Community Participation Report
Community Assessment Neighborhood Meetings
Neighborhood meetings
Following the June 28th Hearing Community Voices meeting, the BCCHA steering committee and research team agreed the information collected about community concerns and priorities was useful and informative. However, the demographic information collected during the meeting showed that participants were not representative of the entire community. Approximately 80 percent of the participants reported having a college degree; only 23 percent of Bexar County residents have college degrees. In addition, 50 percent of the attendees represented the northwest part of the county. Based on this information, it was decided that a series of smaller “neighborhood meetings” should be held in an attempt to collect information from residents closer to their homes. Information collected in these meetings would either provide more information about community health interests and concerns or would confirm the findings of the “Hearing Community Voices” meeting.
To further engage the community, the BCCHA research team contacted via email all community members who signed up for the community-wide meeting in June, asking their help to setup a meeting in their neighborhoods. Over 20 people responded to the request. Meetings were arranged with the interested individuals to explain the purpose and goals of the neighborhood meeting process. These partners in the neighborhood meeting process were asked to take on the job of coordinating and possibly facilitating a neighborhood meeting. Partners were asked to take one of three roles: meeting coordinator, facilitator, or note-taker. The coordinator was asked to take the lead in recruiting participants for the meeting. The facilitator would conduct the card-storming process and assist with a summary report. The note-taker would record information about the meeting and the environment and assist with the meeting report. Partners were encouraged to collaborate and share responsibilities. Partners were offered reimbursement for their effort.
Orientation meetings for partners were conducted at the School of Public Health campus, the American Heart Association, and at La Misión Community Health Center. Partners were taught the card storming process that would be used to conduct neighborhood meetings or platicas (Spanish for “conversations”). The orientation consisted of going through a neighborhood meeting, learning to use the sticky wall for card storming, and a review of the content and purpose of the facilitator guide.
Neighborhood meetings were designed for 12 to 16 participants. Participants attending meetings were divided into four groups and asked to address concerns for a specific age group living in the community (youth -under 20 years old, young adults - 20 to 40 years old, middle-aged adults - 40 to 65 years old, and elder/seniors - 65 years and older). Each group was asked to provide ideas about how to make theirs a healthier community and a better and safer place to live. Once each group displayed their ideas to the meeting, other participants were asked to offer suggestions for the age group being presented. After all ideas were displayed on the sticky wall for all age groups, participants were asked to cast five votes on the ideas they thought to be the highest priority in the community. The three ideas that received the most votes were then used to ask participants what their solutions were to address the issues. Participants were rewarded for their participation with a $25 gift card to HEB or Wal-Mart.
Nine neighborhood meetings were held across Bexar County. Four neighborhood meetings were held in churches around the community. Four neighborhood meetings were held at community centers, and one was held at Our Lady of the Lake University. Locations of the meeting by BCCHA sectors were: one in the Northeast; two in the East North Side; one in the East Side, one in Central (near the East Side), and two in the West Side. In total, 153 community members participated in nine community meetings. Ninety-five of the participants were female and 58 were male. Though not ideal, the distribution does provide information from a variety of communities from around Bexar County. The method of data collection requires that participants discuss and reach consensus on ideas provided to the group. Hopefully, this strategy helps to reduce sex bias that might otherwise influence results.
To make certain that all voices were represented, opportunities for Spanish-speaking populations were provided. The meeting at the Good Samaritan Community Center was facilitated by a person able to explain and respond in English or Spanish. One of the two meetings held at La Misión Family Health Care Center was facilitated in Spanish.
Participants’ responses by age category were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. The list also included the number of votes cast by participants. Duplicate responses were noted and the votes summed. Responses that were determined to be very similar were treated as duplicates. A list of all responses was generated and a preliminary pass was made at categorizing responses.