SGC Catalyst Model Iterative and Inclusive Program Design Model: Flexible and Responsive Engagement Strategies

Effective and inclusive engagement involves building relationships and including community members in planning and decision-making. To improve the outcomes of policies and programs, community engagement should be a central element in every step of program design, including initial scoping, guideline development, application, and project implementation.

Outcomes

• Ensures that those most affected, especially historically underrepresented and marginalized peoples, have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.
• Government processes, practices, and decisions are more responsive to community priorities, avoid unforeseen consequences, and create relationships that hold local governments accountable.
• Produces lasting changes in organizational culture, policies, and processes that extend long after any one public decision-making process.
• Program designers and implementers are better positioned to address social and health inequities and promote access to resources, services, and programs that help people lead healthier lives.
• Provides essential information to help understand needs and concerns and to gather support for proposed projects and programs.
• Fosters supportive partnerships that sustain long-term benefits by working together to meet program objectives.

How to Do This

• SGC’s Technical Assistance Toolkit offers a step-by-step process and checklists to support equity-focused outreach and engagement activities.
• The California Air Resources Board developed “Best Practices for Community Engagement and Building Equitable Projects,” a resource that includes more detail on other public engagement best practices.
• In 2012, Senate Bill 535 (De León, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012) established the initial requirements for minimum funding levels for “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs). Per the legislation, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) must identify disadvantaged communities based on “geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria.”
• In 2016, Assembly Bill 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016) directed CalEPA to identify DACs and established the currently applicable minimum funding levels:
  • At least 25 percent of funds must be allocated toward DACs
  • At least 5 percent must be allocated toward projects within low-income communities or benefiting low-income households
  • At least 5 percent must be allocated toward projects within and benefiting low-income communities, or low-income households, that are outside of a CalEPA-defined DAC but within ½ mile of a disadvantaged community