Draft talk:Community Based Program Design

Welcome

Welcome to my template for a Wikipedia article on Community-based program design. I welcome any discussion or feedback related to the topic. Please begin discussions in the discussion section below. If you are replying to a comment, please reply below that comment. Also, you can begin a new discussion by using a heading to signify the beginning of another topic. This will make it much easier for people to follow the conversations.

Thank you for all of your help! Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussions

General Comments

Be sure to do a final grammar check. There are numerous errors throughout the page --Blunthought (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that some of the terms are necessary but link whenever possible because this page should be accessible to all people, even outside of higher education --Blunthought (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

"Similar to traditional program design, community-based program design often utilizes a range of tools and models which are meant to enhance the efficacy and outcomes of the program’s design. The difference between traditional design and community-based design, when using these tools, are the dynamics in the relationship between the designers, it's participants, and the community as a whole."

Hey ya'll, I copy and pasted the above blurb from your "Socio-Ecological Model" section. I would suggest incorporating it into the introduction, as it is general and descriptive enough to give readers a quick idea of community-based program design and how it differs from other forms of program design. --Ubuntu713 (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ubuntu! I've incorporated your suggestion. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the introductory definition of community-based program design seems a bit clunky and utilizes unaccessible language that is not linked to other wikipedia pages. Maybe try looking for and using a more succinct definition.--Ubuntu713 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. The page is starting to take shape! Umich hudsonmh (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"I agree with the comments above. It might be best to start the intro with a sentence that gives the main goal of community-based program design. Then in the following sentences you can briefly touch on who utilizes this program design and perhaps briefly introduce a few of the tools you mention later on..." Millelin (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Millelin. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

History

"Community practice in social work is linked with the historical roots of the professions beginning in the United States."

I would suggest linking the "History of Social Work" wikipedia page, so as to integrate this article more into the Wikipedia database.--Ubuntu713 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Good observation, Ubuntu. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Community practice in social work is linked with the historical roots of the professions beginning in the United States. More specifically, the history of community-based social work has evolved from the charity organization society (COS), and the settlement house movements. [1] However, during the earlier half of the 20th century, much of this work focused on institutionalization. Not until the 1960s did the shift from institutions to communities exacerbate the emphasis on community-based program design. This is known as the era of deinstitutionalization[2].

Community-based organizations and community-based programs burgeoned during the period of deinstitutionalization. The poor conditions of mental health institutions and an increasing amount of research that illustrated the benefits of maintaining the relationships of the individuals served within the community surfaced to further the growth of community-based programs. (for more, see: deinstitutionalization)

Also, informal community-based programs predate human service applications of this approach.[1] Melvin Delgado, in 1999, illustrated this point by quoting Harper (1990) regarding African-American's provision of health care in the community, stating: Blacks have always cared for the sick at home, yet it was never laveled 'home care.' Blacks have been dying at home and receiving care in the proces, yet it was never called 'hospice care.' Blacks have relieved each other from the caring and curing processes, yet it was never seen as 'respite care.' Blacks have cared for each other in their homes, in their neighborhoods, and throughout their communities, yet it was never referred to as 'volunteerism.'[3]

These paragraphs my flow better in this order (the second and third one have been switched).--Ubuntu713 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

" I would consider tying the last paragraph (the informal community-based programs) with the previous paragraphs a little more than you have, I think that's why it feels disjointed and doesn't flow well for me... for example, you could say "Although social work has been historically defined by these institutionalized and deinstitutionalized periods, informal community design programs have always been around...or something like that"-then proceed with the Melvin Delgado quote." Millelin (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Better transition into new paragraph. Thanks! Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete list of notable contributors to the community-based approach

Make sure that this list is one of necessary contributors; for instance, all power to Professor Patton, but should he be noted on this wiki page out of all the community organizers in the entire world? --Blunthought (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Might even think of taking this section out entirely. Unless you are actually going into how each of these people contributed --Blunthought (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted this section for the time being. It may be added back if a more complete list is compiled. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Program design tools

I would suggest putting the figure on the right side of the page to make it look neater and not so chopped up with the header. Also placing it under the appropriate header, rather than this general one. --Blunthought (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The figure was moved to the right side. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"The difference between traditional design and community-based design, when using these tools, are the dynamics in the relationship between the designers, it's participants, and the community as a whole."

