Consultation

Front 1

Community Engaged Approaches: Collaborative Approaches to Consulting and Research

Back 1

Chavis, Stucky, & Wandersman (1983), Trickett & Espino (2004)

Front 2

Community involvement/engagement (research)(Chavis, et al)

Back 2

1. Lab-based research: Community consent research, Community acts as gatekeeper
2. Participatory research: Community is involved in every step of the research process, Includes figuring out what the problem is, Considered co-researchers
Generally community is more toward participatory research

Front 3

Community input (consultation)

Back 3

1. Passive consultation (Consultant is expert, community as passive recipients) 2. Equal partnership/Process consultation (Community and consultants equally value each other’s expertise) Generally community is somewhere in the middle, hopefully more toward equal partnership

Front 4

Social change (research)

Back 4

1. Minimal dissemination: Generally not approachable, 2. Researcher is actively working with community on research process on an action plan and implementing that action plan. Community psychology lands in the middle, tends to lean toward actively working with community. Dissemination in way that is accessible. Topic is relevant to both community and researcher’s work. Generally up to community to take action

Front 5

Research Basic Responsibilities to the Community (Trickett & Espino)

Back 5

Obligation to the community to reciprocate, Community has costs, Community buy in, Drawing on diverse skill sets, Partnering to bridge across different groups, Community empowerment/capacity building, Strengths based approach, Answering questions that are useful to both science and practice, Making information dissemination accessible to community, Community can interpret/contextualize findings, Sustainment, More relevant/useful/engaged in it in the long term, Transferring ownership to community, Marginalized populations’ wariness of research

Front 6

Put power in their hands

Back 6

Self determination, To vs. with, Status attenuation/equality

Front 7

Partnering with CBOs vs. the people themselves

Back 7

Who is the community? Facilitating participation, Help community understand needs for certain methods

Front 8

Community expertise

Back 8

Practical knowledge, Awareness of local meaning, Help understanding, Understanding local culture/values

Front 9

Trade Offs

Back 9

Researcher control, Illusion of objectivity, Funding issues, Potential bias, How compelling the research findings are, Burden on community, researcher/consultant, Resources, Requires all new set of skills/expertise

Front 10

What is consulting? (Block)

Back 10

Coming in to bring expertise, Fix a problem, Give an outsider perspective, Gives guidance rather than doing for them, helps them do it, Lacks authority to make change, has to influence

Front 11

What might community psychologists do as consultants?

Back 11

Evaluation, Develop procedures, Curriculum development, Policies, lobbying, and advocacy, Training, Auditing, Grant writing, Community development, Community organizing

Front 12

Five phases of consultation

Back 12

1. Entry and contracting: Initial contact with client, 2. Discovery and dialogue: What is the need/problem?, Culture/context of the organization, Who’s involved?, 3. Analysis and the Decision to Act: What are your goals?, How will we work toward them? 4. Engagement and Implementation: Carrying out the plan, 5. Extension, Recycle, or Termination: Was the project effective?, Tweak, Expand scope to other parts of the organization, Get out

Front 13

Community Engaged Approaches: Key Principles and Challenges of CBPR and PAR

Back 13

Israel et al. (1998), Minkler (2005), Wallerstein & Duran (2006), Flicker et al. (2006), Minkler (2009)

Front 14

(Israel et al.) Community based research in public health focuses on

Back 14

social, structural, and physical environmental inequities through active involvement of community members, organizational representatives, and researchers in all aspects of the research process.

Front 15

Partners contribute their expertise to

Back 15

enhance understanding of a given phenomenon and to integrate the knowledge gained with action to benefit the community involved.

Front 16

(Minkler) The complexity of many urban health problems often makes them

Back 16

ill suited to traditional research approaches and interventions. The resultant frustration, together with community calls for genuine partnership in the research process, has highlighted the importance of an alternative paradigm. Community based participatory research (CBPR) is presented as a promising collaborative approach that combines systematic inquiry, participation, and action to address urban health problems.

