Latino Community Development Agency
Ruth request clarification
on the direction of current proposal as perceived as research based versus
intervention development.
Joan responded by stating
original application included development of Linkage Council and IPV/SV case
management, she was uncertain on proposed evaluation plan. David advised plan-included evaluation of
services and impact on social systems.
She described process of proposal review within CDC. Joanne expressed concerns regarding the
following: 1) demonstration project to provide culturally competent services – felt
that no prior research had been implemented to support this endeavor. The case management proposed was not
supported with empirical research. 2)
what was proposed was not scientific enough to support scientific
merits/finding. When Joanne arrived at
CDC, she looked at how the proposal could be restructured to meet CDC
expectations. Rewrote proposal leaving
in Linkage Council and developing a process that would support development of
an intervention based on information collected from Council, focus groups and
surveillance.
Pat stated agency did not
apply for a research grant and have never partnered with any other agency to do
research. The RFP that LCDA responded
to was for development of an intervention and evaluation of intervention. It appears that what they have proposed has
been changed into a more scientific research grant. The agency has a mission to provide services that address
community issues. As a result of the
grant award, LCDA has set an expectation within the community that IVP/SV
services were to be established within the community by the end of the first
year. LCDA responded to the RFP based
on the guidance and need clarification as to changes proposed by CDC.
Joan stated change focus is
on program design and evaluation of the intervention and not research
based.
Pat expressed concerned with
CDC expectation that information may be sought from other agencies to support
required surveillance data which LCDA does not have capacity to mandate or
collect. Also past experience indicates
that Latinos as a population are under reported or often misclassified. Cannot rely on state wide data to accurately
represent Latino issues. Additionally
in Oklahoma, Latino are classified as “White” in surveillance data collected by
the State and County.
Joan stated that the plan is
to use information that exists to develop an intervention. Look at medical and police records to
determine what IPV rates were before intervention was implemented.
Betty explained that
surveillance data in Oklahoma is quite limited, especially in the area of
IPV/SV. Although LCDA and OU recognize
the value of surveillance data, LCDA does not have the capacity to work with
community, city, county or state agencies on development of needed IPV/SV
surveillance data. To attempt such an
effort will be costly and time consuming without guaranty that information
collected would adequately reflect IPV/SV within the Latino community. A potential benefit of the Linkage Council
would be to make recommendations to various IPV/SV lead agencies on the
benefits of developing a coordinated effort to implement surveillance data
collection in OKC, as well as statewide.
Saleem stated Tulsa and OKC
have some surveillance reporting for IPV.
Another source is hospitals which have reported based on race. The police depart in OKC only keeps some
information on IPV but not true for others.
David advised that the LCDA
project will serve Latinos in Canadian County, OK, as well as Cleveland
County. Data available would not be equal
in all locations.
Angela asked if LCDA tracks
clients by ZIP codes or counties. Ruth
advised agency does track some services but not for all programs. She stated the Linkage Council would identify
the needs in the community and reach out to the larger community to respond to
some of the identified needs. The needs
assessment information obtained by the Linkage Council would be used to develop
an intervention. Joanne said that this
is essentially what CDC is proposing.
Cynthia stated the Linkage Council is volunteering their time and
efforts, she is concerned with being able to demonstrate to the Council that
LCDA is able to address the issues the Council identifies. Joan stated that CDC would like to see the
overall impact on mortality and morbidity in OKC as result of intervention.
Pat stated that LCDA has
looked at the State’s response to Latino needs in community. The agency goal is to aide existing
community agencies to enhance the services provided to Latinos. This is done through advocacy and by
providing interpretation services by LCDA.
An outcome is to work with existing services to become more culturally
competent in providing services to Latinos which hopefully could be expanded to
the larger community.
Ruth stated the original proposal
did state that the agency would work with existing providers to enhance their
capacity to provide services to Latinos.
An example is shelters, where bi-lingual workers are needed and little
is known by staff of the cultural issues that affect victims when seeking
services. Pat advised that LCDA wants
to reach an agreement with CDC to implement something that is achievable and
beneficial to the community and that LCDA can deliver. David advised that Oklahoma history is of
being Indian Territory, with a large number of American Indians in this state
which brings in large revenues to Oklahoma.
The State’s consciousness of Hispanics is low, racial misclassification
is evident in many databases, and therefore the quality of any surveillance
data that could potentially be identified would have questionable value. David’s role is to look at what works for
the agency and community.
