A practical resource for public agencies, housing authorities, and civic organizations ready to move from commitment to structure — drawn from the foundational principles of human-centered design practice and the lived experience of Loren Dalbert and Loren Kadar.
This guide combines our foundational principles for lived experience integration with six structural recommendations derived from systematic analysis of how the highest-performing plans actually implement what they commit to on paper. It is written for implementers, not theorists.
Every government program, housing initiative, and workforce intervention is built on assumptions about how people experience the systems it touches. Some of those assumptions are right. Many are wrong. The ones that are wrong are usually the ones that matter most.
Lived experience integration is the practice of bringing people who have direct experience navigating a system into the design, implementation, and evaluation of that system's programs and policies. Done well, it surfaces what administrative data misses: the trust gaps, the informal workarounds, the dignity breaches, the moments where a policy's logic breaks down in contact with a real person's real life.
Why structure matters more than intent: Most agencies that struggle with lived experience integration aren't lacking commitment — they're lacking the structural machinery to sustain it. Advisory committees without compensation. Listening sessions without a defined feedback loop. Community representatives brought in after key decisions are made. These approaches reflect a gap in design, not a gap in values. This guide describes the structures that close that gap.
The difference between extraction and genuine integration comes down to three things: structure, compensation, and feedback loops. This guide addresses all three in detail — grounded in what the highest-performing plans actually do, not just what they say they'll do.
Before any structures are built, these principles need to be genuinely held by the team doing the implementation — not just stated in a document.
Lived experience is not a softer or lesser form of knowledge. It is a distinct and irreplaceable form of expertise that administrative data, research literature, and professional credentials cannot replicate.
Every structure you build must protect the dignity of contributors. Extracting their knowledge without recognition, compensation, or follow-through is an ethical failure — regardless of program intent.
Putting one person with lived experience in a room of twelve agency staff is not participation. Genuine integration requires structures that make contribution safe, impactful, and sustained.
There is no single "community voice." Design for the range — by geography, by circumstance, by language, by age — not the average or the most accessible.
How you engage matters as much as what you produce. An excellent report produced through extractive engagement can do more damage to long-term trust than a flawed report built through genuine partnership.
The aim of every engagement is to leave your team more capable of doing this work independently — not to create dependency on outside facilitation indefinitely.
The six recommendations that follow are drawn from systematic analysis of 55 homelessness strategic plans across federal, state, county, and municipal jurisdictions in the United States and Canada — including plans from California, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, Washington State, Washington D.C., Michigan, Utah, and Toronto. This literature review and analysis was conducted by Loren Dalbert, lived experience consultant, bringing both research rigor and firsthand understanding of what these structures feel like from the inside. Each plan was reviewed and rated across three dimensions: Lived Experience Integration, Implementation Specificity, and Engagement Breadth, each scored on a five-point scale (15 points maximum).
| Tier | Example plans | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 — Exemplary | California ICH Action Plan · All In (USICH) · Athens-Clarke County, GA · Sonoma County, CA · San José, CA · Detroit, MI | 13–15 / 15 |
| Tier 2 — Strong | Toronto (SSHA) · Fremont, CA · Utah Implementation · Riverside County, CA · Homeward DC · Sacramento, CA · Richmond, CA | 10–12 / 15 |
| Tier 3 — Developing | Plans with genuine LE commitment but structural gaps in compensation, dedicated advisory bodies, and decision-gate integration | 7–9 / 15 |
| Tier 4 — Emerging | Plans with aspirational language but limited structural follow-through | 4–6 / 15 |
The gap between Tier 3 and Tier 1 is almost never a values gap. Plans at every tier express commitment to lived experience. What Tier 1 plans have that Tier 3 plans don't is structural machinery: named standing advisory bodies with independent authority, explicit compensation frameworks with benefits protection, lived experience at real funding decision gates, and ongoing community intelligence mechanisms that go beyond provider-reported data.
The key finding: Every plan in Tier 1 has the same values commitments as plans in lower tiers. The difference is entirely structural — the specific mechanisms that make those commitments hold through the life of implementation, not just through the planning process.
The six recommendations below describe exactly those structures. Implementing them in full — with appropriate adaptation to your context — would position your initiative among the highest-rated approaches reviewed across the country.
Strategic advisory committees set direction. They cannot design the actual workflows, referral pathways, and cross-departmental protocols that implementation requires — those live at a different level of the organization. Frontline co-design adds a structured working layer that includes program managers, case managers, intake coordinators, outreach workers, and frontline staff across departments and partner organizations, alongside people with lived experience of navigating those same systems as clients.
A small, mixed-level working group — decision-making authority, operational knowledge, and lived experience in the same room — meets on a specific problem with a sustained weekly rhythm. It operates within the strategic frame set by governance but has real authority over how protocols are built.
This model has been used to build direct connections between service providers and county workforce systems that did not previously exist: executive leadership, frontline staff, and a lived experience consultant meeting weekly until the pathway was designed and functional. San José's Implementation Plan and Sonoma County's 5-Year Strategic Plan both apply this model to close gaps that did not appear in administrative data.
