Transcription
All right. See, welcome. Welcome. You guys hearing me? Okay.
>> Yep.
>> Y
>> Good.
>> All right. Let me get this all set up. Chat in case folks want to communicate there. Okay.
Whenever I get a haircut, I got a lot of head frames, so be ready for that. Um, nothing like starting a class with a little joke about my giant five head. Let's get started. Uh, are there any questions about material that we've covered up to this point?
No. Okay. Well, a couple things I want to remind folks of. The uh couple important uh parts are the uh it's not in here, but for the uh advocacy plan, um you should make sure and review these eight things. Uh, they are important. Um, and then uh and then the uh uh the six steps to successful child advocacy. So if you're wondering what the grading criteria are, it will be of course, are you ready professionally? And then uh the six steps of child advocacy and these eight things here. Uh, so for those of you who are grinding away, uh, just a bit of guidance there. We're going to dig in a little deeper uh into uh those six steps. Uh, let's go ahead and do that. If there are questions or comments at any time, please feel free to chime in. Uh, let's I'm going to pull up a a Microsoft Paint so that I can draw a little on it to talk about some of this stuff as we go. Okay.
Uh, so one of the things that uh one of the mistakes often that people make when trying to know their issue um I alluded to it last time we we covered this in a broad sense um is that folks often know one part of their issue and if you're going to advocate for a specific issue um you can either go in with your one part and it will make you a little less effective in advocacy and what absolutely will do as you go along is kind of pick up these other parts and the other perspectives as you talk with stakeholders and champions and detractors. Those folks will absolutely give you an education on the parts of this thing you're advocating for um uh whether you're ready for it or not or and this is what I recommend because I do think that going in with more information even if it doesn't completely jive with this one message or passion you have can often help in a conversation.
The example I often like to use is um working to I'm passionate about working to off-ramp people from our justice system and into the appropriate treatment. Now, for someone who spent most of their career as a counselor and therapist, it makes perfect sense that I know that jail is an anti-therapeutic environment. Um, most jails not only are non-therapeutic, that is, they don't offer the full suite of substance use disorder and mental health counseling, but they are anti-therapeutic environments. They often are not giving people the medications they need, even if they have a prescription, and they're often not giving people the treatment they need, even though they're at a perfect time to receive it and so on. And so, and people are in these environments and their mental health and substance use disorder issues are getting worse. So, I have, it's clear why I'm passionate about getting people out of our justice system, which has a lot of flaws, um, uh, and getting them into our treatment system, also has flaws, but it's focused on, uh, helping people to get into recovery and reach their full potential.
Now, if I'm speaking, let's say, to a prosecuting attorney who has been elected primarily to represent their constituents, to make their often county uh as safe an environment as possible, and to be the champion for victims uh that uh uh victims of crimes. And I try to communicate this philosophy of every person has value and each person has the capacity and we are responsible as a society to help even people who make mistakes and even people who commit crimes to get connected to recovery and reach their full potential as a human being. That's not a very good selling point for let's say for example a prosecuting attorney. However, if I understand the role that substance use disorder and mental health recovery play in decreasing the recidivism, the criminal recidivism and the role that these uh treatments play in increasing the safety one person at a time uh uh to uh of our community. Uh, then then that might be something that does greatly appeal to a wide array of uh uh philosophies of folks who are in law enforcement or prosecution or our justice system.
Uh, I think many people who only think about our justice system you you might think that you I run into a lot of people who think of our justice system as punitive first and that punishment then is a deterrent to society. For example, I'm not going to steal a car. Now, am I not going to steal a car because of my core ethics and values, or am I not going to steal a car because if I stole a car, the consequences might be uh some time in jail? Uh, that's a great question. Um, uh, and and it's a philosophical one. And so if sometimes you might think that people in law enforcement in in our justice systems, especially in prosecution, that they really lean heavily on the punishment aspect of incarceration in our justice system. Um, but I haven't met that the person who only thinks that way because I think the idea of rehabilitation is appealing to anyone who is logically looking at community safety because if punishment we none we can all acknowledge punishment is not a some of us would say it's not effective at all at at reducing crime. Um, but some of us would say that it it is only partly effective. Nobody nobody would say that the threat of punishment is perfectly effective to deter crime because you know we still have lots of crime. Um, so uh I uh if you understand the aspects where you overlap, if you understand the complexity of an issue enough where you can find the common ground, you are going to be a much more effective um advocate than if you know your one thing really well and you're good at saying it loudly and passionately while shaking your finger. That's going to work for a a certain percentage of people, but you absolutely will run into people that are going to need uh uh something else.
