Participatory research with care-experienced young people shaped a long-term cross-council vision for accommodation support influencing multiple strategies and commissioning processes.

Three co-design sessions involved young people in shaping research plans, analysing findings, and co-designing outputs

Improved research relevance, legitimacy, and policy influence while strengthening ethical engagement.

1. Participation infrastructure and organisational priority enabled the work; limited time constrained depth of collaborative analysis.
2. Be attentive and adapt to their preferences: When co-designers expressed their interest in this work through an online form, they told us their preferred communication method (phone or email). We made sure to try and catch them on the phone or send them a message before and in between each workshop to make sure they had all the information they need to feel  excited and comfortable attending. Co-designers told us they preferred to meet online in the evenings, as this better suited work schedules – so that’s what we did. We had catering budget should we have met in person, so we used this to send them a Deliveroo voucher instead as we’d be working over dinner time.
3. Co-create ground rules: We wanted to set up the space in a way so everyone knew what to 
   expect of each other and felt safe and comfortable working as a group. We offered a set of 
   “ground rules” (e.g. there are no stupid questions, be respectful and assume everyone has 
   good intentions) and asked them if they’d like to add any of their own.
4. Being trauma-informed and clarifying our expectations of them as “co-designers”: Our co-designers knew they’d been asked to take part because of their lived experiences as care leavers or in the youth justice system. We wanted them to understand that though we were interested in their perspectives, there was no pressure for them to share any personal or difficult experiences unless they felt comfortable doing so. We made sure they knew they could take breaks at any time if they felt triggered or upset by anything they heard.
5. Being clear on the audience for this work: We were guided by the Anna Freud LUNDY model, which articulates the importance of being clear with young people about the audience for any work they are contributing to. This was an important provocation for us as this piece of work wasn’t commissioned for any one particular audience in the council, and is aiming not to make immediate changes, but prompt action that will result in positive changes for future generations of young people. Their response to our feedback forms showed that co-designers understood this and feel comfortable with this.
6. Giving them enough work to give meaningful feedback on: We only had two hours for each workshop with the young people, so we made sure to get their feedback on nearly finished pieces of work (e.g. a draft discussion guide) so that they could input in a meaningful way.