Front 17

(Minkler) CBPR is not a method per se but

Back 17

an orientation to research that may employ any of a number of qualitative and quantitative methodologies

Front 18

Ideally begins with

Back 18

research topic or question that comes from local community

Front 19

Particularly in survey research, community advisory boards (CABs) and other partnership structures can

Back 19

improve measurement instruments by making sure that questions are worded in ways that will elicit valid and reliable responses.

Front 20

CBPR can

Back 20

Improve recruitment and retention efforts, Increase accuracy through cultural sensitivity in findings interpretation, Increase relevance

Front 21

Numerous ethical challenges lastly may arise in relation to

Back 21

the critical action component of CBPR. In some instances, community partners may wish to move quickly into action, whereas academic and other outside research partners may want to “put the breaks on” until findings have been published or other steps brought to fruition.

Front 22

(Wallerstein & Duran ) More than a set of research methods, CBPR is

Back 22

an orientation to research that focuses on relationships between academic and community partners, with principles of colearning, mutual benefit, and long term commitment and incorporates community theories, participation, and practices into the research efforts.

Front 23

Characteristics of CPBR

Back 23

1. All stakeholders involved in all steps of the way, 2. Balance between research and action/advocacy, 3. Asset Based: focus on strengths, 4. Shared knowledge at all levels, ownerships of knowledge, 5. Long term commitment/sustainability, 6. Research questions come from the community (Or approach the community with a general issue), 7. Not a method, but an orientation to research, 8. Shared power in the form of shared resources and decision making, 9. Cultural sensitivity (Focus on local context and culture), 10. Goal: building community capacity/empowering the community, 11. Focus on local context and culture, 12. Clear benefits / shared benefits, 13. Building community capacity and empowerment, 14. Intentional focus of issues of race, SES and to a lesser extent other status markers, 15. Focus on higher levels of analysis (e.g. policy, community development, etc.) 16. Intentional focus on race/SES (being aware of social locations in relationship 17. Focus on higher levels of analysis

Front 24

Things to keep in mind

Back 24

Scope, Cyclical process, Who is the community?, What level of participation makes the most sense for community members?

Front 25

(PAR):

Back 25

Cornwall & Jewkes (1995), Kidd & Krall (2005), Grant, Nelson, & Mitchell (2008)

Front 26

CBPR

Back 26

systems change within existing structures/systems, Starts with a big research project that leads to action

Front 27

PAR

Back 27

deconstructing systems. Used more in developing countries. Hits action a little stronger. A wider range of suggestions of how to do it, intentional interest in non traditional methods. More rapid cycling between research/observation/action

Front 28

Participatory Action Research (PAR)

Back 28

More expressly political than CBPR, Focused more on emancipation and deconstructing systems, Used more in developing countries and international contexts, More interest in non traditional methods, More focus on action, research isn’t as central

Front 29

Community Assessment, Getting to Know Community Context and Identifying Stakeholders

Back 29

Community Toolbox

Front 30

(Hampton & Heaven)(Community Toolbox) What aspects of the community do we need to try to understand?

Back 30

Physical
o Infrastructure (roads, phone coverage, etc)
o Patterns of settlement, commerce, and industry (industries in the neighborhood, slum areas)
o Demographics (age, gender, race, education, etc of community members)
o History (long term and recent of the community)
o Community leaders/formal and informal
o Existing groups and organizations (rotary, churches, sports teams)
o Existing institutions (college, libraries, hospitals)
o Economics (employers in area, wealth distribution)
o Government and politics
o Social structure (how people related daily, perceptions of status, etc)
o Attitudes and values

Front 31

Why learn about communities?

Back 31

Gives you credibility
Build relationships
Can produce intervention that works for as many parts of the community as possible
Be aware of constraints (e.g. policies)
To be well informed before beginning your work
When you're considering introducing a new initiative or program and want to assess its possible success.

