Not being clear upfront about who holds the powerto frame research questions, make importantdecisions, and determine what types of policy/practice responses are “on the table” (or not).Ensuring that data governance processes areaccessible, inclusive, and engaging.Creating an environment that is not attuned to thecurrent level of knowledge, accessibility needs, orinterests of the group engaging with data.Taking time to recognize the unique knowledgeand talents project team members—especiallycommunity participants—bring to the work.Giving disproportionate power and authority tocertain position titles or academic credentials.Project PlanningResearching, understanding, and disseminatingthe history of local policies, systems, andstructures relevant to the effort, including pastharms and their potential to be replicated.Using only administrative data to describe theproblem, without including historical and contextualinformation that supports “multiple ways ofknowing.”Creating space during the planning process toenvision a future state that upholds shared ideals.Jumping to analysis without thoughtful deliberationabout the future state that the project willcontribute to.Developing research questions that addressneeds identi昀椀ed by community partners andframing the questions in ways that do notreinforce harmful narratives.Relying on academic/institutional partners to framethe problem and research questions while failing toengage community partners.Connecting research questions to a clear plan ofaction to improve policy, services, and outcomes.Resourcing projects that are not aligned with areasof traction for real policy/practice change.Coming to general consensus among partners onthe approach, methods, metrics, key resources/literature, etc.Requiring conformity rather than consensus inorder to move forward.Managing expectations around the available data,what questions can realistically be addressed, andhow long it may take to reach desired actions andoutcomes.Only considering the effort a success if “big”outcomes are achieved, rather than seeing theinherent value in engaging in a process of authenticcollaboration, listening, and responding in real time.Supporting shifts to the funder ecosystem to enableshared decision-making and collaborative funding.Pursuing grant/philanthropic funding for projectsthat do not address a community priority or need.Using the continuum of engagement to re昀氀ect onthe project and ensure that processes honor voiceand agency.Not taking time to debrief and re昀氀ect on a projectwith community members involved to hear whatthey would do differently next time.CENTERING RACIAL EQUITY THROUGHOUT THE DATA LIFE CYCLEUsing a framework to clearly identify andarticulate roles and power (e.g., RAPID is adecision-making tool to determine roles with thepower to Recommend, Agree, Perform, provideInput, and Decide throughout the life of theproject).23
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
Table of contents
1
5
9
13
14
15
16
17
24
32
42
51
56
64
68
71
74
75
