This website uses cookies

This website uses cookies and similar technologies to understand visitor experiences. By using this website, you consent to UNC-Chapel Hill's cookie usage in accordance with their Privacy Notice.

Improving Systems, Practices, and Outcomes

REAL Framework: Practice Profile

Updated October 3, 2025, 9:52 AM
Sherri Britt-Williams

This Practice Profile defines and describes the critical components of the REAL Framework for engaging critical perspectives in co-creation processes.

Facilitators and system leaders can use this Practice Profile to:

  • Plan and design engagement strategies aligned with the REAL Framework.
  • Monitor and reflect on implementation quality.
  • Identify areas for improvement and adaptation.
  • Engage partners in co-assessing the quality of the co-creation process.

The REAL Framework

The REAL Framework responds to a growing need for authentic, transparent, and trust-building co-creation processes, especially in early childhood and public systems work. Co-creation includes the people most impacted by the problem that the product is addressing.

Ultimately, when products and policies are co-created with, not just for, the people most impacted, they are more likely to be used and sustained, and lead to meaningful improvements for children and families.

R

  • Demographic Relevance — experiences of those most affected.
  • Geographic Relevance — insights from locations where impact is significant.
  • Issue Experience — direct experience navigating the system or issue.
  • Direct Engagement — current or recent involvement in services or programs.

E

  • Inform — share clear, accessible information and updates.
  • Consult — gather feedback and opinions to shape direction.
  • Involve — actively engage in idea generation.
  • Co-Design — collaboratively draft, review, and make decisions about content.
  • Co-Lead — share power in decision-making, facilitating, and disseminating.

A

  • Flexibility and variety in when and how people engage.
  • Clear expectations and guidance for partners that align with their perspectives and engagement levels.
  • Multiple connection options such as Zoom, phone, email, voice memos, shared comment matrices.
  • Language and accessibility support such as captioning, translation, plain language.

L

  • Multiple opportunities to self-identify perspective and engagement level.
  • Check-ins to show integration of ideas and revisions to ensure alignment with perspectives.
  • Reflections on feedback and iteration loops using 'You said, We did' messaging.
  • Discussions about what happens next, who else to include, and how the final product will be used or disseminated.

Quality Indicators by Component

Practice Profile: Relevant Mapping
Practice Expected/Proficient Developmental Unacceptable Variation
Partner with individuals with demographic, geographic, issue-specific, and service-relevant perspectives. Consistently identify and recruit partners across all four relevance categories using a structured planning process. Identify some relevant perspectives but use inconsistent or informal methods to recruit partners. Engagement is limited to known contacts or volunteers without intentional relevance mapping.
Invite partners to define their perspective and role. Invite partners to describe their lived experiences, motivators, and desired contributions related to the process. Provide some opportunities for partners to describe their perspectives, but not systematically. Partners' perspectives are identified without asking partners to self-identify or share reflections about their relationship to the work.
Use "Who else?" as a reflective prompt during planning and revision. Regularly revisit "Who else?" to identify missing voices and adjust plans accordingly. Occasionally ask "Who else?" but do not revisit consistently during co-creation. "Who else?" is not asked, and partners remain static or exclusive.
Check for imbalance or gaps in voice and adjust group composition accordingly. Review group composition and how partners are contributing, as needed, in promoting balance among the four relevance categories. Review occasionally, but not systematically, and make infrequent changes. Group composition is unchecked or unchanged once the group is established despite known gaps.
Use partner-identified priorities to shape discussion topics or agendas. Co-identify and adapt topics with partners in response to lived experience priorities. Use some input from partners, but organizers primarily decide topics. Topics are pre-determined or not informed by partners' reflection and priorities.