CDC staff asked if LCDA has
close ties with state agency that addresses domestic violence. Pat stated LCDA has long standing
relationships with many state agencies.
These connections can be used to create an environment of cultural
competence in OKC.
Cynthia identified the
extended members of the linkage council.
CDC asked is they could provide a question to the Linkage Council as to
what services are provided by community agencies to address domestic
violence. Cynthia stated that the
extended Linkage Council will meet in about two weeks and Pat suggested the
question could be posed at that time.
Resource inventory would also provide this information. David asked if evaluation is re-written each
year as project plan is revised. Joanne
said that if evaluation does not support research, then it does not require IRB
review. Joanne said CDC can publish
finding even though data collected is not from research. Pat asked if LCDA would like to publish
would they need CDC’s permission. She
wanted to know who owns the data. CDC
staff stated that LCDA owns data, but they need to acknowledge funding source,
as well as make available to data CDC staff for publication. Joanne said if CDC staff participate in a
publication, then it must go through CDC clearance. Joanne will seek clarification on publication from CDC and advise
LCDA.
Joanne offered the following
summary:
David asked about the
relationship to The University of Oklahoma IRB to CDC. CDC staff said both are separate IRBs. Betty
then asked “who does LCDA answer to” in regards to compliance of human subjects
protocols as approved by the IRB.
Joanne stated that CDC does not regard this proposal as research,
therefore IRB approval is not required.
She suggested David submit their IRB proposal to The University of
Oklahoma. David asked if CDC IRB states
surveillance data will be collected whereas OU states we will look at
evaluation outcomes, does that obligate LCDA to collect surveillance data. Joanne said this decision has not been made,
but if that was ultimately submitted to CDC, then LCDA would be expected to
comply. Betty reiterated LCDA should
not be expected to do surveillance due to limited capacity and lack of uniform
reporting statewide. Ruth expressed
concern as to why proposal is being re-written and would like to discuss why
the change over time. Joanne discussed
CDC staff change, stated most are very new, there has been a change in policy
and focus on what was funded.
Unfortunately LCDA went a whole year without accomplishing something due
to these changes at CDC. Pat said
community responded to guidelines, received the grant, followed contract
guidelines and are concerned with changes proposed by CD C. Her experience has not included any case in
which a funding source would come back and change the proposal plan for the
grantee. As a reviewer, there is an
expectation that the government agency and grantee will fulfill the expectation
of the guidance and the grant contract.
Joanne stated that in Cooperative Agreements, grants are awarded then a
negotiation occurs in which CDC works with the grantee to modify their proposed
project to meet CDC guidelines. Ruth
said LCDA is not opposed to what is proposed but are concerned with
surveillance issues. Joanne said she
felt bad about the time lapse, therefore took initiative to write the proposal
in order to allow CDC-IRB review to occur within a shorter time frame. CDC staff advised that only one of ten
grants under this initiative have received IRB approval. All are going through a similar process as
LCDA. David asked what criteria was
used to determined what is research and what is evaluation. Joanne said it had to deal with human
subjects and research that produces generalizeable information. Betty asked is we could develop a proposal
outline of what LCDA would like to do.
All agreed.
Proposal Plan:
Cynthia
said that Latinos to whom she has spoken with have stated that the most
critical issue they have identified is the lack of bi-lingual services, but
felt a need for support services such as case management. Joanne said that interviews with survivors
would be important to support this concern.
Additionally interviews with providers would also be beneficial. Betty stated that the case management model
would be developed based on information obtained from focus groups, resource
inventory, cultural factors, specific service needs, and other matters that may
affect victims and perpetrators. Focus
group information would aide in answering many of these issues. Ruth advised that the first meeting of the
Linkage Council is to introduce Latino members to each others, share with them
the IPV/SV project plan, discuss future activities, then inform them of meeting
with other linkage council members of the extended Linkage Council. Believe this is important to ensure
community buy in.
2. Community Survey – Joanne was not sure who
would be represented in survey. Felt
that some questions should be more broad based. Referred to page 20 in CDC proposal to be used as a qualitative
interviews in focus groups. Betty asked
is issue of IPV/SV would impede individual’s desire to share their experiences
in a focus group? Pat said she should
like to see interviews with victims in groups.
Joan said what she has proposed is to be administered to larger
community and not necessarily with victims and perpetrators. Discussed possibility of Town Hall meetings
which would be recorded and transcribed.
