California HIV/AIDSCommunity Engagement

Design SummitMarch 18 & 19, 2009

Los Angeles

Our Purpose: to redesign “community

input”Redesign the the HIV/AIDS community

engagement process & structure by NovemberPlanning

Advising on OA-generated issues

Advising on community-generated issues

Prevention and Care

March: Envision and prioritize design elements

June: Recommend

November: Ratify

How did we get here?The whole of CHPG empowered the steering

committee to move forward on a reorganization

Steering committee made progress toward the Spring ‘09 goal then hired a consultant

Appreciative Inquiry uses a “design team” to design summits and track the projectMicrocosm of the wholeNot existing structuresModel a new way of working

New Process by November

Interviews: identify key issues

March Summit: prioritize design elementsMay: Design team works on issues from larger group

June Summit: review & recommend potential designsFall: Design team completes next steps from larger

group

November Meeting: ratify new process & structure

Steering Committee Set Direction

INNOVATIVE, FLEXIBLE, RESPONSIVE Innovation: Not reinventing CHPG, create something new

Flexible group that can respond to the epidemic

DESIGN TEAM LISTENS Absorb information from the larger group

Look at all of the information and really hear it without bias

DIVERSE VOICES HEARD Include, hear strong voices from all parts of the community

Diverse voices, common ground

Communication – a revised process for internal communication

Steering CommitteeSet Direction

USEFUL INPUT, STRONG PROCESS

Find common threads to end the epidemic

We really need community input; I hope we can come up with a good system

The Office of AIDS needs useful input – they have a lot of work to do

MORE EFFECTIVE

Less expensive

More effective

THAT WE CAN DO IT

My wish is that this can actually happen

Move forward and get a valuable, useful community input process

Take the negatives and turn them into positives…

OA Set ParametersWe are engaging in planning and advising as

requested by the OA’s funders (CDC & HRSA)Three components of planning and advising

This is a joint process of prevention and care

Recommendations: the community is making recommendations, OA has the final say

Integrated with overall Office of AIDS planning efforts

Three Components of Planning & Advising

1. Funder-required planning - CHPG must play a role (with OA) in this for both CDC and HRSA, so this must be a focus of the discussion

2. Advising re: OA generated issues (would include our broader planning efforts, but would be advising function)

3. Advising re: community-generated issues

Ideally, in the discussion we will address all 3 areas, and address the relative roles of various groups...

A new way of working on planning & advising

Common process: Community and OA work together toward common goal of planning and advising

Clear direction: ask for clarity if things are fuzzy, name unspoken assumptions

Iterative process: OA engaged in the process and provides ongoing feedback each step of the way

Useful: keep asking… is this useful, effective, proactive? Will this help us stay ahead of the epidemic?

Themes from the Interviews

Themes from the Interviews

Community engagement works well when…

Opportunities for improvement

Our common goal and hopes

Things we “must have” in the new process & structure

Potential “design elements”

Community engagement works well

when… Focused

Clear, focused mission and purpose Focused and directed

Engagement People are engaged, listen and there’s follow-through Take bold action Self interests set aside

Broad perspective Diverse group of people are involved Knowledge of what’s happening “on the ground”

Effective meetings An agenda, good facilitation People are present (not multitasking)

A stake in the game People involved have a vested interest There’s money involved

Opportunities for Improvement

Trust Listen with an open mind Engage, be present Follow up, follow through How to have true dialogue with power dynamics?

Clarity What input does OA need? How will it be used? What’s the purpose/role of the community engagement group? Community engagement or planning group?

Representation Getting/including input from others Reporting back to the community Broader geographic representation

Opportunities for Improvement

Qualifications People involved in input qualified to create policy How to identify educational needs, forum, and who responsible? Provide information on trends and issues, national developments

Proactive Agile, responsive, proactive How to stay ahead of the epidemic? Consider other models: Obama administration community engagement

Data How to ensure decisions are informed by data – beyond the “gut feel” Benefits of in-depth work of task force, advisory groups while planning group

sees the whole and sets setting priorities Better idea of outcomes, more clarity before data requests

Clear Communication Message, process, materials to share with community Communication between groups doing work and from OA Clear planning calendar

Our Common Goal is to Get Ahead of the

EpidemicWe hope to work together through…

Clear Process Clearly defined goals and objectives Transparency Open and clear communication between OA and planning group, and

among planning group members

Outcomes The work that is accomplished has a direct and recognizable difference Greater integration across care and prevention

Membership Leadership and members within the group receive adequate training Find new ways to engage people who have not been able to have a

voice at the table Truly representative of all areas and constituents in the state A group that is respectful of others and is welcoming and open to hear

all voices

“Must Have” in the New Process &

Structure Clarity

Clear purpose mission and agenda for community engagement

More direction from the Office of AIDS so our input is useful

Specific areas where OA needs guidance A clear graphic of the planning cycle

Culture of Engagement Engage, be present More active engagement in the planning process Openness Respect Listening

“Must Have” in the New Process & Structure

Focus Small groups that work well and focus on issues, needs, or

questions One group that focuses on the whole Attention to regional needs and differences

Clear Communication Among the various planning groups From local agencies/CBO’s to Office of AIDS From Office of AIDS to local agencies/Community Based

Organizations

Representation & Expertise Be clear who is representing which population Broader set of expertise at the table(s) More people engaged with policy-making expertise

Potential “Design Elements”

1. Clarity of purpose/mission/function

2. Structure: planning, advising, emerging issues Interface/network/interaction of all planning/advising

bodies

3. Process: inputs, tasks, decision making, outputs Proactive, responsive & engaged

4. How to be data-driven and informed

5. Accountability: roles & responsibilities

Potential “Design Elements”

6. Communication & follow through

7. Membership & representation

8. New, innovative ways of getting comprehensive, statewide community engagement

9. How the input group can be integral to the strategies, goals and work of the OA while still providing an outside view?

10.Effectiveness – measurement & evaluation, process innovation

Our AgendaDay 1

Introduce Appreciative Inquiry design, share interview data, and expand the current data from experts in the room

Draw out a vision of a community engagement process & structure that is effective and useful

Day 2 Dialogue on components of the new process & structure,

discuss options, surface issues so the design becomes more real

Articulate the design components in a more concrete way and to prioritize what is most important to the group