AISP Toolkit Feb25 2025 - Flipbook - Page 27
Not being clear upfront about who holds the power
to frame research questions, make important
decisions, and determine what types of policy/
practice responses are “on the table” (or not).
Ensuring that data governance processes are
accessible, inclusive, and engaging.
Creating an environment that is not attuned to the
current level of knowledge, accessibility needs, or
interests of the group engaging with data.
Taking time to recognize the unique knowledge
and talents project team members—especially
community participants—bring to the work.
Giving disproportionate power and authority to
certain position titles or academic credentials.
Project Planning
Researching, understanding, and disseminating
the history of local policies, systems, and
structures relevant to the effort, including past
harms and their potential to be replicated.
Using only administrative data to describe the
problem, without including historical and contextual
information that supports “multiple ways of
knowing.”
Creating space during the planning process to
envision a future state that upholds shared ideals.
Jumping to analysis without thoughtful deliberation
about the future state that the project will
contribute to.
Developing research questions that address
needs identi昀椀ed by community partners and
framing the questions in ways that do not
reinforce harmful narratives.
Relying on academic/institutional partners to frame
the problem and research questions while failing to
engage community partners.
Connecting research questions to a clear plan of
action to improve policy, services, and outcomes.
Resourcing projects that are not aligned with areas
of traction for real policy/practice change.
Coming to general consensus among partners on
the approach, methods, metrics, key resources/
literature, etc.
Requiring conformity rather than consensus in
order to move forward.
Managing expectations around the available data,
what questions can realistically be addressed, and
how long it may take to reach desired actions and
outcomes.
Only considering the effort a success if “big”
outcomes are achieved, rather than seeing the
inherent value in engaging in a process of authentic
collaboration, listening, and responding in real time.
Supporting shifts to the funder ecosystem to enable
shared decision-making and collaborative funding.
Pursuing grant/philanthropic funding for projects
that do not address a community priority or need.
Using the continuum of engagement to re昀氀ect on
the project and ensure that processes honor voice
and agency.
Not taking time to debrief and re昀氀ect on a project
with community members involved to hear what
they would do differently next time.
CENTERING RACIAL EQUITY THROUGHOUT THE DATA LIFE CYCLE
Using a framework to clearly identify and
articulate roles and power (e.g., RAPID is a
decision-making tool to determine roles with the
power to Recommend, Agree, Perform, provide
Input, and Decide throughout the life of the
project).
23
