1 of 29

Fortalecimiento de la toma de decisiones

Grupo de afinidad SB181

Marzo de 2025

2 of 29

Conexión antes del contenido

10 minutos

Por favor regístrese aquí

Por favor active su micrófono y comparta

Su nombre + pronombres (si lo desea)
Contexto del cual proviene (organización, ubicación, antecedentes – información que sea relevante compartir)
¿Qué lo motivó a elegir este grupo de afinidad?

3 of 29

Objectivos + agenda

Cambio de sistemas, poder y toma de decisiones

Métodos para una toma de decisiones inclusiva

Formación de un consenso

Objetivos:

Reflexionar sobre cómo se toman las decisiones actualmente dentro de los sistemas donde están trabajando los beneficiarios
Descubrir métodos más inclusivos para garantizar que los miembros de la comunidad, especialmente los grupos menos representados, tengan voz en el proceso de toma de decisiones
Explorar técnicas para llegar a un consenso entre las diversas partes interesadas y desarrollar una propiedad compartida de las decisiones

4 of 29

Acuerdos grupales propuestos

Encienda la cámara para participar activamente
Participe con curiosidad y asombro
Nadie lo sabe todo; juntos sabemos mucho
Compartiremos historias aquí; las historias no se deben compartir, pero las lecciones sí.
Si va a publicar algo en el chat de Zoom, esté preparado para también expresarlo en voz alta.
Atienda sus necesidades.

5 of 29

Esta no es una presentación

To understand how you need support with community dialogues and to see what we can learn from each other

El propósito de los grupos de afinidad es comprender cómo necesita apoyo dentro de su proyecto HDCGP y crear un espacio para el aprendizaje e intercambio colectivo. Nos enfocaremos en fortalecer la toma de decisiones, pero nos conectaremos con sus necesidades y el desarrollo de capacidades.

6 of 29

��Cambio de sistemas, poder y toma de decisiones

7 of 29

We will go into this in more detail in a minute, but just a quick word on the power of systems. Systems are basically those things which are more than the sum of their parts. And systems are everywhere. They form the fabric of the whole cosmos. Everything is both a whole unto itself, and is made up of smaller parts inside of it. When we look out into the universe, we see galaxies, which are made up of solar systems; and solar systems are made up of planets, and planets are made up of organisms, and organisms are made up of cells, and cells are made up of molecules, down to atoms, and quarks, and on and on. And so at every level, we see this dance of parts and wholes.

When we get this right, we unleash a source of power and energy--we become more than the sum of our parts. When we get it wrong, and our systems get out of balance--whether that is our natural ecosystems, or our human made health and economic systems, they can cause tremendous damage and spiral out of control. Our hope in this training is to unpack the mystery of systems a little bit, and figure out how we can more intentionally, and effectively, become more than the sum of our parts.

8 of 29

Sistemas y no sistemas

VS.

9 of 29

Pensamiento convencional	Pensamiento sistémico
La conexión entre los problemas y sus causas es evidente y fácil de rastrear.	La relación entre los problemas y sus causas es indirecta y no evidente.
Otros, ya sea dentro o fuera de nuestra organización, son los culpables de nuestros problemas y deben ser quienes deben cambiar.	Sin darnos cuenta, creamos nuestros propios problemas y tenemos un control o influencia significativa para resolverlos a través de un cambio de nuestro comportamiento.
Una política diseñada para lograr el éxito a corto plazo también garantizará el éxito a largo plazo.	La mayoría de las soluciones rápidas generan consecuencias no deseadas: no marcan ninguna diferencia o empeoran las cosas a largo plazo.
Para optimizar un todo, debemos optimizar las partes.	Para optimizar un todo, debemos mejorar las relaciones entre las partes.
Abordar muchas iniciativas independientes de manera agresiva y al mismo tiempo.	Solo unos pocos cambios clave coordinados y sostenidos en el tiempo producirán grandes cambios en el sistema.

Fuente: Innovation Associates Organizational Learning

Systems thinking asks us to shift how we think about things.
In the past, conventional thinking would lead some to believe that the connection between the problems and their causes is obvious and easy to trace. Systems thinking leads us to think about the relationship between problems and their causes as indirect and not obvious.
Similarly, conventional thinking might lead us to believe that others - not us as individuals - are to blame for our problems and must be the ones to change. Systems thinking shifts us to think how we create our own problems, and the control and influence we have to solve problems by changing our behavior.
Another key distinction is how conventional thinkinging prioritizes optimizing parts in order to optimize a whole. Whereas systems thinking says that in order to optimize the whole, we must improve the relationships among the parts.
Systems thinking gives us a different way of looking at things and new opportunities for systems change. It also encourages us to see how we - as individuals - can be part of a problem and, therefore, part of a solution.