Any questions or comments about that?
Okay. Well, let's how do we get to know our issue? So, the first um is called hub and spoke. Uh, and um I for those of you who may be familiar with social services in Clark County and in Washington in general um this is has no relation to the hub and spoke model of therapeutic treatment. Um, so if you're thinking about you know the the fact that lifeline is is a hub and spoke is a hub for a hub and spoke model that's a whole different thing. Um, in this context the hub is the central issue that you're working on. So, let me switch to Oh, there's a whiteboard right here. Let's see. Share. Oh, cool. Okay. Can you guys see the whiteboard? Give me a thumbs up or something if you can see the whiteboard.
Oh, you're on it. Okay. Hey. All right. Well, hopefully it's part of the recording as well. Um, because this is on Zoom, so one would assume. Okay. Great. So, I'm gonna Whoops. We're sorry. Okay. Well, we'll give sure we'll make this the hub and in here might be let's say um parenting education. So uh the fundamental uh issue let's say is that um some parents are not equipped to support uh let's say children with uh mental health issues. Okay. So that might be your core issue and that might be the main thing that you think that you want to work on or you want to advocate for. Uh, and then the the hub and spoke is is that what is related to that? Well um there might be issues of parental mental health issues. Uh, there might be issues with related to the uh um substance or co- co-occurring issues for the child. Uh, and so you can see that the idea of a hub and spoke is uh boy I mean I could just fix this. Is it two Rs in one C? No, it's not that either. Uh, one second. I It's got the squiggly line. I feel like it should I should be able to use it.
Okay.
>> Two C's and two Rs.
>> Two C's and two Rs. Okay, great. There we go. Thank you. Uh, so yeah, it is ironic that someone who's taught uh mental health and SUD for this long can't spell co-occurring, but there it is. So co-occurring uh issues for the child and so on and so forth. So the idea is with the hub and spoke is uh how do we expand our knowledge of these uh of this issue by putting the issue the primary issue we want to deal with and then draw as many spokes out to the interrelated secondary issues of the same problem. So that is the hub and spoke.
Any questions about that one?
Okay, go back to the notes. Uh, this one is one of my favorites because you can do it as kind of a brainstorming session with your team or with some stakeholders or with just some friends over a cup of coffee. Um, and and the the premise is that if you state a primary issue and then ask why why is this issue in existence. So maybe the issue remains uh um parents are uh lack the the resources to support to best support children with sub mental health issues. Um, then the the question you ask is but why why are these parents ill equipped and then you might say well you know they may h they may be employed and uh you know and their jobs take up space and then but why and so you you do these lines of but why almost like you have a toddler um you know who you say hey uh we should help parents learn how to to parent when they're facing struggles with their kids, don't you think? And then the toddler goes, "But why?" So, it is it is sort of fun uh way to deepen your your understanding of an issue. And in the best way, in my opinion, to do a butt why is you follow the butt why until it peters out and then you start again and you give a different why. And you kind of follow these threads a little like the hub and spoke. You follow these uh uh these but wise for a while. Uh, each time until they peter out.
Questions about but why?
The next one is a problem tree. So we um you start with the primary issues and you explore causal factors. It's a bit like but why? What causes this? And then you draw a line of causal factors. This is a consequence. What is the causal factor of this? This now if the causal factor is a consequence of something else, what is the causal factor? And you do these strings of pro with the problem tree of these causal factors and consequences to sort of draw try to draw a line. So, yeah, uh questions so far about hub and spoke, but why, and problem tree.
Okay, uh force field analysis. Um, uh, there's sometimes called like a fishbone diagram is another way to do it. Uh, but a force field analysis are going to be you take the issue and you're going to explore what forces are go are are supportive of change the change you're trying to make and what forces are going to push back on the change you're trying to make. And um this can really be helpful. Um, I think it is excuse me, it is helpful not to uh call out stakeholders or detractors that are part of the process. Instead, call uh you might call out ideas um you know, like uh instead of saying Vancouver Housing Authority isn't providing enough housing or whatever, you might simply say a lack of available housing because if you call out now, I think Vancouver Housing Authority is an amazing resource in our community, I just popped into my head around housing um, but if you call out a specific agency and say they they are they are a force against change, that kind of diagram can actually push possible stakeholders away from engaging um, even if you don't do it on purpose.
