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: A Planning Guide for Co-Creating with a Variety of Critical Perspectives

Updated October 8, 2025, 11:01 AM
Sherri Britt-Williams

This planning guide provides an evidence-based process for planning and facilitating co-creation processes with partners most impacted by system challenges and changes. Products and policies that are co-created with and for the people most affected by them have several benefits. They are adopted more quickly, last longer, and produce meaningful improvements for children and families.

This guide is for state and local early childhood leaders, technical assistance (TA) providers, implementation coaches, and other facilitators who co-create products, policies, procedures, or tools with a variety of critical perspectives. It is a planning and facilitation tool to guide meaningful co-creation efforts.

Successful facilitators of this process:

  • Value transparency, flexibility, shared ownership, and continuous learning.
  • Model curiosity, humility, and shared decision-making processes.
  • Understand and apply principles, methods, and tools informed by implementation science.
  • Create environments that support honest two-way communication to allow for adjustments in processes.
  • Elevate experiences of people most impacted by the product or change as core expertise.

The REAL Framework was developed and tested through multiple national TA and implementation efforts. It aligns with implementation science principles and practices.

This guide is particularly useful during the Installation phase of implementation, when teams develop infrastructure, materials, and tools to support implementation. Teams may also use it during Exploration (to co-define needs and solutions) or Initial Implementation (to refine guidance and processes with people experiencing them). For more about implementation stages and essential support structures, refer to ECTA's Statewide Implementation Guide.

When the people most impacted by a challenge help create solutions, the resulting tools, guidance, or procedures are more relevant, trusted, and sustainable (Boaz et al., 2018; Foster et al., 2021). A growing body of implementation science literature shows that authentic co-creation strengthens both the process and the outcomes of implementation by fostering trust, and making products more usable in real settings. For example:

  • Co-designed strategies strengthen school practices. In Australian schools, educators and researchers co-designed implementation strategies for a primary school mental health program, resulting in supports that were more relevant and feasible, demonstrating how co-creation improves the fit and sustainability of classroom practices (Baffsky et al., 2023).
  • Early childhood screening improves. When early years home visitors worked alongside Indigenous families to adapt use of the ASQ-3, they reported stronger trust and engagement, showing how co-creation improves both the process and experience of developmental screening (Tremblay et al., 2025).
  • Play environment co-design improves peer interaction and learning. When neurodivergent children, families, and educators co-designed school playground features, the resulting spaces better supported social interaction and wellbeing, illustrating how community-shaped environments promote inclusion (Kelly, Kerr, Rieger, & Flanders Cushing, 2025)
  • Parent co-design improves child health services. When migrant parents collaborated with researchers and health providers to co-design strategies for improving childhood catch-up vaccination, the resulting interventions were perceived as more relevant and trustworthy, showing how engaging families enhances the effectiveness of child-focused systems (Chau, Kaufman, Holland, Danchin, & Tuckerman, 2024).
  • Co-designed parent practices lead to increased use. When Latina mothers helped to align evidence-based parenting practices with family values and routines, families were more likely to use them, showing how engaging families in shaping interventions increases relevance and likelihood of use (Calzada, Basil, & Fernandez, 2013).
  • Partnering with young adults with disabilities improves Individualized Education Program (IEP) experiences. IEP meeting satisfaction scores rose when deaf and hard-of-hearing young adults, families, and teachers co-wrote transition planning guides. (Chen & Barker, 2022)
  • Long-term community-based partnerships build staying power. A realist review of 23 projects found that iterative, co-creative collaboration builds trust that motivates partners to engage in future initiatives. (Jagosh et al., 2015)

These studies—spanning screening, literacy, inclusive play, health, and transition planning—underscore that co-creating with those most affected yields deeper relationships, relevant products and guidance, and more durable outcomes.

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.

The REAL Framework builds on and extends existing models such as the IAP2 Spectrum (IAP2, 2018) for identifying engagement levels and the Guidance for Engaging Critical Perspectives (NIRN, 2024) for relevance mapping to support authentic co-creation. It helps teams meaningfully co-create with a variety of critical partners across planning, design, and evaluation.

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.