10 of 29

�Toma de decisiones = poder

Salas grupales

10 minutos

Dedique un momento para reflexionar sobre los sistemas de trabajo en su comunidad:

¿Quiénes son las personas que toman las decisiones que generan un mayor impacto en su comunidad? ¿Cuál es su relación con estas personas?
¿Las voces de quiénes generalmente no se escuchan o se dejan fuera de la toma de decisiones?
¿De qué manera las decisiones tomadas dentro de las diferentes “partes” del sistema afectan a toda la comunidad?

11 of 29

Modelo de aprendizaje comunitario

Garantizar que las diversas personas, perspectivas y sistemas involucrados en el trabajo formen parte del proceso.

At the Civic Canopy, we use a research-based Community Learning Model (CLM). The CLM puts results at the center to create meaningful, measurable change on social issues. Those results are achieved through a continuous learning process of including relevant and diverse stakeholders, engaging in thoughtful dialogue, developing action plans, and learning from efforts to achieve results–all within a culture of trust and collaboration.
Within this model, engaging with community is an essential step toward getting to equitable results.
This tends to fall into the inclusion stage of the model where we need to ensure the various people, perspectives and systems involved in the work are engaged in the process.
Said more simply, we believe that alone we know a little and together we know a lot. The problems we’re working to address are far from simple. Without it, decisions tend to be short-sighted, programs poorly implemented, or buy-in lackluster because those farthest from opportunity weren’t included.

12 of 29

Estándar de práctica de equidad

Todas las personas afectadas por un problema tienen una oportunidad significativa de influir medidas para abordar ese problema.

For communities to participate, prosper, and reach their full potential, each stage of the CLM needs to reflect that same commitment to equity.
Achieving equity isn’t just about where we’re going, it’s also about how we get there.
Our equity standard of practice for inclusion says that all those affected by an issue have a meaningful opportunity to influence action on the issue.

One key point here is “meaningful opportunity.”
You’ll notice that it doesn’t say all those affected by an issue will have decision-making power or will have final say over action on the issue. Why? Because it’s impossible to engage every affected person on every issue.
But many of the ways we try to engage communities just benefit a few who are already tapped in. We call these the “usual suspects.”

13 of 29

¿Por qué la inclusión?

Fuente: Crystal Evans

Red de interés de poder

Poder

Interés

Alto

Bajo

Mantener satisfecho

Manejar de cerca

Monitorear (esfuerzo mínimo)

Mantener informado

NADA SOBRE NOSOTROS SIN NOSOTROS

For a long time, the way we’ve done community engagement has benefited those “usual suspects.”
On the left, you’ll see a Power Interest Grid frequently used by project managers. It puts people into buckets depending on how much power and how much interest they have.

Those who have high power and high interest in a decision, or an issue are the folks we’re supposed to keep the closest tabs on or manage closely. This is because they have both the interest and the power to block potential decisions, so we need them in our corner.
Whereas folks who have a lot of power, but low interest are people to keep satisfied.
And folks who have high interest but low power should be kept informed.
This model is effective for managing the needs of your different communities to ensure you can get decisions passed and move action forward. But at what cost? Looking at this grid as a community member which grid do you want to be a part of? Do you want to be managed, satisfied, or informed? All those feel a little like different ways of saying “kept quiet.”
It also keeps power in the hands of the already powerful. This model says you should adjust to satisfy the needs of the powerful, while those with less power should be kept informed. In the end, this keeps inequity in place by maintaining power for those who already have it.

Even if folks haven’t seen this power interest grid, they’ve felt it.

In the 1990s, the disability community started championing this rallying cry, “Nothing about us without us.”
This was a shift from seeing disability as something that needed to be cured and that people made decisions for them or on behalf of them.
Instead, the independent living movement demanded the same choices and control in their every-day lives that their non-disabled brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends take for granted.
Since then, other movements have taken up the cry as they seek to move out of the “Keep informed” and “Monitor” boxes.

14 of 29

Cuando las decisiones no son inclusivas, las personas consideran que el proceso es injusto e ignoran los resultados.

Kahane, Loptson, Heriman, & Hardy, 2013; Karpowitz & Raphael, 2014; Carcasson & Sprain, 2010

BOLETA ELECTORAL

Mala elección

Peor elección

15 of 29

Espectro IAP2 de participación del público

Informar

Proporcionarle información equilibrada y objetiva al público para ayudarlo a comprende el problema, las alternativas, oportunidades y/o soluciones.

Consultar

Obtener comentarios del público sobre los análisis, alternativas y/o decisiones.