Um, there was a when I very first started about eight or 10 years ago, so it's long enough ago that I don't think we'll be you guys will be able to figure out who I'm talking about. Um, eight or 10 years ago, I started the might be a little less than that. Anywhere started uh the Clark County Opioid Task Force. The idea was that we would uh gather a bunch of stakeholders together around this opioid crisis and try to figure out some pathways to reducing uh overdose deaths and the harm to the community of of the overdose of the opioid crisis in Clark County. So I put together this group, a method. We had a methodology of how we were going to go about this. An amazing did some a fair amount of work before the very first meeting trying to get engagement, especially from historically siloed systems like law enforcement and the jail and our judicial systems and the treatment facilities and so on and so forth. Um, uh the recovery community, it always shows up in Clark County. They're amazing. So, I didn't say them not because they weren't invited to the Clark County Opioid Task Force, but because I didn't have to work hard to get our recovery community and peer support uh uh folks to come to those meetings. But anyway, a lot of this groundwork. So, everybody shows up at this meeting and then they proceed to, including a leader. Let's say in law enforcement or our jail system, there was a leader in the room. And then when we started talking about this issue, a lot of people's complaints were around what this person led in our community. And that person then stopped coming to the Clark County Opioid Task Force. And it would have been great if this person had been able to and motivated to stay engaged. Now, I'm not sure I go back and I do anything different and this person suddenly is deeply engaged in this opioid task force, but it it um there was certainly a predictable process of pointing fingers and saying this is part of the issue and then that person who was engaged not as a detractor, as a stakeholder evaporating into thin air. And so there's a balance here because you do we do speak truth to power and advocacy and also if we can remain engaged and remain engaging to some of the individuals who have influence over the areas in which the there are leverage points. So it's a balance, speak to its power and try to find ways to engage the the change agents in in your community into the work. Uh, and I think there are different types of advocacy where one of those is more important. There are some types of advocacy where it is absolutely essential you speak truth to power because no one's listening and it needs to be heard. And there are other types of advocacy maybe where you have money and there's a program you're trying to start where it's much more important to keep folks in the room so that we can figure out how the, you know, how we're going to coordinate between these historically siloed systems. So, I'm not trying to tell you how to do it, just that we need you need to be aware that simply saying um this is a force for change and you buddy, you're a force for hindering change um can have consequences as far as who's going to be engaged. Boy, I'm just sharing all the mistakes I've made in advocacy so that you guys can learn from them.
So, uh, any questions about a force field analysis or about my example? I know it was a little bit vague, but I I have made a very long history of not specifically calling out folks that have, you know, been, you know, I want to keep doing advocacy and so I'm a little careful with my words.
Okay. All right. Uh, so now we've got the force fit analysis or fish diagram. You have to remember fishbone diagram. But if you are looking up ways in which to do a a force field analysis, you can't. I have a change book around here somewhere that talks for like 190 pages about the fishbone diagram. Yeah, force field analysis is a is a helpful thing to do especially I think force field analysis might be better done with like an executive committee or a smaller group of folks who are deeply deeply engaged in the work who who are going to see what a force field anal the benefits of force field analysis we can try to soften the things that are hindering change and strengthen the things that we have existing strengths as well. Okay. But it certainly provides a deeper understanding uh of the uh the issue.
Uh, another way to uh to deepen your understanding of an issue is to look at it through the different levels of framing. So it's going to be sort of small to big. So the one way to frame an issue is individual values. Uh, for example, if you bring an issue to me and you say, "Jim, if we here in Clark County want to if we want to be the type of county that takes care of people who need help, uh, you should you should be engaged in this process." That's appealing to my values. That's framing it in the frame of individual values. Uh, and so if you think about a lot of times that's where we start because I I will say often um for a lot of things uh theories of counseling and psychology and social work and um advocacy we the way we start is we start with the discomfort of knowing that some something that is happening is in congruent with our values. It's happening all over. Uh, if you if you are not being if your values are not being challenged by the by the things that are happening in our community and in our state and in our country and in our world, then you you aren't looking close enough because there's a diversity of issues going on. So you'll find the one that you that challenges your values whether it's stewardship of our planet or how we care for people in our country or the laws and regulations in our state and how funding is distributed in our state or what is our county doing with regards to law enforcement, you know, whatever whatever the issue is at what frame. Often it is our own values that pull us to advocacy. And that's that's good. That's the way it's supposed to be because if you're showing up for advocacy from only an intellectual standpoint, when the going gets tough, sometimes it's hard to find the energy to keep going. But if you're showing up in areas of advocacy because of your heart and your soul and your ethics, um that will carry you through uh when inevitably it is not easy.