Front 32

Gather info from:

Back 32

Elected officials
• Community planners and development officers
• Chiefs of police
• School superintendents, principals, and teachers
• Directors or staff of health and human service organizations
• Health professionals
• Clergy
• Community activists
• Housing advocates
• Presidents or chairs of civic or service clubs: Chamber of Commerce, veterans' organizations, Lions, Rotary, etc.
• People without titles, but identified by others as "community leaders"
• Owners or CEO's of large businesses (these may be local or may be large corporations with local branches)

Front 33

How to gather info:

Back 33

Be prepared to learn from the community.
o Be aware that people's speech, thoughts, and actions are not always rational.
o Don't assume that the information people give you is necessarily accurate.
o Beware of activities that may change people's behavior. (such as being studied)
o Take advantage of the information and facilities that help shape the world of those who have lived in the community for a long time. (newspaper, TV, radio)
o Network, network, network.
o Public records and archives
o Individual and group interviews.
o Surveys
o Direct or participant observation

Front 34

(Community Toolbox/Rabinowitz): Primary stakeholders

Back 34

are the people or groups that stand to be directly affected, either positively or negatively, by an effort or the actions of an agency, institution, or organization.

Front 35

Secondary stakeholders

Back 35

are people or groups that are indirectly affected, either positively or negatively, by an effort or the actions of an agency, institution, or organization. (parents, spouses, doctors, social workers)

Front 36

Key stakeholders,

Back 36

who might belong to either or neither of the first two groups, are those who can have a positive or negative effect on an effort, or who are important within or to an organization, agency, or institution engaged in an effort. (government, local board members, policy makers)

Front 37

Latents

Back 37

high influence, low interest

Front 38

Promoters

Back 38

high influence, high interest

Front 39

Apathetics

Back 39

low influence, low interest

Front 40

Defeners

Back 40

low influence, high interest

Front 41

The promoters

Back 41

the high influence/high interest folks, are the most important here.

Front 42

(Community Toolbox) What does a consultant do/offer: 1. Knowledge relating to an issue.

Back 42

As the terms “experience” and “expertise” imply, there are different kinds of knowledge a consultant may bring to bear on an issue:
• Theoretical knowledge gained from study and/or experiment.
• Practical knowledge gained from experience.
• Firsthand knowledge of a target community.
• Expertise in using a particular method or approach, such as street outreach or family literacy.
• New ideas based on theory and/or practice.

Front 43

(Community Toolbox) What does a consultant do/offer: 2. Knowledge of a process.

Back 43

Some processes that consultants typically address:
• Assessing community, organizational, or other assets, needs, or preferences.
• Strategic planning for an organization or initiative.
• Planning an intervention or initiative.
• Implementation of a strategic plan, intervention, or initiative.
• Starting an organization.
• Organizational development.
• Personnel issues and interpersonal relationships within an organization or other group, among organizations or groups, or between an organization or group and those it serves or aims at.

Front 44

(Community Toolbox) What does a consultant do/offer: 3. Expertise in specific areas.

Back 44

Consultants are often asked to perform a specific function for an organization or group, or to advise in a narrow, clearly defined area. Some possibilities:
• Advocacy
• Negotiation, contractual relationships, and other business matters
• Grantwriting
• Facilitation
• Community relations and PR
• Evaluation

Front 45

(Community Toolbox) What does a consultant do/offer: 4. Objectivity.

Back 45

yes, that

Front 46

Consultant Roles: Advisor.

Back 46

You will probably have no official say in what goes on, but can suggest possibilities

Front 47

Consultant Roles: Facilitator.

Back 47

A facilitator is not a decision maker, but rather one who impartially conducts a process.

Front 48

Consultant Roles: Expert.

Back 48

Here, your value lies in your knowledge, theoretical or practical, or, more typically, both, of a particular issue, method, or field.

Front 49

Consultant Roles: Specialist.

Back 49

A specialist has knowledge, but also the skills to perform specific tasks.

Front 50

Consultant Roles: Trainer.

Back 50

Another common task for consultants is training staff members, volunteers, or others in a specific skill or process.

Front 51

Important to identify community assets.

Back 51

Once you have collected asset information, it's often especially helpful to put it on a map. Maps are good visual aids: seeing the data right in front of you often increases your insight and understanding.