See the REAL Framework Practice Profile for detailed quality indicators for each component.

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.

Step-by-Step Facilitator Guide

Step 1: Define the "WHAT" and Map Critical Perspectives

With a planning team:

  • Clarify the goal: What will you co-create? Why is it needed? How will you measure success?
  • Secure resources to support facilitation of the process.
  • Determine who is most impacted by this product and who this product is intended to support.
  • Draft a timeline with built-in flexibility to allow for adjustments through the process.
  • Avoid generic, preset drafts. Allow partner ideas to shape the content.
  • Begin a list of anticipated motivators and barriers to help identify strategies to support critical perspectives once they begin meeting.

Step 2: Facilitate the Process Using the REAL Framework

Goal: Co-create with people who are most impacted by the product and experience barriers relating to the problem or need the product is addressing.

Facilitator Steps
  1. Use NIRN's Guidance for Engaging Critical Perspectives (2024) to identify potential partners from all four relevance categories: demographic, geographic, issue experience, and direct engagement.
  2. Facilitate a process during the meeting so partners can share in their own words the perspectives and motivations they bring to the work.
  3. Review group composition periodically for balance across perspectives and invite additional voices as needed.
  4. Ask "Who else?" at multiple stages to avoid overreliance on a few voices and identify other critical perspectives needed.
Guiding Questions for Planning
  • What planning tools or methods are we using to ensure representation across all relevance categories?
  • Which perspectives are missing and how might we reach them?
  • How do we create space for partners to identify their experiences and desired contributions?
  • How do we avoid assigning participant roles or labels without their input?
  • When and how do we pause to ask, "Who else?" in the process? What happens as a result of that question being asked?
  • What data or observations do we use to identify if additional perspectives are needed?
  • How do we make changes in response to identified gaps?
  • How are partners helping to set the agenda, guide the process, and shape focus areas?
  • How do we include experiences, concerns, and ideas raised by partners as we facilitate discussion topics?

Goal: Provide clear information about engagement levels and related expectations and tasks for each level involved in the process.

Facilitator Steps
  1. Clearly explain options for levels of engagement, including expectations and activities associated with each level.
  2. Invite partners to select their preferred level(s) of engagement.
  3. Provide opportunities for partners to shape the vision and direction of the work.
  4. Communicate decision-making points and other opportunities to influence the process and outcomes.
  5. Be honest about known limits; clarity builds trust.
  6. Invite partners to identify potential motivators and barriers to engagement and adjust support strategies based on what they share.
Guiding Questions for Planning
  • What engagement options are we offering—and how are we clearly defining expectations and examples for each engagement level so that partners can see themselves participating in one or more level?
  • How are we making space for partners to co-lead or shape decisions if they choose?
  • How do we communicate roles, expectations, and requests early, clearly, and often?
  • How do we clearly communicate how partner input will be used?
  • How do we ensure that partners at engagement levels that include influence and decision making have opportunities to do so?
  • How do we gather feedback from partners on their experiences with shared decision making and influence to ensure they are feeling supported?
  • How often do we check partners' engagement level preferences and how do we support participation at their chosen levels?
  • How do we ensure that the adjustments we make are responsive to what partners share?
  • How do we communicate key decision points with partners and hear their reactions?
  • What are some of the limits on what partners can influence or make decisions on? How are we openly sharing which decisions and limits have already been decided or established by the funding agency or organization?

Goal: Offer a variety of ways for partners to contribute that match their preferences, needs, and capacity.

Facilitator Steps
  1. Offer multiple ways to engage: live sessions, async review, phone calls, voice memos, etc.
  2. Provide access support: tech guidance, language translation, transportation help, stipends, etc.
  3. Clarify expectations early: timelines, deliverables, points of contact.
  4. Revisit partners' preferences over time; needs may shift.
  5. Build in time for reflection: Is the format working? What else is needed?
Guiding Questions for Planning
  • What modes of engagement are available, and what additional modes are needed based on partners' preferences and capacity?
  • How will we know if modes are effective and when partners' needs change?
  • How do we proactively offer support such as language interpretation, technical support, flexible scheduling?
  • What barriers to access and participation are partners experiencing, and how are we addressing them?
  • How are we clearly communicating tasks, expectations, timelines, and tech guidance in ways partners prefer to receive the information?
  • How are we consistently tailoring information on tasks, expectations, etc. with the engagement level the partner has chosen.
  • How do we determine partners' preferred communication channels?
  • What options for providing input are we using, and how accessible are they?
  • How are we reaching partners who cannot attend live sessions?

