Forming a Diverse Workgroup: Lessons Learned and Sample “Tools”

1. Forming a Diverse Workgroup: Lessons Learned and Sample “Tools” Presenters: Aiko Allen and Janet Brandes May 2, 2007

2. Review of Workgroup Goal • Identify critical issues and develop strategic plan for tobacco use prevention among populations that experience the greatest health burden from tobacco use and exposure.

3. Process • Taking Stock (Training, Pre-Planning, Data) • Training • Identifying Populations • Reviewing and Analyzing Data • Getting Organized (Forming the Workgroup) • Planning • Group Formation • Setting Direction (Developing the Plan) • Task Performance • Refining and Adopting the Plan • Implementing the Plan • Implement • Integrate • Media/Marketing

4. Taking StockTraining, Pre-Planning, Identifying Populations, and Reviewing Data

5. Training/Pre-PlanningWhat We Did • Built on Lessons Learned Healthy Kansans 2010 Planning Process • Identifying Nominators and Potential Group Members • Building on Strategies and Action Steps from Related HK2010 Action and Workgroups • Group Processing Lessons Learned • Attended Three 2-3 Day CDC Trainings • Networked with Other States • Built on Lessons Learned from Other States • Received Specific Direction from CDC Staff • Provided with Many Examples and Resources

6. Training/Pre-PlanningWhat We Learned • Building on similar experiences within our own state (HK2010) and from others (CDC Training, examples & mentors from other states) was invaluable • Especially helpful to have written examples of product and personal resources • Both HK2010 results and CDC Training encouraged workgroup membership beyond “usual” suspects • Both HK2010 results and CDC Training adopted broad definition of “disparities” beyond racial/ethnic categories

7. Training/Pre-PlanningWhat We Learned • Be flexible! • No cookie-cutter approach; used resources and lessons learned from others to help tailor a successful approach for Kansas and for this particular process • Advantage to have relatively large planning team & to maintain/expand same team throughout process

8. Which Populations to Include? • Defined populations • Examples: Tribal nations, Hispanic/Latino • Strata • Examples: Age groups, income level, level of educational attainment • Populations for which disparities are undefined or data is currently unavailable • Examples: Religious affiliations, LGBT, military

9. People with low SES (socioeconomic status; e.g., low income or education, unemployed) Black/African Americans Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders American Indians/Alaskan Natives Hispanic/Latino Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender Medically underserved/ uninsured Young people Pregnant women People facing mental or emotional challenges People living with disabilities Groups and affiliations for which tobacco-related disparities may be unidentified, including: migrant, German Mennonites, faith communities, Vietnamese, refugees, Lebanese, rural/frontier, and military. List of Populations

10. Identifying PopulationsWhat We Learned • Many “specific” populations affected by disparities • Kansas communities much more diverse than they realize • If we don’t address specific populations, it will be difficult (impossible?) to make significant progress decreasing tobacco use rates • Specific populations can still be addressed even when data for those populations are not available

11. Getting OrganizedPlanning, Forming the Workgroup

12. Terms: What to call our workgroup and populations? • In the beginning: Tobacco Disparities • CDC advised against using these terms: people of color, special populations, diverse populations, disparate populations, target populations • Second project name: Tobacco Prevention for Priority Populations • Later…CDC advised against the term “priority populations” • Now: Tobacco Prevention for Specific Populations

13. Membership Recruitment • Nomination model • Nominations solicited from interested parties such as TUPP grantees; HealthyKansans 2010 participants in Disparities, Cultural Competency, and/or Tobacco workgroups; Center for Health Disparities Advisory Board; and other non-government organizations serving specific populations (not necessarily tobacco- or health-focused) • Focused on knowledge of/membership in specific populations versus expertise in tobacco prevention • Effort made to recruit “grass roots” members • Ended up with diverse workgroup but more “grass tops” than “grass roots”

14. Nomination Criteria • Cultural membership in one of the listed populations. • People you commonly contact for advice and information when you are working with one or more of the populations listed above. • People who enjoy and are willing to take time to share their knowledge with you, and would be willing to attend and participate in three meetings. • People with expertise (e.g., cultural expertise, tobacco use prevention/policy expertise).

15. Workgroup Selection Criteria • Compatible with issue of eliminating tobacco-related disparities • Ability to actively participate in workgroup and attend all three meetings • Cultural membership in one or more specific populations • Expertise (e.g., tobacco prevention, cultural) that will build the capacity of the entire workgroup • Able to provide leadership in implementing recommendations for improvements within priority populations • Will positively and productively contribute to the decision-making process of the workgroup if all reasonable accommodations are made to accommodate special needs and alleviate cultural barriers

16. Workgroup FormationWhat We Learned • It is harder to get “grass roots” representatives involved than we thought. • Experienced some difficulty recruiting members of specific populations versus those serving specific populations, but the expertise of those serving specific populations is also valuable. • Thoughtful time and effort during recruitment and nomination process was helpful. • Personal contact makes a difference! Nearly everyone on the final workgroup had a personal contact versus response to a mass distribution email or mailing.

