Sarah Walker and Larry Norman
This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Codesigning youth diversion programmes with community-led organisations: a case study’.
The equitable use of social science is a persistent governance challenge, particularly in applied social science and psychosocial treatment research. A common approach in applied social science is testing learning tools such as checklists, guides, manuals and trainings. These tools are developed to support behavior change at multiple levels and can be aimed at individuals, organisations or systems. To become evidence-based, these tools are tested against a control, ‘as usual’, or equivalent group. If effective in comparison, the package is then purveyed with the coveted ‘evidence-based’ moniker. Governments eager for tested approaches, as part of responsible governance, are then motivated to buy these tools and they are typically delivered by purveyor organisations as completed packages.
Some previous efforts focused on addressing both evidence-informed and community-engaged values have resorted to ‘list selection’ approaches in which community is involved in selecting a package from a pre-assembled list of programs. This approach engages community choice but limits the opportunity for community to contribute to more substantive design in the framing and content of these programs.
In our recently published Evidence & Policy paper, we present a case study of a different approach to evidence-informed governance that took equally seriously the need for a participatory, community-generated process, as part of democratic ideals. For this blog, we decided to highlight the personal reflections from one of the community-based organisation leaders (Larry Norman) and the research intermediary lead (Sarah Walker) about this process.
The approach described in this case study took an evidence synthesis and program components approach. The questions for the evidence-review and the selection (and/or rejection) of components were completely owned and guided by the two participating community-based organisations. This is not entirely novel, with participatory design approaches focused on health services adopting similar methods. In the present case, however, we were particularly interested in this approach as an alternative to quality improvement methods and, as such, we were interested in how much could be accomplished in a relatively short time frame (six months).
In short, we found that the process was feasible in this timeframe and, for the two CBOs, was perceived as valuable. For the research intermediary team, however, the time and resources needed to conduct bespoke evidence-reviews and code components in this timeframe was substantial and will probably limit the usefulness of ‘from scratch’ evidence reviews for the purposes of government contract monitoring. We conjecture that economies of scale could be accomplished by pre-collecting program components for classes of services and interventions, and then selecting from and assembling these components based on CBO goals, values and interests. Our additional personal reflections, framed as questions to each other are highlighted below.
Sarah: Larry, why did you decide to participate in this project? What did you feel it was offering that you didn’t already have or have access to?
Larry: When [name] first approached me about this and said we’d be working with your team, I jumped on it. We had met previously at the dinner after an event focused on youth development and we had a great, positive interaction. Based on that, I felt we would get something useful out of the project even though it wasn’t exactly clear what we’d be doing at that point.
Sarah: When you look back, what stands out as unique or interesting about the process? Something that you didn’t expect or was particularly helpful?
Larry: At first, the team was apprehensive about being able to maintain ownership over the curriculum. Once we had that conversation and got it out the way, we could move forward with the process. To be involved in developing the criteria for the program rather than getting a presentation or training on how to do an existing program was fascinating. It made me realise how valuable it is for community to be at the table at the development level, and how valuable it is for community build capacity for talking the language of ‘program development’. So back at you, who’s idea was it to do this collaboration?
Sarah: I think it came about in a kind of brainstorming conversation with the juvenile court as they were planning their next year’s activities with a funder and wanting to explore more upstream, community partnerships. Our center was already using evidence-synthesis and program component approaches in our state policy work and we had done a less formalised version of this with the court in their probation practices. It just seemed like a nice opportunity to explore a more flexible use of evidence in the service of strengthening community relationships, especially with a government service under a lot of scrutiny to demonstrate accountability and outcomes. And my team has a mission statement and track record working to support diversion and upstream alternatives to formal justice system involvement for youth.
Larry: What would it take to do a similar project like this one with another group of community-based organisations?
Sarah: We’re always happy to write grants with organisations and networks to try and advance a strategy but ultimately, government personnel – either electeds or division leaders – would need to see the value of this approach and want to explore adopting it as a routine method for us to invest in our own center infrastructure and make ourselves more available for contracts. But otherwise, we are very interested in this approach. One more question for you, what do you want government organisations to know if they are considering codesign or something like codesign with their community partners?
Larry: The government needs to understand the constraints community organisations are under. It is really difficult for community organisations to fit all the requirements each funder and system asks for in contracts. Governments could consider using codesign to ease off of oversight on so many other details and requiring so much reporting. The organisation could assure the government that their services align with best practices by way of participating in this type of codesign and learning effort.
In sum, the findings of our paper suggest a structured collaboration between research teams who cull the evidence-base in support of community-based organisations’ goals can produce recognisably ‘evidence-informed’ products while also preserving core values of participation and local ownership. Future efforts can explore how to maintain the transparency of an evidence review while reducing the significant resources needed for bespoke reviews and translation.
Image credit: Photo by Brandi Redd on Unsplash
Larry Norman is an educator, entrepreneur, and activist in the Hilltop area. While working as a Seattle firefighter, he started Happenings on Hilltop (originally titled Tidbits from Ten), a community newsletter devoted to documenting the neighborhood and sharing information with the community. He founded the Hilltop Center 4 Excellence
Sarah Walker is a professor and director of the CoLab for Community and Behavioral Health Policy at the University of Washington. Her policy and scholarly work focuses on methods of equitable evidence translation for systems change.
Read the original research in Evidence & Policy:
Walker, S.C. Cunningham, K.A. Gilbert, E.J. Norman, L. Worthy, S. & Holand, K. (2024). Codesigning youth diversion programmes with community-led organisations: a case study. Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000029.
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested in reading:
Improving knowledge mobilisation in healthcare: a qualitative exploration of creative co-design methods OPEN ACCESS
The creative co-design of low back pain education resources OPEN ACCESS
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.