Front 52

Need to gather information on community or org through

Back 52

various channels then synthesize it into a general understanding of it

Front 53

Process of Building and Maintaining Relationships, Understanding the context of community partnerships, Differences between communities and academics, History of community academic partnerships, Gaining entrée/initial relationship building

Back 53

Williams (2004), Van der Eb et al., 2004, Suarez-Balcazar et al. (2005), Harper & Bangi et al. (2004), Christopher et al. (2008)

Front 54

Characteristics of community

Back 54

Interested in research that is directly beneficial to their community
• Sometimes engage in research to avoid work responsibilities
• Usually are not given access to funding in research
• Usually not included in the publication process
• Limited time, energy and resources to devote to research projects
• May not have access to resources (i.e., a computer per person, internet access)
• May feel embarrassed to admit lack of skills
• May have distrust or previous bad experiences where they felt exploited by academics
• Have different preferences for communication styles (i.e., may not prefer to communicate over email)
• May prefer a less formal communication style with less jargon
• Usually diverse
• Lay language: scientific jargon may feel condescending
• Talk in more specific, grounded ways
• Touches on all spheres of life, happens in back yard
• Lack of respect for academic’s engagement with local issues
• Community wants access to power, we have to give it
• Community has (controls) access to population
• Local credibility
• CBO structure
• Want open access to information, wide spread availability and accessibility
• Incentive: show program in a positive light
• Challenge status quo

Front 55

Characteristics of academics

Back 55

Seen as having more power
• Need to do research for their careers
• Have access to grants and funding for their research
• Have more access to resources
• Many times take for granted resources and skills
• Are interested in publication
• Often seen as “experts” or as having the right answers
• Can be viewed with distrust
• Are able to focus exclusively on research projects, but may not have as much time for (or interest in) follow up with the organization/ dissemination of findings
• “human” but not always seen by the community as human
• May at first feel uncomfortable being informal with the community
• Many times, not diverse
• Researchers from the community’s ethnic background may be viewed as “sell outs”
• Time frames: like to wait to act until data is available
• Scientific empirical language/jargon: words may have different meaning to the two groups (exacerbated) with cultural differences): acronyms and buzz words
• Often talk more abstractly
• Affects one sphere of our lives: can exacerbate privilege
• Theoretical, rather than practical engagement/experience with the issue
• PI has decision making power and control
• Scientific credibility
• University structure
• Publish in scientific language in scientific journals
• Incentive: objective/empirical
• Focusing on timeline: graduating, program requirements
• We have titles with weight

Front 56

Communities

Back 56

Focus on local context
Benefit from long term commitment
Often want to challenge the status quo
Want to help choose research question
Have access to data
Generally prefer strengths based
May use informal/lay language
Want researchers to spend time in the community
Want openness and transparency
Answer to themselves, members, board of directors
Funding spread out through community
Context changes rapidly
Focus is concrete, grounded
Multi dimensional (affects multiple parts of their lives)
May have lack of respect for academic’s engagement with local issues
Have local credibility
CBO structure: tend to be smaller, have more focused missions
Access to local knowledge, desire for open access to information
Need to provide services and make program look good, have good relationship with funders
Have titles but they may not carry as much weight as academic titles do

Front 57

Academics

Back 57

Often want results that will help build theory
“Drive by” research is common
Don’t necessarily want to incite change
PI generally chooses research question
Want access to data
Can be interested in strengths based or problem oriented
Everything is regulated (APA, type of language allowed, etc.), use more scientific and technical language
Don’t necessarily have time for or interest in community
Due to wanting to control variables, may be resistant to complete transparency
Are sometimes mistrustful of research process
Want results sooner rather than later
Answer to department, university, etc.
Funding generally goes to PI
Focus is often abstract
Might just affect career
Theoretical, rather than practical engagement/experience with the issue
Scientific credibility
University structure: usually have several departments, more people with expertise, more access to professional development
Access to academic knowledge, desire to publish
Desire to publish, present, etc., desire to be empirical
Have titles that general carry more weight