17. Workgroup FormationWhat We Learned • Difficult to balance “labeling” participants and identifying their expertise and the populations they represent. • Difficult to strike a “balance” of specific populations; representing many/all relatively equally while keeping the workgroup an appropriate size. • Many specific populations to include • Several workgroup members represent more than 1 pop. • Attempt to avoid “token representative” scenario • Important for members to attend all meetings. • Two-tier level of involvement for workgroup members was way to involve those with limited time while keeping workgroup on track and membership balanced.

18. Logistical Accommodations • Tried to identify relatively central location for meetings (Wichita) • Provided stipend plus reimbursement for some expenses • Attempted to identify and accommodate individual barriers

19. Logistics & AccommodationsWhat We Learned • Build in plenty of processing time for contracts, approvals, scheduling, and other logistical issues • Recognize that there will be constraints from grants, contacts, etc., and be flexible! • Culturally diverse food choices are typically not available from hotel menus • Difficult to choose central and convenient location for all Kansas participants • Sessions during normal work hours a barrier to “grass roots” involvement, but Saturdays and evenings were not convenient for representatives from public and professional organizations • Distance, time commitment, and schedule still made it unfeasible for some grass-roots participation

20. PlanningWhat We Did • Pre-plan, plan, and plan! (met by conference call biweekly and weekly for several months before first meeting) • Completed data analysis before first meeting • Considered timeline: worked backwards based on deadline and available meeting times to set dates, agendas, and meeting objectives • Team member challenged us to remember diverse populations and accommodate other styles of planning and processing • Included dedicated time of support/logistics staff • Integrated evaluation into planning process from the beginning

21. PlanningWhat We Learned • All of the planning and pre-planning paid off with an efficient and productive 1st workgroup meeting • Be realistic and flexible with time constraints • Logistics and administrative tasks take time but important; support staff helpful • Planning team productive, diverse ideas, enjoys working together • Incorporating evaluation planning from beginning is paying off; documenting as we go has been invaluable • It is difficult for some of us to think beyond “usual” strategic planning tools and group processing methods (thanks to planning team member and Co-Chair Aiko, for stretching us in this direction)

22. Setting DirectionTask Performance by Workgroup Strategic Plan Implementation Plan

23. Three P’s of Strategic Planning: There must be a balance Product Process People

24. Workgroup Process/Task PerformanceWhat We’ve Learned So Far • Inclusivity does not guarantee active participation • Members process information, engage each other differently • Developing an environment that facilitates dialog with “grassroots” and “grasstops” (as well as process-, product-, and relationship-oriented members) requires multiple strategies • Relationship-building is time-intensive and must be nurtured • Ongoing engagement of members is important

25. Workgroup Process/Task PerformanceWhat We’ve Learned So Far • Clarity of language is a necessity • Clear and effective communication is important • Stay focused on workgroup purpose and project goals • Acknowledge identified & potential issues • Recognize and correct logistics/accommodation shortfalls • Different types of members: Task versus process versus relationship

26. Challenging Trade-OffsStill learning… • Workgroup size vs. adequate representations • Invested vs. overwhelmed • Inclusivity vs. continuity • Diverse vs. welcoming/safe • Expertise vs. “grass roots” representation • Labels vs. identified representation • Targeting populations vs. cross-cutting strategies • Products vs. process vs. people • Improving health vs. limited funding

27. Samples from the “Toolbox” • Seating arrangement • Evaluation forms focusing on process and involvement rather than only outcomes • Photo Album project • Opening/closing ceremony

28. Seating Arrangement

29. Evaluation Forms Evaluation included participation/processing questions such as… (used Lichert scale – strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) • There is adequate representation of specific population groups in Kansas. • There has been adequate time for getting to know each other and building an effective team. • I felt comfortable expressing my views today. • There was adequate time for questions, answers, and discussion. • The group made sufficient progress today. • The decisions reached today accurately reflected the consensus of the group.

30. Community Photo Album • We would like you to take pictures that document the following themes: • Your community assets • The influence of tobacco in your community • Something important about your culture(s) and traditions • A few ideas to get you started: • What is unique about your community and your culture? • Are there tobacco ads that target your community? • What is a common struggle/issue in your community or culture? • Where are the tobacco free areas?

31. Opening/Closing • Cultural aspects to opening and closing work as a group • A shift from “doing business in a meeting setting” to “doing work as a community” • Appreciation, gratitude, and setting the tone for working together

32. Visit the website for the latest updates and a copy of the presentations for this session: • http://www.healthykansans2010.com/tobacco

33. Questions?