The working group's primary tool is the discovery sprint: a structured, time-limited session in which frontline staff from two or more departments or organizations, alongside people with lived experience, map a specific shared process end to end. Where does the handoff break down? Which referral pathways technically exist but practically don't? The sprint surfaces the friction points — and the workarounds frontline staff have already invented, which are often the seeds of better protocols.
Why LE belongs in the working group, not just the committee: Federal research is clear — the most impactful lived experience engagement happens throughout the entire decision-making process, including at implementation level. Detroit's Strategic Plan Oversight Commission and the California ICH Action Plan both embed LE at the working-group level as a structural requirement. New cross-system connections get discovered when an outreach worker and an eligibility specialist compare notes for the first time and realize they have been serving the same person through two systems that have never spoken to each other.
Every Tier 1 plan in the analysis has a named, standing lived experience advisory body — separate from, and reporting formally to, its main governance committee. Athens-Clarke County, Georgia documented the failure mode that occurs without one: "voices could be drowned out and simply adding people with lived experience to existing committees continued 'business as usual.' Having a dedicated committee was important for meaningful power sharing."
Sonoma County's Lived Experience Advisory Board has standing access to their CoC Board, City Council, and Board of Supervisors meetings. California ICH's LEAB co-produced guidance resources distributed statewide. These are not symbolic roles — they are structural positions with real access and real authority.
8–12 members with current or recent (within 5 years) direct experience of the systems being governed. Meets independently, monthly or bi-monthly, with its own agenda.
One topic per session — depth over checkbox coverage, following Athens-Clarke County, GA standard. Supported by a staff note-taker who does not facilitate, preserving independence from institutional influence.
Formal written recommendation memos to the governance committee before each governing body meeting. Standing representation at all governance sessions and relevant public meetings.
A dedicated seat for youth participants (ages 18–24), separate from adult seats — following Sonoma County's Youth Action Board model, recognizing that young people navigating systems have distinct and irreplaceable insight.
Getting started: A dedicated advisory body does not need a completed charter to hold its first session. Athens-Clarke County, GA found that modest seed funding was sufficient to build momentum. It needs a room, compensation for participants' time, and one question: "What does this system need to know from people with lived experience that it currently doesn't know?" That session produces the foundation for the charter, the domain of authority, and the first recommendation memos.
Compensation for lived experience participation is absent from most plans below Tier 1. Every Tier 1 plan in the analysis names it explicitly. The All In federal strategic plan (USICH, 2022) — rated 15/15 — identified the benefits cliff as the most damaging structural barrier: paying LE participants can trigger loss of public benefits including health coverage, nutrition assistance, housing vouchers, and income support programs. Sonoma County's 5-Year Strategic Plan sets the benchmark: pay people with lived experience at rates that mirror the activities performed by existing paid staff.
Pay parity for equivalent work — rates pegged to existing staff performing comparable activities. The principle: if a staff member would be paid $X to facilitate a session, an LE advisor facilitating or co-facilitating should be paid at a comparable rate. Preparation time counts.
| Activity | Minimum standard | Best practice |
|---|---|---|
| Document review | $25–50 per document | $50–75 + follow-up interview |
| Advisory meeting (2 hrs) | $75–100 | $150 + prep materials + prep time |
| Public testimony / hearing | $150–200 | $250 + coaching + debrief |
| Ongoing advisory role (monthly) | $200–400/month | $400–600/month + benefits review |
| Co-design facilitation (half day) | $300–400 | $500 + prep + debrief pay |
Route payment through a 501(c)(3) fiscal agent rather than government HR. Maintains the administrative separation that protects participants' public benefits eligibility — the model the USICH All In framework specifically calls for.
Before any advisory member accepts compensation, a benefits counselor reviews their situation and identifies what level of earnings they can accept without triggering reductions. This is a prerequisite, not an afterthought.
Transit, childcare, and internet access covered explicitly. Athens-Clarke County, GA addressed access barriers by applying for low-income phone programs on behalf of members and soliciting donated devices.
Our commitment: Compensation for lived experience advisors is a core part of how we design every engagement. We help clients build appropriate compensation structures into their budgets and contracts from the start — including benefits counseling and participation costs — so that advisors can contribute fully without financial risk.
Many plans commit to maintaining seats for people with lived experience on their main governance body. Few specify the details that make that commitment hold. Detroit's Strategic Plan Oversight Commission (SPOC) provides the strongest model in the analysis: 5 institutional representatives and 5 people with lived experience, with equal authority to review and approve the strategic plan. San José, CA designates primary and alternate commissioner seats with lived experience as a formal governance standard.
Minimum 2 seats; ideally 3 or more. Primary plus alternate, with geographic distribution where the service area is large. Experience in one part of a region differs from experience in another; governance should reflect that range.
By the dedicated advisory body — not by institutional leaders appointing them. This preserves independence and connects the advisory body to governance. Athens-Clarke County, GA uses this model; it produces representatives with genuine community standing.