Questions about values?
Okay. So the next level of framing is the issue area. So I talked about uh um resources for parents who are uh you know who have a child who has a child or adolescent with a mental health issue. And so the issue area here is parental education, relationship and connection, and peer support for parents. It's uh uh resource resource access and resource awareness. Um, and so uh these are the broader areas to better understand your issue. So you know like uh when you switch from values to issue areas when you start to discover what resources are in the area um like if you haven't heard of NAMI, it's an amazing sort of watershed of support and resources um in our community. Specifically uh Southwest Washington has an amazing uh NAMI. Uh, and then uh at the third level. It is policy. Uh, and this is particularly important in times like right now when our uh legislature legislature is in session in Washington and making significant decisions about funding and about laws in the state of Washington uh that will absolutely uh affect you or or someone you care about uh moving forward. And so uh I would say that the in terms of focus and awareness the the highest level of focus and awareness is values and then slightly less is the issue area although people build their expertise in the midst of advocacy as they discover resources and and more information about an issue area. And then the least the reason why I talk about it so much is the least amount of investment and awareness in policy in the area of state and local, you know, even systemic like a school policies. Uh, looking at the rules that govern out the the the folks who are affected and have an impact on the area of advocacy is a huge lever point for making for change. Uh, so it's not perfect because there are there are sometimes when people try to make big change with laws and then it falls on deaf ears or or people just reject it. Um, but certainly that is less common than people simply rejecting your values and your perspective. Uh, so yeah, I'm not saying it should be flipped over, but I'm saying that we should uh if you want to fully know your issue, know it from the perspective of values, know it from the perspective of the issue area, and certainly dig in a little bit about from the perspective of policy.
Questions?
>> You guys are still here, right?
>> Yep.
>> Yeah, we're here. Yes, Jim, we are listening.
>> Just wanted to make sure after about 20 minutes of talking, just uh got to make sure we exist. Especially me getting all passionate and worked up about stuff. All right. Um
>> I get worked up about this stuff every day. That's why I'm like trying to just listen.
>> Well, I I just have to say that um the the when I started my career in me in in mental health and substance use disorder, I thought I would spend the rest of my life working with one person at a time trying to make the world a better place. And it has been slowly over the last 20 years uh that I have discovered that there are these lever points where if you pull at the right time with the right people, you can affect a large group of people. And so I have found a high level of passion in this policy area. Uh, and so uh I'm I have the same it's the same emotion I feel about policy that I felt trying to help one person you know get into and stick stick to recovery. I feel that same uh feeling in my heart.
>> How may I ask how you try because that's the same thing that's happening to me where like the more I learn and because I'm a systems thinker anyway like I'm just like oh this is where it's at. But I've been used to like doing like advocacy work on like one-on-one like with each family and and how do you how did you manage like separating when those people still counted on you to be there when you're like moving on to like a bigger framework because you can't do both at the same time effectively.
>> Uh, good question. I think my I have been very fortunate that my passions have gone in the same direction as my day job. And so when I was a counselor, that was what I was focused on. And when I was a clinical supervisor, I started to go to some meetings in Portland that were like larger scale thinking about policy. And then as as I moved to another organization that focused on more you know regional change then you know and so it's been a pretty natural progression of my personal focus and my job and how my jobs have evolved. Uh, and so I I can't speak a lot because by the time I was neck deep in policy I wasn't doing direct service anymore. Um, but there was certainly a space there when I was a clinical supervisor where I had a foot in both worlds. And I I think it really is to be 100% present. Prepare and be 100% present for your clients and then prepare and be 100% present when you're doing, you know, advocacy. Uh, and so I think you have to be open and honest with both your employer and your uh and the the place you're advocating, you know, the areas in which you're advocating about any possible conflicts of interest. Uh, because it's it's not something that you can necessarily keep penned up in a little box. You know, I can't do a job and then be an advocate and then them not find out because I'm advocating for stuff that we do at work, you know. So, just transparency and openness with your employer and uh I mean they they don't own you as a human being. You can advocate either way, but I just uh unless you're in a toxic work environment, I think uh it is pretty helpful to just be like this is something I'm passionate about. I'm gonna fight for this on my off time. When you're when you're not paying me, you know. Does that help at all? I don't know if that's what you're looking for.
Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Um, okay. So, we talked about know knowing your issue by uh digging into the three levels of framing. We talked about hub and spoke, but why, problem, force film analysis. Uh, so that's all I really want to talk about for knowing your issue. But this one naturally progresses into re research for background and impact because there is a broad sort of brainstorming style of knowing your issue. And then there is doing the work.
I uh can't tell you how uncomfortable I get with people who say I've done my research and what they mean is they spent a long evening Googling something. Because that is not research. If you if you use search engines to find what you're looking for, search engines and AI are designed to give you what you're looking for, not truth. If you Google is weed bad for you, you get if you clear your cache so it's doesn't do what it knows you want and you Google uh um is weed bad for you, you will get a different result than if you Google physical and psychological consequences of marijuana use, you get very different answers. Why? Because the the Google knows if you say is weed bad for you, you're looking for that 1978 article from High Times that did research on the fact that weed cures cancer. And if you Google physical and psychological consequences of marijuana use, you are looking for the NAIDA website that's a research watershed and tells you what you're you know what the research says about the long-term consequences of moderate marijuana, moderate to heavy marijuana use. And they there are different answers. And so this is one of the reasons why I think one of the biggest threats to our society is people making a decision and then looking for support of their decision. You need to say here's something I think is true and with educational and cultural humility go look and try to find truth.
Go ahead, Demi.
>> Look at this. I just completely cleared my cookies and I did it in two different windows on a private browser and both of them pop up the CDC as the first result.
>> Well, it pops
>> Clearing your cook do do a uh do it again in like a a hidden mode where it can't see anything of yours or go to the library and do it because you you'll get you'll get different answers. I can almost guarantee I've done it multiple times.
>> It did give different answers, but for both of them, the CDC one was the first result, but after that, it does go
>> different directions.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> But I just wanted to try it because I've heard you use this example a few times.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh, what's the There's like a mode where you're It's not It's not tracking anything of yours.
>> I use uh duck.go.
>> Okay.
>> So, it's that's my default. Oh, it's private. Yeah.
>> Cool. Yeah. And the same thing will happen if you do AI. If you have a chat GPT account and you type those two things in in fresh, I I can almost guarantee it'll give you different answers.
>> Wouldn't do that, too.
>> Yeah. Uh, all right. So, anyway, the point being, uh, the internet and AI is really good at giving you what it thinks you want, not truth. And so when we're talking about research for background effect and impact, we're talking about actual research. You uh you have now and will have for for quite a while. I don't know how long you have it, but it's pretty a long while access to a ton of research databases through the Clark County Library. Uh, EPCO host uh is a is a sort of collaborative search engine, but you can actually search specific um databases and uh PubMed, Medline, Psych Info, Psych Articles, those are all really good research databases that primarily only publish uh peer-reviewed research and summaries. And so the it's it's if once you find it is a life-changing experience to be able to separate between searching for what you want and then finding it and testing your beliefs and your hypothesis uh against actual research.
So uh first is secondary research and this is uh absolutely necessary for research for background and effect. Secondary research means looking at the research like I've been talking about. Secondary research is like doing a literature review or or writing a white paper that's supported by research. It's taking the information from scholarly sources and gathering it together to support uh um you know some of the things you're trying to assert for your advocacy like something like um peer support for PE for parents who are uh parents of children with mental health issues increases the you know uh recovery connectiveness and uh efficacy of treatment for those children. If you make that assertion, you can go look to see if that assertion is true or been tested or you know that kind of thing. Um, so that's secondary research and that's part of that research for background and impact. And then there's uh there's uh primary research. So primary research is that you are going to make your advocacy a research experiment. So, obviously, you're not going to be able to make your advocacy unless you're connected to some kind of, you know, um, uh, University of Washington has some research hubs that are willing to work with nonprofits who are who want to do research as part of a a new program. Um, but if you're not working with Udub, but you're you're just going to do a test of your assertion, that's in essence, we're it's fair to call that primary research. And so in this case, you're going to say, "I will track data to see if what we're trying to do has an impact." Uh, and I will tell you that especially in Clark County, it's true all over, but it's specifically true in Clark County. If you get funding from the county, there's a variety of ways to get funding from the county, uh, mental health sales tax, opioid uh, abatement dollars. But if you end up getting funding from the county, I can guarantee you because I'm in those rooms that they are going to want you to track data to see if what they're giving you money for actually is having any impact. And so how much and how deep of data they're asking for often varies depending on how much you know how much you're funded and whether your capacity to collect and report data. But the point is is that there all a lot of funding for advocacy, an advocacy program or a change program is going to require some kind of live primary research is a strong term, but primary tracking of data and efficacy. And so it's it's absolutely necessary and as as it says there, it really helps with reinforcing successful advocacy outcomes if you track data.