This is a huge statement with no follow up:

What dynamics?

How are they different?

Why are they different?

What is Traditional program design?

Why is Community-based design necessary and why does it exist? --Blunthought (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This statement was moved to the introduction which provides sufficient context to make the statement clearer. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Socio-Ecological Model

As mentioned previously, the intro paragraph for this section could definitely be incorporated into your overall general description. I think it is a toss up as to whether or not it is really needed in this section if mentioned previously, but I do not think it would be bad to keep it here. --Ubuntu713 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Revised Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The below levels of the Socio-Ecological Model could be reformatted to look more visually appealing. Also, in your first draft organizational was misspelled, so just a heads up on remembering to do a final spellcheck and edit.--Ubuntu713 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"To be specific about formatting, make sure the socio-ecological model is the same height as its corresponding section. The way it is spanning down the page (alongside entirely different models) is confusing." Millelin (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See formatting below for list --Blunthought (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

1.) Individual

2.) Interpersonal

3.) Organizational

4.) Community

5.) Public Policy

Logic Model

This section needs more explanation. I know you have it linked to the actual page, but if I wanted to stay on this page, I still have no idea why this is a community based tool for program design. Connect it to the original intent of this page. --Blunthought (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Social Action Model

For community-based programs that seek to address macro-issues, the social action model may be utilized. [6] The objectives of the social action model are to: 1) recognize the change around us in order to preserve or improve standards; 2) understand the social action process/model is a conceptualization of how directed change takes place; and 3) understand how the social action model can be implemented as a successful community problem solving tool.

Consider where your citations are being placed. For example, the above citation is placed at the beginning for the blurb, but if I am assuming correctly, the three objectives your are referring to are also from that citation. Maybe move the {6} citation to the end of the blurb.--Ubuntu713 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Resolved. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Evaluation

This section needs further explanation. "Evaluation involves the ongoing systematic assessment of Community-based programs." <-- What does this mean? Pretend the reader is not in social work and has no idea what evaluation is. --Blunthought (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Advantages of community-based program design

The "Advantages of Community-Based Program Design" and the "Challenges of Community-Based Program Design" could be combined into one large heading of "Advantages and Challenges" with two subsections of "Advantages" and "Challenges." By saying "of Community-Based Program Design" after advantages and challenges (whether heading or subsection) it kind of makes the page a bit busier than it needs to be.--Ubuntu713 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Revised. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree combining the sections would be helpful. I would also recommend placing this before you discuss the "Program Design Tools" because it provides important description that would be helpful context to have while reading about the tools. --Amynav (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)amynav

Good observation. Revised. Thanks. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, try to be more specific when describing the advantages. You say, "gaining insight into the social context of an issue or problem mutual learning experiences, broadening understanding of professional roles in the community" with out having a clear noun/actor in the sentence. Be sure to describe who is gaining? Mutual learning between who? What do you mean by professional roles?--Amynav (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)amynav

Revised. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Challenges of community-based program design

See above --Blunthought (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

Contextual this within the framework of social work or more relevant information. These are very general and would not help me to better understand this page, if I went to "activism" for instance. These should help me better understand your page directly. --Blunthought (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Citations look great and currently relevant. Recognize where you are placing the citation to make sure they encompass the information being cited (see social action model) --Blunthought (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Could be helpful to find a review article or a meta analysis of community-based program design --Blunthought (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tables

If anyone is proficient in creating tables, I am interested in creating one for the socio-ecological model section of the article draft. It would have three columns: level; characteristics; and ... (it's getting late). Anyway, the numbered list doesn't look so hot. I will update soon. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the table provided is okay but could be better. I would also recommend finding a different picture for community. The one provided shows people not interacting and looks like ice skating (?) which kind of throws a reader off when it is the first thing they may notice on a page. --Amynav (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)amynav

Notes to self

Welcome Floyd

99.185.56.42 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Doing some research on tables that will clearly identify the components of our socio-ecological model99.185.56.42 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool Thanks. Umich hudsonmh (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Yinmingl

Hi Yinmingl (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)