Participar

Trabajar directamente con el público durante el proceso para garantizar que sus preocupaciones y aspiraciones se comprendan y consideren de forma constante.

Colaborar

Asociarse con el público en cada aspecto de la decisión, incluyendo el desarrollo de alternativas y la identificación de la solución de preferencia.

Empoderar

Poner la toma de decisiones final en manos del público.

Objetivo

Relación

The International Association for Public Participation created this spectrum of public participation.
For each level of participation, there’s a goal and a promise to the folks you’re engaging. Here you can also see a visual of what the relationship between you and the folks you’re engaging at each level.
At the first level, inform, your goal is to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

You can see in the visual that information is coming from you to people in your community.

At the next level, consult, you being to obtain public feedback on that information.

Now the arrows point to you as people in the community provide you with information about how you should move forward. While you’re getting input, your organization or decision-makers in your organization still make the ultimate decision, but you weigh input from the community in that decision.

Moving up to “involve,” the relationship shifts to going both ways as you work throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

In this case you generally have a solution or a course of action that you’d like to move forward with, but you’re incorporating feedback to improve that solution.
For example, you may have already decided you want to open a new food bank in your community, but through involving the community you decide to move it from one neighborhood to another based on a poll to the community about where they would prefer to have the food bank.

This differs from collaboration in that in this stage you partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

When collaborating, the different parts of the community not only have to work with you as the decision maker, but also with each other to arrive at a decision.
Using our previous example, at the collaboration level, you may gather folks together to say that you’ve identified an issue, like an increasing need for hunger services in the community, but you want to work together on developing solutions. A food bank could be the answer, or it could be a famer’s market that accepts SNAP bucks, or it could be working with local employers to increase wages to make sure folks have enough money for rising food costs.
In this case, whoever is hosting a group to come together and will be responsible for making the final solution work oversees the decision but works together with others to arrive there.

At the empower stage, the community makes the decision. The organization hosting folks simply facilitates that decision and then implements what the community decides.

16 of 29

Informar

Proporcionarle información equilibrada y objetiva al público para ayudarlo a comprender el problema, las alternativas, oportunidades y/o soluciones.

Lo mantendremos informado.

Consultar

Obtener comentarios del público sobre los análisis, alternativas y/o decisiones.

Lo mantendremos informado, escucharemos y reconoceremos sus preocupaciones y aspiraciones y proporcionaremos comentaarios sobre cómo el público influyó en la decisión.

participar

Trabajar directamente con el público durante el proceso para garantizar que sus preocupaciones y aspiraciones se comprendan y consideren de forma constante.

Trabajaremos con usted para garantizar que sus preocupaciones estén directamente reflejadas en las alternativas desarrolladas y proporcionaremos comentarios sobre cómo el público influyó en la decisión.

Colaborar

Asociarse con el público en cada aspecto de la decisión, incluyendo el desarrollo de alternativas y la identificación de la solución de preferencia.

Vamos a pedirle consejos e innovación para formular soluciones e incoporar sus consejos y recomendaciones en la mayor medida posible.

Empoderar

Poner la toma de decisiones final en manos del público.

Implementaremos lo que usted decida.

Objetivo

Promesa

Espectro IAP2 de participación del público

17 of 29

Espectro IAP2 de participación del público

Informar

Proporcionarle información equilibrada y objetiva al público para ayudarlo a comprender el problema, las alternativas, oportunidades y/o soluciones.

Hojas informativas

Sitios web

Jornadas de puertas abiertas

Consultar

Obtener comentarios del público sobre los análisis, alternativas y/o decisiones.

Comentarios públicos

Grupos de discusión

Encuestas

Reuniones públicas

Participar

Trabajar directamente con el público durante el proceso para garantizar que sus preocupaciones y aspiraciones se comprendan y consideren de forma constante.

Talleres

Votaciones deliberativas

Colaborar

Asociarse con el público en cada aspecto de la decisión, incluyendo el desarrollo de alternativas y la identificación de la solución de preferencia.

Comités asesores de ciudadanos

Formación de consensos

Toma de decisiones participativa

Empoderar

Poner la toma de decisiones final en manos del público.

Jurados de ciudadanos

Elecciones

Presupuesto participativo

Decisión delegada

Objetivo

Ejemplos

Here are examples for what each stage looks like.
At the inform level, you may have fact sheets you share, information on a website, or host a open house to announce what you’re working on.
When consulting with the public, you might host different events that allow people to give input, but remember this input is one directional.