Front 58

Impact on projects

Back 58

Communities who don’t trust the research process may not want to work with you
Communities with different communication styles may send wrong messages if researchers don’t take the time to understand them
Researchers who hold a priority of objectivity might come across as careless or uninterested, results may affect community negatively
Communities might feel uncomfortable asking about other things, don’t see you as ally of change
Funding spent on research isn’t being spent on other things
Sometimes if you take too long collecting data, the question or intervention may not be relevant anymore
Researchers can exacerbate privilege, access to personal resources vary
Competition over researcher’s time
Power differentials can make things awkward

Front 59

Suarez-Balcazar et al.: Guielines for community based research

Back 59

1. Gain entry into a community, 2. Develop and sustain mutual collaboration, 3. Develop trust and mutual respect, 4. Establish adequate communication, 5. Respect human diversity, 6. Establish culture of learning (Establishing a culture of learning and a two way learning environment encompasses recognizing the strengths of the setting and the learning opportunities for all members of the partnership.), 7. Respect the culture of the setting and the community, 8. Develop action agenda (Developing a collaborative action agenda is consistent with a participatory action research (PAR) approach. In PAR, the research agenda is decided in collaboration with and guided by, the needs of the community, not the needs of the researcher)

Front 60

Emails to organizations: initial contacts

Back 60

Why them
• Brevity
• Level of expertise
• Commitment to issue
• Benefit to community
• Touch upon past negative experiences (if relevant)
• Value for the community
• Scope?
• Flattery
• Availability
• Have a specific request
• Have a subject line
• Proofread
• Be transparent about what you want: assessment, consulting, research project, etc.

Front 61

Strategies for community engagement (Suarez Balcazar et al.)

Back 61

Understand and show respect for life experiences
o Learn about the community, history, culture, issue and organization
o Interviews and archival records
o Observations
o Volunteer
o Participate in day to day activities
o Informal conversations
o Attend community events
o Address the issue in other ways
o Be willing to work outside of the context of your role as consultant or researcher
o Have a diverse team
o Have a physical presence in the organization/community
o Discuss roles and limitations, area of expertise, expectations, and what you want/need to get out of collaboration
o Get to know multiple levels of the organization
o Reflect on assumptions/reflexivity

Front 62

Ongoing

Back 62

Keep your promises
o Have processes for ongoing bidirectional communication
o Inform other community members about the project
o Participate in rituals
o Be available to provide assistance outside of the scope of the project
o Actually use the community’s input: they should be able to see it
o Ongoing presence
o Physical go to them
o Celebrate successes
o Owning up when you fail
o Provide technical assistance/capacity building with plan for turnover
o Work with agency at multiple levels of the organization
o Reduce resource burden on the community
o Take process notes and reflect on process with team

Front 63

(Christopher et al.) Building and Maintaining trust:

Back 63

Acknowledge Personal and Institutional Histories
o Understand the Historical Context of the Research
o Be Present in the Community and Listen to Community Members
o Be Upfront About Expectations and Intentions
o Create Ongoing Awareness of Project History
o Match Words With Actions

Front 64

Tensions and Challenges in Engagement and Strategies for Overcoming Them, Insider/outsider partnerships, Self presentation

Back 64

Jordan, Bogat, & Smith (2001), Brodsky & Faryal (2006)

Front 65

Tensions and Challenges in Engagement and Strategies for Overcoming Them, Understanding Community Interests/Needs/Ideas and Defining Problems, Establishing scope, expectations, and a shared understanding of one another’s roles

Back 65

Schein (1999) Ch. 3, Minkler & Hancock (2008)

Front 66

Start initial interview with a focus on

Back 66

about the problem, not the solution (i.e., not focus on an evaluation or assessment, or training), learn more about the actual need or problem. Gives you the space to think about the best solution

Front 67

Tools to identify community resources and issues:

