Not the Same Thing: Why Human-Centered Design and Participatory Planning Aren’t Interchangeable in Nonprofit Work
Human-centered design and participatory planning aren’t the same. One centers empathy; the other centers power-sharing. In nonprofits, confusing them can lead to tokenism instead of true collaboration. Let’s move from designing for communities to planning with them.
By Adriana J. Riaño
In recent years, I’ve noticed a growing excitement in the nonprofit sector to “co-create” with communities and “center people” in our work. And that’s a good thing. As someone who has spent more than a decade in the nonprofit sector, facilitating learning spaces and designing community-rooted programs, I’ve also noticed something that gives me pause: the increasing use of human-centered design and participatory planning as if they mean the same thing.
They don’t. And confusing the two can unintentionally reinforce the very power dynamics we’re trying to undo.
🌱 What’s the Difference?
Human-Centered Design (HCD) is rooted in design thinking. It’s a process that prioritizes empathy, observation, and prototyping to develop solutions that meet users’ needs. In nonprofit settings, HCD often aims to improve services for people, re-imagining the user experience, designing better access programs, digital tools, or wraparound services.
Participatory Planning, by contrast, is about power-sharing. It doesn’t just ask what people need, it asks who gets to decide. It’s rooted in community organizing, collective action, and political consciousness. Participatory planning shifts the focus away from institutions, donors, or flashy innovations and instead centers the voices and leadership of people most impacted by social issues. It positions institutions in a supportive role, rather than as the primary driver of change.
As the Center for Community Health and Development puts it, participatory approaches "emphasize collective inquiry and experimentation grounded in experience and social history"—with the explicit goal of shifting power. (Community Tool Box, University of Kansas)
🔁 Why Do They Get Confused?
On the surface, HCD and participatory planning can look similar. Both use interviews, mapping tools, co-creation sessions, and feedback loops. However, the intent and power structure behind them are very different.
Human-centered design often centers users as informants. They provide insights, and practitioners use those insights to design something “better.” It still keeps decision-making mostly within the organization.
Participatory planning, however, centers community members as co-creators. They are not just contributors, they’re planners, shapers, and decision-makers. The process moves at the speed of trust, often slower, but much deeper in its long-term impact.
We ask for stories and experiences, but we don’t give people a real say in what gets built.
⚠️ Why It Matters: The Consequences of Getting It Wrong
When we use human-centered design language to describe what is actually a top-down process, we risk tokenizing communities. We ask for stories and experiences, but we don’t give people a real say in what gets built.
When nonprofits or social agencies rely solely on HCD, we may create polished programs that feel community-informed but still reflect institutional goals. This can perpetuate cycles where solutions are short-term, overly professionalized, or not owned by the people they’re meant to serve.
And when we only lean on participatory planning without structure or resourcing, we may unintentionally overburden communities without follow-through—causing fatigue or disillusionment.
🌍 What’s Possible When We Get it Right?
What if we saw these two approaches as complementary, but not interchangeable?
- Use HCD as a tool within a larger participatory framework, not as a replacement for it.
- Invest time and trust in communities to define the problem, not just react to proposed solutions.
- Shift from “how do we meet their needs?” to “how do we create space for them to lead?”
In my work, I’ve seen how powerful it can be when nonprofits move from doing for to planning with. When we shift from expert to partner, our work becomes more relational, honest, and rooted in liberation.
If you're exploring how to do this in your organization or navigating the tension between design and deep participation, you’re not alone. Let’s keep learning together. Let’s move from centering people in our process… to actually sharing power in it.