California HIV/AIDS Community Engagement Design Summit March 18 & 19, 2009 Los Angeles

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

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

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

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 Committee Set 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 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

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

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 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

“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 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