Back 67

Walking and windshield tours
• Interviews with Formal and Informal leaders and regular folks
• Modified Delphi process
• Community capacity inventories: written lists of skills and assets in community
• Community asset maps
• Risk mapping (hazards, dangerous areas, etc)
• Community dialogues or guided discussions
• “voting with your feet”: make people move to a group with certain topic (workshop activity)
• Developing community indicators
• Creative arts

Front 68

Tensions and Challenges in Engagement and Strategies for Overcoming Them, Power, decision making, and conflict, Strategies for structuring relationships, Capacity and facilitating community participation, Working with diverse perspectives

Back 68

Block (2011) Ch. 4

Front 69

Contracting and setting expectations

Back 69

Sets tone
• Knowing what other wants/needs
• Knowing what’s feasible
• Prevent miscommunication and lack of aligned expectations
• Gives people an “out”
• Show your collaborativeness
• Help them see the whole process
• Helps community see your limitations
• Protects consultant and their time
• Help community see what’s required of them (@multiple levels)
• Elicits informed commitment
• Conflict

Front 70

Things to include in contract

Back 70

This compensation plan is based on the outlined agreement, and if there is a change to the work involved, the compensation plan will change.
• Consultant work: Who owns the product? Can you use the training after? Can you present it at conferences?
• Access to what?: Clients to collect data, Past records, Program staff, Etc.
• Setting expectations to for what approach you’re taking (participatory, expert, pair of hands, etc.)
• Communication: How many project meetings/how frequent, Where (go to you, rather making you come to the university
• Expectations for decision making and conflict resolution
• Organization structure
• Communication structure: at what level is who interacting with who and how
• Other expected benefits and costs to the client: Outside of the research project, we will (help you write grants, help you develop surveys), We’ll need to do the copies at your organization b/c of confidentiality, We’ll need to use your meeting space
• Co authorship (or lack thereof) for publications/presentations
• Confidentiality: Final report: evaluation of specific program? Or leave name of org out of it, Can’t release individual level data, Other ethical issues beyond confidentiality: Not to cover up negative findings

Front 71

Things to put in a contract

Back 71

1. Project description, 2. Key players, 3. Responsibilities (Who is doing what?, Access to data/client/staff/programs, Other expected costs/benefits) 4. Approach taken (e.g. collaborative, participatory, etc.) 5. Communication, 6. Expectations for decision making and conflict resolution

Front 72

Organizational structure

Back 72

1. Compensation and funding (with room for renegotiation, Grants, Who is responsible for distributing funding/compensation?) 2. Timeline (with room for renegotiation) 3. Ownership of data/intellectual property/products 4. Confidentiality (at multiple levels) 5. Ethical issues 6. Termination conditions 7. Dissemination of results and co authorship 8. Sustainability and transition plan (with exit strategy)

Front 73

(Becker)(Foster Fishman) Issues related to CBPR groups:

Back 73

Structure of groups
Having a variety of people at the table
Being aware of group size (trying to have the best number of people… eg. No more than 8/9 people)
Use individual and small group work
Equitable participation and open communication
Use agendas and take minutes
Establish norms and develop trust (confidentiality, follow through, respect)
Shared leadership
Addressing conflict

Front 74

CBPR Groups: How to make decisions

Back 74

Picking people with positive reputation
Setting things up early, e.g. goals, conflict resolution
Being aware of power
Decide how to prioritize
Pay attention to feasibility
Be reflective and adaptive

Front 75

Barriers to collaboration (O’Donnell et al.)

Back 75

Challenges faced by the partnership included recruiting residents, reducing logistical barriers to resident involvement, joining together residents and agency staff, and aligning community and agency goals. Successful strategies in overcoming these challenges included responding quickly to community concerns, developing more personal recruiting strategies, changing logistics to enhance resident participation, increasing program visibility in the community, creating shared goals and vision, and training.

