|
| ||
|
|
||
|
Research > 11 > 105 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What Do We Want To Change?The White Center and Boulevard Park, November 17th, 2001, Community Decision Group ReportExecutive SummaryThe Community Decision Groups were held on November 17th, 2001. There were 28 small groups containing a total of 188 participants. Seventeen of the groups were conducted in a language other than English (Spanish, Tigrigna, Vietnamese, Amharic, Cambodian, Oromo, Somali, Bosnian, and Lao) or with refugee youth. The remaining eleven were conducted in English. Six of the groups were from Boulevard Park; the remaining 22 were from White Center. Details concerning the groups and their context are discussed in Chapter 1. Participant Priorities "I would like for this not to stay only on paper and that something will really change." (Evaluation form comment) Chapter 2 summarizes the priorities chosen by the residents. The group participants were asked to cast three votes for those life aspects they wished the partnerships to work on immediately. The resulting priorities are shown in Table 1, below. Table 1: Number of Votes for Partnership Priorities, All groups Safe neighborhoods (129 votes) Work and earnings (94 votes) Schools (93 votes) Social services (58 votes) Community participation (54 votes) Healthy behavior of teenagers (45 votes) Home ownership (32 votes) Infant and mother health (23 votes As Table 2 shows, there was very little difference between Boulevard Park and White Center groups in the immediate action priorities. Table 2: Partnership Priorities, White Center and Boulevard Park Compared
Groups composed of refugees and immigrants were conducted mostly in primary language of the group members (Bilingual Residents). Those groups and those conducted only in English agreed that safe neighborhoods were most important, and work and earnings and schools were in the next cluster. Social services were in the next tier for both groups. However, as Table 3 shows, they differed in the importance placed on home ownership, teenage behavior, and community participation. The bilingual groups were more interested in home ownership than the English-only groups, and they were somewhat more concerned about teenage behavior. The English-only groups were much more concerned about community participation Table 3: Partnership Priorities, Bilingual and English-Only Groups Compared
Celebrating and Supporting Cultural Diversity "Make our neighborhood a place to encourage people of different cultures to have pride in their own backgrounds and to appreciate learning about each other's cultures." (Local residents) A theme that emerged in many of the groups was the desire to share with each other the many cultures that exist in this community. Chapter 3 summarizes the group discussions on this topic – the sense that the deep cultural diversity is an untapped resource, hidden behind barriers of fear, language, privacy, and cultural miscomprehension. Suggested Actions "Language barrier limits relation with neighbors." (Vietnamese) "Someone who knows my language and the system." (Boulevard Park Laotian) Given the concerns about cultural diversity expressed in Chapter 3, it is probably not surprising that the most common set of partnership actions suggested by the groups were those that would bridge and support cultural diversity. Actions related to this theme were suggested in relation to six of the eight life aspects. They included interpretation, translation, English classes, and cultural support in dealing with life in the United States. There were 63 different comments related to these themes; all are summarized in Chapter 4 "Build a family community center that offers programs to support the families...build it and they will come!" (Local residents) A second action set was mentioned in relation to four life aspects: the need for a community center with activities for children and parents, and after school activities for teenagers. There was a strong sub-theme that such a center should support the diversity of the neighborhood. 46 action suggestions were connected to this theme. Participant Evaluation of the decision groups
"This was a GREAT meeting. I learned a lot. Thanks!!" (Evaluation form comment "I felt very proud to be part of this meeting and finding ways to help my community." (Evaluation form comment) Almost all the participants heartily approved of this event! 122 evaluation forms were turned in, 81 from refugee groups and 41 from English speaking groups.
The evaluation forms were also filled with glowing comments (along with a few criticisms). These comments are included in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 also contains a more in-depth analysis of participant responses to the meetings, based on 55 one-on-one brief interviews with participants, conducted during the luncheon. Using Data This morning has made me think about how information is collected and used. We should have more say as a community in what kinds of information we need in order to help our community." (Comment made in an interview during lunch)
For more ways to get in touch with the Department of Social and Health Services, go to the DSHS Contact Information Web page. Technical Site Comments: DSHS Webmaster. Copyright 2004 Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Good job in bringing together a large, diverse and authentic
community grouping together to discuss important local issues." (Evaluation
form comment)
The groups had no trouble fitting the data presented into their
discussions. They used it, questioned it, and – clearly – thought about it.
Chapter 6 summarizes their reactions to the data and their suggestions for data
needed during the work groups which are to follow this process.
