equity into agency culture, policies, and staffing practices helps safeguard against this volatility. This includes hiring staff with lived experience, offering continuous cultural competence training, and evaluating programs through an equity lens.

Long-term change emerges from systems that reflect the values of inclusion, humility, and shared power. When local governments invest in building authentic relationships, designing with rather than for, and aligning resources around equity outcomes, they not only improve service delivery but also strengthen democratic legitimacy. The work is difficult, but it is necessary, and the impact is transformative when done with integrity and persistence.

Bibliography

1. National Civic League. 2020. “Engaging Residents: Best Practices for Inclusive Public Participation.” National Civic Review 109(1): 5-13.

2. Pew Research Center. 2021. “Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet.” https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/

3. Urban Institute. 2021. “Assessing Trust in Local Government: Perspectives from Low-Income Communities.” https://www.urban.org/research/publication/assessing-trust-local-government

4. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 2020. “Best Practices for Recovery-Oriented Housing and Supportive Services.” https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-programs-resources/best-practices