Front 76

Barriers to collaboration, continued

Back 76

Not valuing collaboration
o Not having enough resources
o Distrust of academics/CBOs
o Issues of insider/outsiderness
o Cultural differences
o Different expectations between populations and academics/experts
o Lack of pay and time
o Not personally meaningful
o Not having a shared vision
o Power differentials
o Not understanding the community and its diversity
o Availability to meet
o Lack of support for community members to meet (e.g. childcare, transportation, dealing with language barriers)
o Grant limitations
o Lack of feeling valued as a member of the collaboration/feelings of inadequacy
o Differences between academics/CBOs/community members
o Language differences (e.g. academic vs. not)
o Access to different members for input
o Lack of collaboration skills
o Not making the entire experience positive
o Lack of other needed knowledge/skills
o Lack of effective leadership skills
o Lack of visibility
o Turnover

Front 77

Issue Focused Community Assessment, Ecological/systems perspectives for understanding communities

Back 77

Tseng & Siedman (2007), Foster Fishman, Nowell, & Yang (2007)

Front 78

System (Tseng & Siedman)

Back 78

Set of interconnected parts that serve an overarching function or purpose (Examples: corporation, classroom, district, family, club, people, etc.)
o Systems are embedded within systems
o They have emergent properties: you can’t understand them just by looking at their parts
o Focus on deep structure within systems and root causes
o What drives the operations and functioning of the system?
o Focus on relationship between other parts of the system (interdependencies)
o Allows for a more complex understanding of social problems and interventions that will hopefully make our interventions more appropriate and sustainable

Front 79

(Tseng & Siedman) We focus on three aspects of settings that represent intervention targets:

Back 79

1. social processes (i.e., patterns of transactions between two or more people or groups of people), 2. resources (i.e., human, economic, physical, temporal resources), and 3. organization of resources (i.e., how resources are arranged and allocated).

Front 80

We postulate that these setting aspects are in

Back 80

dynamic transaction with each other, resulting in setting outcomes. Discussion focuses on the implications of our theoretical framework for setting intervention.

Front 81

Systems Change (Foster Fishman et al.)

Back 81

Altering the underlying form and function of a system

Front 82

Systems: Interconnections cause

Back 82

a feedback loop

Front 83

Example of linear model:

Back 83

Teacher’s perceptions of student needs → Student performance as an outcome, Teacher time allocated to the student → Student perceived need for help →In feedback loop: student performance links back to left portion

Front 84

Feedback loops: Two main types

Back 84

1. Stabilizing or balancing loops (Examples: temperature ← → heating), Keeps things in check, or stabilizes, Inherently countering change: system as is resists change, Need to interrupt system. 2. Runaway/enforcing feedback. Example: when better performance is tied to more resources. Can make things a lot better or a lot worse. Inherently amplify change: Need to either interrupt system or create vast changes in parts of loop

Front 85

The model is only good if

Back 85

the assumptions you’re making are actually true

Front 86

Often have effect of

Back 86

delays/lags Example: thermostat idea: the first change has to take time in order to effect the second change

Front 87

Loops can become more complicated. Can be helpful to look for loops that don’t exist and try to

Back 87

make them loops

Front 88

Feedback loops

Back 88

Lags/delays, Assumptions have to be true, Important for thinking about interventions, Types: 1. Stabilizing and balancing (Odd number, This system resists change, You need to interrupt the fundamental system) 2. Runaway reinforcing loops (Even numbers (+) or (neg), Amplify change naturally)

Front 89

Stock and flow diagrams

Back 89

Items above each other are the direction of the relationship. Check if relationships are linear: maybe they are missing a check and balance system. i.e., staff performance + client satisfaction and outcome. Look for loops that don’t exist that could exist

Front 90

Ethical Issues in Community Engagement

Back 90

Minkler (2004), Flicker et al. (2007), Buchanan, Miller, & Wallerstein (2006), Brown et al. (2006)

Front 91

(Minkler) Although community based participatory research (CBPR) shares many of the core values of health education and related fields, the outside researcher embracing this approach to inquiry frequently is confronted with

Back 91

thorny ethical challenges.