Current or recent lived experience (within 5 years). Priority to communities overrepresented in the system's caseload — which often means communities of color, youth, and those with intersecting vulnerabilities.
Full voting members — not advisors, not observers. Detroit's SPOC demonstrated that 50/50 parity is achievable and produces stronger plans. Equal voting authority is the structural commitment that makes the others credible.
Staggered terms (recommended: 2 years, renewable once) so institutional knowledge is not lost when all seats turn over simultaneously.
Materials distributed 5+ days in advance in plain language. One-on-one staff briefing available before each meeting. San José's Implementation Plan specifies this standard explicitly — and it is the difference between nominal and genuine participation.
Most programs involve resource allocation decisions: which programs get funded, which protocols get designed, which RFPs get issued. The following structures — drawn from Tier 1 plans — ensure lived experience input arrives before those decisions are finalized, not after.
Any new allocation above a defined threshold requires an advisory body memo before the governance committee votes. Not a veto — a formal record before the decision. Sonoma County, CA embeds this across all strategy areas. The effect is structural: it transforms the advisory body from consultative to integral.
RFPs and funding notices for services include at minimum one lived experience advisory member on the scoring panel. San José, CA applies this standard to its major housing funding rounds — the clearest example in the analysis of LE at a real funding decision gate. The presence of lived experience on the scoring panel changes what reviewers attend to and what criteria carry weight.
Programs receiving funding include client feedback mechanisms in their scope of work, with results reported to the advisory body quarterly. California ICH requires this of all state grantees; Sacramento, CA extended it to contracted providers. This closes the loop between lived experience input at the design stage and lived experience feedback at the implementation stage.
A permanent "Advisory Committee Report" on every governance committee agenda — before decisions are made, not after. Every Tier 1 plan in the analysis has a formal mechanism of this kind. Without it, advisory input arrives as history rather than as input.
Many plans list client satisfaction and self-reported well-being as performance metrics without describing how those data are gathered or acted on. Provider-collected satisfaction data captures what the system sees — not what the system misses. Toronto's Street Needs Assessment heard directly from 2,500+ people experiencing homelessness in a single cycle, including people in encampments with no system contact. San José, CA conducts annual peer-to-peer surveys specifically designed to reach vehicle-dwelling residents who do not appear in shelter data.
Contacts and logged referrals. Outcomes for people who engage with the system. Does not track people who stopped engaging, referrals that went unanswered, or services that were technically available but practically inaccessible.
Gap intelligence. The person who navigated to a service, found it inaccessible for reasons that never hit a database, and never came back. That intelligence lives with people who have been in that situation — or are trusted by people in it now.
A direct survey of people with lived experience — not filtered through service providers. Advisory members co-design the questions and conduct peer outreach to reach people not connected to shelter or services. Results go to the governance committee as a co-equal data source alongside administrative data. Modeled on San José's peer-to-peer survey methodology and Toronto's Street Needs Assessment.
Open sessions in different areas of the service region where anyone currently or recently with lived experience can surface gaps and provide feedback. Summary delivered to the governance committee before its next meeting. Sonoma County holds these across multiple governance levels; the geographic distribution ensures that regional variation in experience reaches decision-makers.
Where administrative data reveals that specific communities are disproportionately represented in a system's caseload, a dedicated feedback channel partnering with culturally specific organizations — not subsumed in a general "LE" category — ensures their specific experiences reach decision-makers. Methodology: matched facilitator identity, deliberate subpopulation targeting, and trusted community organizations as access intermediaries, drawing on the Centering Racial Equity in Homeless System Design framework (Alameda County CoC, 2021).
The physical and social dynamics of engagement spaces can either enable or undermine genuine participation. Facilitators must actively manage these dynamics — they don't resolve themselves.
Trauma-informed facilitation: For participants with direct experience of housing instability, system contact, or institutional harm, standard facilitation practices may need significant adaptation. Ask what support people need before assuming. Build in breaks. Create explicit opt-out pathways for any content that feels too close. Have a support person available — not a clinician checking risk, but a trusted peer who can sit with someone who needs a moment.
Use this as a pre-launch review for any program or engagement that includes lived experience participation.
This guide is a starting point. The work of genuine lived experience integration is relational and contextual — it requires adaptation to your specific program, your specific community, and your specific institutional constraints. A checklist is not a co-design process.
Dalbert Design and CivicMakers work with departments and agencies that are committed to doing this well — and want the structural support to make that commitment hold through the life of implementation. We bring both the lived experience of navigating these systems and the design practice to translate that experience into structures that hold. Our work spans seven county departments, multiple state agencies, and civic organizations across California.
What we offer: Lived experience integration design, advisory body structuring and facilitation, compensation framework development, gap analysis, strategic planning, community intelligence mechanisms, capacity building, and ongoing implementation support. Full details on our services page.
If this guide raised questions you don't yet have answers to — that's exactly the right place to start a conversation with us.
We help departments and agencies build the structures, compensation frameworks, and feedback loops that make this work — and that last beyond the engagement.