Practice Profile: Engagement Levels
Practice Expected/Proficient Developmental Unacceptable Variation
Provide options for the following engagement levels: involve, co-design, co-lead. All or most partners influence and share decision making and choose to function across these engagement levels: involve, co-design, and co-lead. Provide some engagement options, or options that don't clearly illustrate how partners are influencing and sharing decision-making. No differentiation in engagement levels is offered; all engagement is passive or limited to informing and consulting.
Clarify expectations and roles for partners. Give partners clear and accessible guidance on their roles and how input will be used. Offer some role guidance, but inconsistently or after engagement begins. Roles are undefined or unclear, leading to confusion or disengagement.
Match level of engagement to decision-making authority. Align and communicate engagement level to influence and decision-making. Loosely align engagement level to influence or inconsistently communicate and follow through. Engagement is tokenistic; decisions are made without partner input and partner influence is limited.
Invite feedback on how partners want to be engaged over time. Routinely ask partners to reflect on their experience and provide opportunities to shift how they engage. Provide opportunities for feedback on continued engagement but they aren't structured or acted upon. No feedback on the engagement process is requested or used during the co-creation process.
Share decision-making timeline and opportunities to influence up front. Provide partners with a clear explanation of when and how they can shape the work early and often. Provide some information on ways to influence, but communication on timing and ways to influence are vague. Decisions are made without clearly informing partners of when and how they can influence.

Practice Profile: Adaptive Modalities
Practice Expected/Proficient Developmental Unacceptable Variation
Offer multiple ways to engage such as live sessions, 1:1 calls, shared comment matrices, email. Offer a flexible set of engagement modalities and adjust based on partners' needs and preferences. Offer few engagement options which make some partners unable to participate fully. Only one mode is offered such as scheduled Zoom meetings which limit accessibility and opportunity.
Provide access supports such as language, tech, timing. Proactively offer supports such as interpretation, captions, flexible timing, and low-tech options. Offer some supports only upon request and apply inconsistently. No supports are provided, limiting access and participation.
Communicate participation expectations clearly and accessibly. Send clear guidance and reminders with timelines, tech instructions, and opportunities to ask questions. Share participation guidance, but not consistently or in a way that is accessible to all audiences. No clear guidance on participation expectations is shared.
Follow up with partners in ways that align with their preferences. Provide follow-up via channels and at times partners prefer such as text, email, group posts. Make some effort to follow up, but timing or channels are inconsistent or limited, with no effort to adapt to partners' preferences. No follow-up occurs, or it is misaligned with partner needs and preferences.
Provide alternative modes for giving input beyond meetings such as voice memos, Google forms, texts. Invite partners to contribute through asynchronous and non-traditional options that align with their preferences. Provide only some partners with options; or offer options without considering partners' preferences. Input is limited to synchronous events regardless of partners' preferences and availability.

Practice Profile: Looping Feedback and Iteration
Practice Expected/Proficient Developmental Unacceptable Variation
Summarize and use partner feedback to revise. Explicitly tie changes to partner input and summarize as "You said, We did" statements. Acknowledge some input, but revisions are not clearly linked to it. Input is collected but not used, or decisions are made without consideration of input.
Build in multiple rounds of review and input. Build multiple opportunities into the process to review, reflect, and revise. Provide only one or two feedback points, which limits iteration. There is no opportunity for iterative review after partners provide initial input.
Acknowledge partner influence and contribution. Name partners and their influence and explicitly acknowledge them on the final product with their permission. Acknowledge contributions inconsistently or generically. Partner input is unrecognized or not communicated when disseminating final product.
Incorporate partner language and framing into the co-creation process and product. Repeat partner phrases, values, ideas, stories, and metaphors throughout the draft and revision process. Use some partner language, but not consistently or systematically. The co-creation process and product are primarily defined and explained using facilitator or organization language instead of how partners describe ideas.
Document and communicate how feedback impacted final decisions, tools, and next steps. Communicate with partners throughout the process summarizing their input's influence. Send progress summaries to partners that lack specific examples or clarity on their input's influence. Partner input and influence pathways are undocumented or not communicated back to partners.