Front 92

Following a brief review of the conceptual and historical roots of CBPR, Kelly’s ecological principles for community based research and Jones’s three tiered framework for understanding racism are introduced as useful frameworks for helping explore several key challenges. These are

Back 92

(a) achieving a true “community driven” agenda, (b) insider outsider tensions, (c) real and perceived racism, (d) the limitations of “participation”, and (e) issues involving the sharing, ownership, and use of findings for action. Case studies are used in an initial exploration of these topics.

Front 93

Scientific integrity

Back 93

Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism, Competence, Declaring/avoiding conflicts of interest, Honest reporting/dissemination

Front 94

Belmont Report

Back 94

1. Beneficence: minimizing costs and maximizing benefits, confidentiality 2. Report for persons/autonomy: informed consent, right to refuse participation, freedom from coercion, right to withdraw at any time 3. Justice: fair and equitable inclusion and exclusion, fair and equitable distribution of costs and benefits

Front 95

Ethical concerns (Minkler) (Buchanan et al.)

Back 95

Lack of control over who’s at the table
o Reporting negative/null findings
o Creating equitable benefits to community partners (e.g. research recognition)
o Cultural humility: methods and reporting are appropriate
o Individual vs. community level risks
o Individual vs. community level informed consent
o Lack of control over dissemination of findings: media and community
o Giving back to community: info, action, sustainability/transfer, community capacity
o Community as co researchers/protecting individual and community level confidentiality
o Inadvertently uncovering individual wrong doing
o Heightened risk of harm to individuals and groups if confidentiality is violated
o Appropriate consent for populations involved
o Physical data that has to get moved and transported
o Potential for coercion
o Risk of broader harm: people not involved in the study

Front 96

Strategies

Back 96

Up front addressing potential negative findings
o Paying close attention to local/cultural appropriateness
o Helping communities interpret accurately
o Extra attention to de identifying
o Restricting access to identifiable data
o IRB training of community co researchers: tailored to staff/community needs
o Discussing whether organization and community confidentiality will be protected and how
o Planning ahead for uncovering identifiable information that’s important
o Making confidentiality vs. anonymity clear
o More detailed informed consent process (culturally/local competent)
o Avoiding inadvertent intimidation
o Revisiting informed consent: things change
o Making consent process appropriate to your population
o Conversations about informed consent with community partners

Front 97

Ethical concerns with consulting (Brown et al.)

Back 97

Competency
o Appropriate referrals
o Not misrepresenting your competency and credentials
o Individual level information/confidentiality: dealing with individual problem issues
o Dual relationships/conflicts of interest
o Paying attention to ethical standards despite receiving money
o Inadvertently being involved in potentially illegal activities

Front 98

Strategies

Back 98

“Informed consent” contact laying out how the work will happen
o Outlining expectations about confidentiality
o Choosing settings that allow for protecting confidentiality
o Avoiding conflicts of interest
o Duty to disclose

Front 99

When looking at ethical dilemmas

Back 99

Is this an ethical or a political dilemma? Identify which ethical principles are involved and how they’re in conflict with one another Go back to standards, but understand that standards aren’t necessarily going to tell you everything you need to know

Front 100

Independent consulting

Back 100

Inconsistent income
Inconsistent hours
Paying your own taxes
Isolated organizational structure
Flexible pay options
Have to negotiate
Administrate pay
All leadership/responsibility is on you

Front 101

Skills Needed

Back 101

Moxie
Time management without help
Knowing how to get the information you need and/or bring others on board
Networking with peers
Boundary setting
Adaptable/good at improvisation
Business skills: plan, managing finances, taxes, liability insurance, building base, marketing
American Evaluation Association has workshops
Endurance/long term commitment

Front 102

Stuff to learn

Back 102

Business structure and associated legal issues (Sole proprietorship, General Partnership/Limited Partnership, LLC, For profit, Non profit)
Employees and subcontracting
Liability
Budgeting/negotiating contracts
Soliciting payment/billing
IRB and ethics
Taxes
Personal financial management and fringe benefits
Building/keeping client base (Marketing, advertising, branding and networking)

Front 103

Process

Back 103

Do
Personal reflection
Reflection with peers and mentors
Connect to broader professional wisdom and resources