David addressed issue that OU could not undertake the number of
interviews proposed as our original work plan did not include quantitative
data. Discussed whether LCDA would be
able to request a budget increase to pay for additional evaluation costs. Angela is uncertain if LCDA can support
request for increase in project related to evaluation activities, it will need
to be reviewed by CDC. Budget increase
would also include incentives which can include cash incentives.
Summary
of activities to be completed by LCDA include development of Latino Linkage
Council (core group); incorporate extended community in Linkage council:
conduct resource inventory; and oversight of focus groups.
Angela
will review the following issues and advise LCDA:
Qualitative Study: 2-focus groups; 10 Key Informant interviews; resource inventory; and incentives for participants. Betty estimated $25-30,000 to conduct these activities. Angela advised that LCDA can request to use carry-over funds from YR-01.
Meeting
adjourned at 3:20 pm.
Present: Dr. David Barney, Tim Brittingham, Saleem Ahmad, Ruth
Barajas-Mazaheri, Cynthia Tobal, Angela Banks, Joanne Klevens, Pat Fennell
Ruth opened discussion on
yesterday’s meeting.
Angela also interested that
topics like alcohol consumption weren’t mentioned
Cynthia feels these issues
were mentioned in Goal 2.
Joanne surprised that
community did identify IPV as a problem.
Discussion of vocal
physician at Linkage Council meeting.
Angela felt there was a good
representation of those attending yesterdays Linkage Council Meeting. Joanne wondering if the people felt there
were others missing that should be represented at the meeting.
Discussion of SE Community
Health Center
Joanne felt that if the
meeting was in Spanish, people could better express themselves.
February 8th will
be the date for the larger meeting. (with the extended community)
Cynthia believes churches
can provide location for focus groups and can possibly refer people to the
program for these groups. CDC reminded
project to work on budget reallocations
Joanne expressed concern
that we didn’t ask the group if we know enough information, should we gather information? Pat expressed the importance of
introductions in the first meetings.
Angela said that it might be appropriate to have more guidance (
objectives) for the Linkage Council meetings.
Ruth said the meeting
allowed people to say what the issues were and the larger meeting would allow
for more exploration. Joanne said that
in participatory research, the CDC scientist can help with this.
What if council said we
don’t need focus groups, let’s just get the work done. Joanne said that is very likely and the
scientist can direct the people to the importance of the focus groups.
Joanne said that we should
not be giving the community the option to do focus groups. Expressed concern about letting the
community decide scientific methods.
David said that it is important to let the community know that this was
an administrative decision. In the
community model, it is important to let the community make the research
decisions. David stated that we need to
be careful on our decision making process.
Joanne would like to ask the
community what do they need to know about the community and IPV and what will
help them make better decisions about IPV, and what would help us get that
information.
Cynthia concerned that as
soon as they see us dictating to them, Linkage Council members will be a
turn-off. Joanne expressed that we are
merely offering information.
Next steps:
Next conference call
Thursday, January 24th at 10am.
Key informants in service
providers.
Use snowballing to identify agencies
25 service provider key informants
get directory information at the same time
located in page 19th of the revision
open-ended questions
open to non-Latino community providers
Victim/Perp
5 of each
Youth
Community Focus Groups
Should have at least 2 focus
groups in each category
Possible use of DJ’s
fraternity as a focus group
Recruit at least 10-12 for
each focus group and hope that 8 appear
Offering a cash incentive is
important
David stressed importance of
sampling plan.
Joanne asked about coverage
of faith based organization
Joanne concerned about who
we would be missing in the recruitment process
3 groups, 2 subgroups in
each group
Men, women, elderly
Joanne questioned instruments
that have been developed
Key
Informant Interviews
·
at least 5 of each
(victims and perps)
·
Interviewers don’t
necessarily need a Master’s level interviewer, as long as they interact with
the people very well and are competent
CDC going to check if IRB is
needed for focus groups. OU has to have
it.
Incentive tracking
Joanne is going to check at
CDC to see if it OK to start collecting information, will respond on
Tuesday. Information on community/facts
& figures are to be forward to Joanne and Angela.
Dr. Barney said that we must
have OU-IRB approval before we can do focus groups.
Getting information from
professionals in the community OK, but not individuals.
Joanne would like to have a
copy of the literature review. Copy
already given to previous science officer.
Should be in file.
Conference call will focus
on outcome measures, details associated with long-interviews, additional
funding.
National Sexual Violence
Conference is in May 2002 in Chicago.
Dr. Barney asked if Sexual
Violence includes stranger rape. Joanne
said that it would not include stranger rape.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00am