One of the mistakes people often make with primary research is changing their terms. When you're going to do advocacy, you say, "Here's what we're going to track to see if it works." And if you change that halfway and you go, "Hold on. No, now we're going to track this." It it really invalidates what you asserted at the beginning. Now, can you assert that the program had other impacts by changing the data you're tracking? Okay. But really the most powerful data you can gather is to say this program will have this impact before the program starts and then you find a way to track that impact and then see what happens at the end. And so in essence your your hypothesis can't change midway. Your hypothesis comes before the before the program and it is tested by the program.
Can you give a real life example or because I'm not making the connection of what you mean?
>> I'm going to try and make up a program because if I use a real one then I'll have to be using a program that is being run by agencies that aren't mine. So let's say a program says if we have peers whose their sole job is to uh is to transport people who've gotten an early release from jail to treatment. Then we will increase the the show rate for those released uh uh people to their treatment uh program. So, the assertion is simply if we have some peers that are willing to pick somebody up who's gotten early release from jail if they're going to go to treatment and they actually pick them up regardless of when they're released and take them to the treatment facility, uh, they're more likely to show up. So, that's what I'm asserting. Now, you give me 180 grand to hire three peers and the support structure for those peers and, you know, support the transportation that they're going to provide. Um, then I hire the peers. Those peers get to work. We c we connect with the jail and the and the justice system to ensure that individuals who are released aren't released to the to the street. They're released to in into the custody or at least into the presence of these peers. And we test of all of the peers that were referred to this transportation program. How many of them showed up to treat? And of the folks who we didn't have capacity to help or or if that's not if if that's not the case then what was happening before what was the show rate of people who were not getting connected with peers for transportation to treatment uh on the show rate to them going to the treatment that they were released uh to because I don't know if you know this but a lot of times conditional releases those folks get a warrant if they don't show up to to the treatment but that doesn't mean they all show up. Some of them don't show up and then just accept the fact that they're probably on a benchmark. So then at the end we get to say of the people that were referred to my our program 85% of them showed up to treatment if they were transported by peers and the uh the jail provided data of you know the jail in Clark County Justice uh superior court provided data that it was only 30% before the peer program started of of showing up to treatment. So we have demonstrated efficacy this program and then the next you know this is why it's important for step six because the next thing is give us more money because that's when you prove efficacy the next thing you're going to say is please continue to support this program or can we scale and spread this program and have even a larger impact that answer your question? Great.
>> Okay. Because then it would seem that you're like sort of like manipulating it to like confirmation bias, right? Like to that it's
>> Okay.
>> When I if when I started the program of peer transport transport from jail, I was tracking the show rate of people to their treatment and then halfway through I decided to to instead track how many uh interactions the peers had with these released uh individuals. Then sure, it's great that we're having these peer interactions with these individuals who are released, but that's not the data that I you said you were going to track at the beginning. You said you were going to track the show rate
>> Uh at treatment.
>> Yes,
>> It's a it's a it's a it's more common than it's a more common mistake than you think of people thinking, let's change the data we're tracking because I don't like it's not quite good enough for me. And it's it's a it's a mistake that you I don't think you want to make especially for funders who are funders or funders who are in the network of folks who do understand data that you have you have done a disservice to the program if you're changing the track data you're tracking.
