At Bean, co-produced and equitable research is at the heart of what we do. We see this as a key part of our inclusive approach to evaluation. 

 This article draws on insights from our session at The Charity Evaluation Working Group (ChEW) in October, where we shared our experiences working with the Jack Petchey Foundation alongside their CEO, Gemma Juma. During the session, we discussed how funders can promote equitable, co-produced evaluations with charities and the communities they serve. 

 What Does Co-production Mean? The Co-Production Collective defines co-production as “working together in equal partnership for mutual benefit.”  To us this translates into valuing diverse knowledge, experiences and perspectives, actively removing barriers to participation, addressing power imbalances, and encouraging continuous learning. 

 So, What Works? 

Co-production begins with recognising and understanding the power dynamics between funders and the organisations they support. This dynamic exists not only between funders and their grantees but also within the wider charity sector, and with the individuals those charities serve. Acknowledging this power imbalance is essential. 

 Co-production also requires a commitment to listening — but not in the passive sense often associated with evaluation. It’s about ensuring that everyone, from funders to frontline staff and those receiving support, have the space to reflect, share perspectives, and analyse outcomes from their own point of view.  This means understanding the barriers and enablers for different communities, especially those who are marginalised. I often look to the UK Government’s guide to inclusive social research practices.  Some of the language may have moved on but its fundamentals remain helpful.   As Gemma from JPF pointed out during the ChEW webinar, we must also respect stakeholders’ time and interests and recognise that co-production only works when stakeholders are genuinely engaged and interested. You can’t force people to participate if they’re not willing (however much that helps response rates!).  

 Amplifying Young People’s Voices: In the case of JPF, young people’s voices are central to the evaluation process. To quote Gemma again, “it’s about meeting young people where they are, using language and methods that make sense to them.” The JPF evaluation process involved: 

  • Providing feedback on the evaluation framework: Ensuring that the language and outcomes were meaningful to the young people involved. 
  • Making the evaluation process accessible: Going beyond surveys and questionnaires to include interactive methods for young people to share their experiences. 
  • Involving young people in governance: For example, through youth advisory boards, ensuring they were included in decision-making processes. 

Additionally, since 2024, the rights of children have been enshrined in Scottish law through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). These rights include the right to be heard, treated fairly, and supported in being as healthy as possible, reinforcing the importance of amplifying young people’s voices in evaluation. This means in Scotland, there is also a legal obligation to ensure young people are heard through evaluation. 

So, what are the Practical Considerations in Co-production? 

During the ChEW webinar we discussed the practicalities of co-production, and the fact that it is important to build time for collaboration at every stage of the evaluation journey — not just at the start. While co-designing at the outset is important, continuous feedback and iteration from stakeholders is essential to ensure the co-production process remains relevant and impactful. 

Accessible Language is crucial. In research and evaluation, there’s often a lot of jargon — from social impact theories of change to logic models and terms like ‘deadweight.’ This language can alienate stakeholders, so it’s vital to use plain English in communications, avoiding stereotypes. We also recommend using neurodiversity-friendly typefaces (like Verdana) and providing text-to-speech functionality for accessibility in reporting. 

Thinking outside the boxes on Incentives: Incentivising participation in evaluations is important, but it’s not always about monetary rewards. For example, when we worked with JPF to develop a new impact framework, we first asked their funded charities how they would like to engage in the process. Rather than requesting financial incentives, the charities expressed a desire for support in their own evaluation journeys. They wanted to see how the learning from the project could inform and strengthen their own practices. 

Similarly, for another funder specialising in the justice sector, bringing together charities and other funders for collaborative discussions about sector challenges was seen as more valuable than a one-off incentive. Co-production should all be about not assuming what is required. 

Outcomes vs Indicators – Letting Charities Lead: When working with funders to define success, it’s crucial to focus on common outcomes. However, any evaluation is much richer for allowing charities to determine the specific indicators and measures that are most meaningful to them. This gives autonomy to think critically about what is being measured and why. It may complicate analysis, but this flexibility makes the process more equitable and ensures that the evaluation captures the most relevant outcomes for the communities being served. 

Flexibility and Respect: Ultimately, the key to successful co-production is flexibility. You must assess the specific context, and the stakeholders involved, determining whether co-production is the most appropriate and meaningful approach. Key considerations include the vulnerability of stakeholders and their capacity to participate, the level of interest in engaging in the process and whether the timing and circumstances are conducive to a co-production approach. 

The webinar discussion concluded that maintaining respect for stakeholders’ needs and preferences is crucial in deciding when to implement co-production and ensuring it adds value to the evaluation process.