Goal: Ensure partners remain involved in the iterative process of revising so their ideas and insights are valued and integrated.

Facilitator Steps
  1. Document feedback in plain language.
  2. Use "You said, We did" visuals or summaries.
  3. Involve partners in iterative revision process leading to final approval.
  4. Credit partners' contributions in public materials.
  5. Share how the product is used and updated.
  6. Provide partners with copies and updates.
Guiding Questions for Planning
  • How are we visibly linking revisions to feedback?
  • How are we ensuring partners see the impact of what they've shared?
  • How do we provide touchpoints through review and revision?
  • How are partners involved in shaping changes?
  • How are we publicly giving partners credit for their roles and impact in the final product?
  • What ways do we show partners how their input will influence ongoing planning and use in final products?
  • How are we closing the loop on the planned co-creation work with all partners?

Use the REAL Process Practice Profile to identify key practices to implement and strengthen throughout the process.

Step 3: Sustain and Strengthen the Partnership

Authentic co-creation does not end with the final product. Ongoing relationships build trust, extend the impact, and support shared ownership.

  • Offer partners opportunities to support next steps such as co-present at conferences, co-author blogs or briefs, test the product in their own settings, support dissemination.
  • Invite partners to share how they use the product.
  • Share with partners how products are being used and results achieved through impact stories and data.
  • Stay connected to identify additional partnership opportunities.

References

  1. Baffsky, R., Ivers, R., Cullen, P., McGillivray, L., Werner-Seidler, A., Calear, A. L., Batterham, P. J., Toumbourou, J. W., Stokes, R., Kotselas, P., Prendergast, T., & Torok, M. (2023). Co-design and development of implementation strategies: Enhancing the PAX Good Behaviour Game in Australian schools. Journal of Prevention, 44(6), 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-023-00749-9
  2. Boaz, A., Hanney, S., Borst, R., O'Shea, A., & Kok, M. (2018). How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6
  3. Chau, M., Kaufman, J., Holland, P., Danchin, M., & Tuckerman, J. (2024). Co-designing interventions to improve childhood catch-up vaccination for migrant parents: Process and outcomes. Vaccine, 42(36), 5227–5235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.07.005
  4. Calzada, E. J., Basil, S., & Fernandez, Y. (2013). What Latina mothers think of evidence-based parenting practices: A qualitative study of treatment acceptability. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 20(3), 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2012.08.004
  5. Chen, X., & Barker, R. (2022). Nothing about us without us: Deaf youth co-lead transition-guide development. Exceptional Children, 88(4), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2021.1885576
  6. Foster, M., Fleming, J., Tilbury, C., McDonald, M., & Henricks, J. (2021). Participation of children and young people in decision-making in social work: A scoping review. British Journal of Social Work, 51(6), 2022–2042. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcaa018
  7. International Association for Public Participation. (2018). IAP2 spectrum of public participation. https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars
  8. Jagosh, J., Macaulay, A. C., Pluye, P., et al. (2015). Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: A realist review of the literature. Milbank Quarterly, 93(3), 495–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12103
  9. Kelly, S., Kerr, J., Rieger, J., & Flanders Cushing, D. (2025). Let’s Play: Co-designing inclusive school playgrounds with neurodivergent children. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 9(2005, 100494). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100494
  10. National Implementation Research Network. (2024). Guidance for engaging critical perspectives in implementation and cocreation. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/Guidance-for-Engaging-Critical-Perspectives.pdf
  11. Tremblay, M., Ewan, A., Kruschke, Z., Willsie, J., Kagan-Cassidy, M., Rattlesnake, C., & Downie, H. (2025). Developmental screening with Indigenous families: Perspectives of early years home visitors on the ASQ-3. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2025.2475881