Case Study 25.1 — Lighthouse: Two Versions
A composite, illustrative case built to contrast authentic and performative equity. Lighthouse Community Services is a composite; the dynamics are real. Verify your funder's current equity/inclusion requirements.
Why this case: the same program, two versions
The clearest way to teach the authentic-versus-performative distinction is to write the same program two ways and watch the difference. Lighthouse Community Services runs a reentry workforce program for people returning from incarceration. The funder asks how the program engages and serves the community it works with. Lighthouse could answer two very different ways — and the difference is entirely about power.
Version A — Performative equity
In the performative version, Lighthouse's staff — none of whom have been incarcerated — design the entire program based on what they believe returning citizens need. They run it themselves, make all the decisions, control the budget, and take the credit. To address the funder's equity question, they add one "client representative" to an advisory board (which meets quarterly and has no real authority) and write a fluent narrative using all the expected equity language: "community-centered," "lived experience," "culturally responsive."
On paper, it looks equitable. But test it against the threshold concept: does it share power? It does not. Every decision, dollar, and design choice stays with people outside the affected community. The returning citizens are the objects of the program — recipients of services designed for them by others — not partners in it. The "lived experience" language describes a value the program doesn't actually practice. This is performative equity: the description without the power-sharing.
And it has a deficit cost beyond ethics: the program is probably worse, because the people who designed it lack the knowledge that only lived experience provides.
Version B — Authentic equity
In the authentic version, Lighthouse builds power-sharing into the program's structure:
- People with lived experience hold real roles. Lighthouse employs returning citizens in genuine staff and leadership positions — not as tokens, but as people whose knowledge shapes decisions and who hold authority.
- They shaped the design from the start. The program model was built with people who've navigated reentry, who knew which barriers actually derail people: the critical first 72 hours after release, the indignity of certain intake processes, which local employers will give someone a real chance and which won't.
- Participants have real influence. A genuine feedback structure lets current participants shape how the program runs, with their input actually changing things.
- The power-sharing is resourced. Community co-designers and lived-experience staff are paid for their expertise (Section 25.6, and Chapters 11–12), shown in the budget — making the partnership real rather than extractive.
Test this against the threshold: does it share power? Yes — design, decisions, leadership, and resources are genuinely shared with the affected community. The returning citizens are partners and leaders, not objects. And the equity language in the proposal now describes something true.
What happened — and why it's also better work
The authentic version isn't just more equitable; it's more effective. The program catches the barriers outsiders miss (the 72-hour gap, the right employers, the demoralizing intake step), because the people who designed it lived them. Participants trust a program led by people who've been where they are. Outcomes improve. The funder, reading a proposal that genuinely shares power — visible in the roles, the design process, and the budget — sees authentic equity and funds it over the performative version, which it recognizes as hollow.
Crucially, Lighthouse didn't pursue the authentic version to win the grant. It pursued it because the program works better when the people it serves help lead it. The funding followed the authenticity; it didn't drive it.
What this case teaches
- The same program, two versions, one difference: power. Identical language, opposite equity — because one shares power and one only describes serving.
- Performative equity is detectable and hollow. A token advisory seat and the right vocabulary don't make work equitable; reviewers and communities see through it.
- Authentic equity is better work. Centering lived experience brings essential knowledge the outsiders lack — equity and effectiveness converge.
- Resource the power-sharing. Paying lived-experience staff and co-designers makes the partnership real and shows the funder the commitment is genuine.
🔄 Retrieve: Without rereading, name (a) the single test that distinguishes Lighthouse's two versions, and (b) two specific things the authentic version does that the performative one doesn't. (Answers above.)