California HIV/AIDS Community Engagement Design Summit

1. California HIV/AIDSCommunity EngagementDesign Summit March 18 & 19, 2009 Los Angeles

2. Our Purpose: to redesign “community input” • Redesign the the HIV/AIDS community engagement process & structure by November • Planning • Advising on OA-generated issues • Advising on community-generated issues • Prevention and Care • March: Envision and prioritize design elements • June: Recommend • November: Ratify

3. 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 project • Microcosm of the whole • Not existing structures • Model a new way of working

4. New Process by November • Interviews: identify key issues • March Summit: prioritize design elements • May: Design team works on issues from larger group • June Summit: review & recommend potential designs • Fall: Design team completes next steps from larger group • November Meeting: ratify new process & structure

5. 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

6. 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…

7. OA Set Parameters • We 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

8. Three Components of Planning & Advising • 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 • Advising re: OA generated issues (would include our broader planning efforts, but would be advising function) • Advising re: community-generated issues Ideally, in the discussion we will address all 3 areas, and address the relative roles of various groups...

9. 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?

10. Themes from the Interviews

11. 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”

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Our Common Goal is to Get Ahead of the Epidemic We 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

16. “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

17. “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

18. Potential “Design Elements” • Clarity of purpose/mission/function • Structure: planning, advising, emerging issues • Interface/network/interaction of all planning/advising bodies • Process: inputs, tasks, decision making, outputs • Proactive, responsive & engaged • How to be data-driven and informed • Accountability: roles & responsibilities

19. Potential “Design Elements” • Communication & follow through • Membership & representation • New, innovative ways of getting comprehensive, statewide community engagement • How the input group can be integral to the strategies, goals and work of the OA while still providing an outside view? • Effectiveness – measurement & evaluation, process innovation

20. Our Agenda • Day 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