SHIP 6 Planning Phase 2 Equity Workgroup - June 7, 2024 by Brian Bluhm

2024-06-07 17:16:41 UTC

The equity language from SHIP 5 and that was reshared today was immensely helpful in guiding and justifying our work. I appreciate the strong stance and language used in SHIP 5 and hope that continues to SHIP 6

Balance

2024-06-07 17:17:28 UTC

Balance between SHIP work, and addressing real community needs around SDOH

2024-06-07 17:17:59 UTC

As mentioned, the tension between community needs and SHIP priorities. We found successful ways to incorporate community input into SHIP guidelines, but it does take quite a bit of extra effort (CIR, meetings, justification, etc.) I can see how this could be a barrier for other LPH. More streamlined approach and trust could help improve this section. Easier way to tie SDOH to core SHIP strategies could help

2024-06-07 17:18:31 UTC

How can local public health/MDH address or approach the topic of Health Equity with our CHBs/commissioners who may be averse to the terminology (very conservative, political climate). Talking points within SHIP specific to this topic or situation would be helpful.

2024-06-07 17:19:29 UTC

How do we not just describe our ideal equity situation, but also provide guidance and structure and reduce barriers to incorporating authentic community input into the work?

TA / Equity

2024-06-07 17:21:44 UTC

How is Equity incorporated into TA- example: extra support or attention provided for coordinators that cover geographies of high SVI?

2024-06-07 17:22:54 UTC

How are all OSHII content staff trained in equity and community engagement principles so there are not discrepancies in support for innovative work based on context areas?

2024-06-07 17:27:25 UTC

More communications TA support around developing messages centered on equity for newsletters, social media, other news, PPT, newsletters, etc.

2024-06-07 17:30:15 UTC

Are we moving / thinking of moving in the direction of layering and tracking # of SHIP activities in areas of high SVI?

2024-06-07 17:34:11 UTC

Is it a viable suggestion that we could take in-kind #’s for each activity as a running metric for community engagement? (Acknowledging that this wouldn't measure whether or not the relationships are authentic and that those would come out of process / outcome measurements?)
- Example: X amount of community members were involved in this context area and they have dedicated X amount of hours this year to SHIP efforts. __ County has leveraged the equivalent of $__ towards thriving communities in __ county / region / etc.

2024-06-14 17:26:56 UTC

How open is MDH to thinking of a way to articulate how addressing the SDOH ties to our required context areas?

2024-06-14 17:30:06 UTC

The focus on race and the disparities seen among different racial groups was helpful. Community input is important, but some community members already have a place at the table or loud voice in our work, so continuing to focus on finding those who are not engaged or often left out