This could be the public comment section at a city council meeting where community members can come up and speak into a mic for a few minutes.
It could also be a focus group or survey that asks community members specific questions to get input.
Consulting tends to be the most efficient for both the organization and the folks providing their input. This can, however, come with a tradeoff. When folks provide their input in this way, they oftentimes don’t have to hear other folks’ opinions or wrestle with how to navigate multiple, conflicting points of view. So, when the final decision gets made, if it doesn’t align with what they think should have been done, they don’t feel heard. This can leave people feeling over surveyed and underserved. They get asked their opinion, but don’t see it in the final results.

Public Participation at the Involve level can look like engaging folks in workshops to tweak an idea or possible solution. It can also look like deliberative polling, a type of process that allows people to consider possible actions and weigh in. One example of this is the Citizen’s Initiative Review. The is a process that’s happened in Colorado, Oregon, Arizona, California, and Massachusetts. In this case, a group of citizens are randomly selected. Basically, they send out letters to a bunch of registered voters in the state. Folks say their interested in participating and out of that a random group is pulled out that matches up with demographics of the state. This group then comes together for 3 days to consider an upcoming ballot initiative. They hear from experts and then decide whether or not they support the ballot. They work together to write up a guide for voters that includes pros to the ballot measure, cons, and how they would vote overall. This guide then gets mailed to voters to use in their own decision making. This way, voters can hear from real citizens who have really considered the ballot measure. In this case, community members are simply advising people on how they could vote, so it’s at the involve level.
At the collaboration level, you can have citizens advisory committees who work with experts in the stages of developing solutions and bringing them to life.

Collaboration can also include consensus-building, where you must workshop an idea until a group is in full agreement or consensus. For example, we worked with the San Luis Valley Regional Opioid Council to decide how to spend money that came out in court cases against major pharmaceutical companies who helped produce the opioid epidemic. There were over 50 people part of the council, including local elected officials, but also folks working for recovery nonprofits, healthcare workers, and people with lived experience of substance abuse. This group came to consensus on how to use and distribute the funds over six counties. You can read more about this example in the course materials.

Lastly, at the empower stage, the example we most often think of is voting. Whichever options wins most votes, becomes the decision. Similar, juries in court cases make the decision directly. There are other processes we’ll talk about shortly, like Participatory Budgeting that allows community members to decide what to do with dollars.

18 of 29

¿Qué oportunidades ve para las personas afectadas por un problema para que tengan una oportunidad significativa de inspirar medidas para abordar ese problema?

19 of 29

¿Cómo puede decidir la comunidad?

20 of 29

¿Cuáles son los diferentes métodos para tomar decisiones colectivas?

21 of 29

Diferentes métodos para diferentes decisiones

Nivel de propiedad

Velocidad

Fuente: Pleus Consulting

Consenso

Consentimiento

Mayoría de voto

Consejo

Independiente

22 of 29

Método de votación "de un puño a cinco dedos"�

CONSENTIMIENTO

CONSENSO

De ninguna manera. No apoyo esta decisión y la voy a vetar.

Tengo grandes dudas, pero apoyo la decisión y no la voy a vetar.

Me incomoda la decisión, pero puedo vivir con ella.

Esta decisión me parece bien.

Apoyo esta decisión.

Apoyo firmemente esta decisión.

23 of 29

��Lo pequeño está bien, lo pequeño es todo.�(Lo amplio es una reflexión de lo pequeño)

Salas grupales

10 minutos

Dedique un momento para reflexionar sobre su comunidad:

¿Cómo podría tomar decisiones dentro de su organización que reflejen la voluntad de la comunidad más amplia?
¿Qué puede crear a pequeña escala que refleje lo que desea ver a gran escala (dentro de un equipo → en un vecindario → en un condado → en nuestra democracia)?
¿Qué ideas creativas tiene para probar una toma de decisiones más inclusiva?
¿Cómo pueden estos métodos conducir a un cambio de sistemas y mejores resultados de salud para su comunidad?

24 of 29

Concluyamos

25 of 29

Reflexión: ¿qué es algo nuevo que aprendió hoy?

26 of 29

Aprendizaje de Canopy en línea

Llegar a los resultados

Continuo de participación comunitaria

¿Necesita apoyo individual? Solicite una sesión de asesoramiento.

27 of 29

Cambio de sistemas: 5 de mayo de 2025; 2:00-3:30pm
Llegar a los resultados: 10 de junio 2025; 10:00-11:30am
Espectro de participación comunitaria: 17 de junio de 2025; 10:00-11:30am

¿Le pareció útil esto?

¡Únase a otro grupo de afinidad!

28 of 29

Evaluación de la reunión

No muy eficaz

Muy eficaz

¿Qué podríamos mejorar?

¿Qué hizo que funcionara bien?

¿Cuán eficaz fue la reunión de hoy?

29 of 29

�Gracias

Por favor llene esta encuesta