Okay. Now when we're talking about uh this data that we're tracking uh we're talking about quantitative and qualitative. So quantitative is really what it sounds like a quantity that is tracking numbers. The show rate, the show percentage of uh to the treatment facility is a number. It is 88%. That's a number. That is a quant that's quantitative research. And qualitative research is more about the story. It's the thing that happened. It's the description. And so qualitative often uh a bit of guidance for folks who are thinking about research doing research on a topic is often you want to start with qualitative research. You want to interview a community. What do you need to make it to treatment? What is why why do you think people aren't making it to treatment? You might interview people in jail. You might interview the jail staff. You might interview treatment staff. You're going to do qualitative research. It doesn't have as much let's say uh statistical impact because of the nature of qualitative research but it can guide you in the right direction in a way that quantitative cannot with regards to formulating and describing and and starting a program. Uh quantitative research is really the hard numbers and I will tell you that different people even elected officials respond to different types of data. I have known uh uh elected officials and funding people who work for funding agencies that the the really amazing stories of success stories just fall right off them like water off a duck's back. They need the numbers. You tell me the return on investment. You tell me the exact numbers of change that occurred because of the money we gave you. You tell me impact. And I have had elected officials and people work for funding agencies that they don't care about the numbers. The numbers are just a mess. But when you tell when they tell you, let me tell you the story of Joe. Joe has been released four times from the Clark County Jail and has never gone to treatment. He even though he says he really wants treatment, he never makes it. But when Joe met our peer support provider who transported him, they formed an immediate bond. Uh uh he connected him with other support services that he need and then he took him to to the treatment facility and checked up on him while he was in the treatment facility and now Joe's been in recovery for nine months and he wants to be a peer. Now that that kind of story can have a huge impact on some folks and so the qualitative and the quantitative are both important. Uh often if you're going to run a program you need to collect qualitative research or quantitative research and you should probably collect some qualitative data as well just uh for for uh the impact that it can have.
Questions, qualitative versus quantitative.
Okay, now we're preparing effective materials. We've got some stakeholders or some funders in a room. We've got some some uh some folks that we want to buy into this. We've got them into in a room together and now we're trying to prepare materials for these individuals. The first thing, and this is I don't know if this should be said, and it probably doesn't need to be said to a bunch of college students, um, but do prepare things. One of the mistakes people sometimes make is get a bunch of stakeholders together and just hope hope the magic happens. You know what I mean? Just put all the Tinder in one place and watch it explode. And then people show up and go, "You're right. This is a problem." No, you're right. This is a problem. Mhm. This is a problem. And then they go their their separate ways and they're like look what I did. I went to the stakeholder meeting for this advocacy. I feel great about myself but nothing happens. And so preparing materials and then preparing effective materials is absolutely essential for these meetings. That's why um as uh I'm I am really relationship-based person but I am big on agendas. I think h having a clear understanding of what we're going to do here with this time really helps stakeholders, champions, and even detractors go, okay, this hap it stuff happened when I went to this meeting, so I'm going to go to the next one. Uh, because stuff happened, and I don't want to miss it. And so, uh uh preparing an uh you know, some kind of agenda that frames what what's going to happen at the meeting.
Now, how do we prepare our materials? We already talked about quantitative versus qualitative. One of the things that Oh, this is uh sorry, this should be over to the left. Um, maybe I can just edit it real quick. Let me I don't want people to get confused because of the way it's set up. Okay, sorry. I let you peek behind the curtain a little bit for me editing this. I just don't want people to get confused. Okay.
So first with there are different appeals. Just like I said, people respond differently to quantitative and qualitative. Um, people are going to respond differently to different types of appeals. Uh, so first of all, one appeal that is very common for advocates is an appeal to logic. So um I'm not going to get into uh what that means to have an illogical appeal except to say a logical appeal starts on a firm premise. A premise is something that you are asserting is true and can be supported uh by face validity or research that it's true. And then every step you take from that premise should be a logical step. So if you say um we don't have enough people getting who are released uh from jail getting to treatment. You know, if if the next thing you say is um uh as we've built our peer workforce, we've demonstrated that peers not only have the ethical ability to do transport, but also the skill set, if they're certified peers, to build relationships and get people engaged in recovery. If we can have these peers transport these individuals, not only will those individuals have transportation to treatment, but they'll be able to build that relationship. You see what logic has a premise and then the steps you take are logical.
If you the best way I think to get better at appeals to logic is to look up logical fallacies because logical fallacies are mistakes that everyone makes. Um, I'm going to tell you two and you're going to recognize them all the time in politics. So the first logical fallacy I'm going to share is called the straw man argument. So straw man argument is when you prop up a weak version of your uh conflicting argument and then argue it against it. So I think uh that we should um protect the rights of individuals in our LGBTQ+ community. My opponent thinks that there that no one should be uh uh gay at all. That's a straw man argument. I'm propping up something some thing that is a weak version of a counterargument. And so a straw man argument is is very common where you take your strongest version of an argument and you hold it up against the weakest version of someone else's argument. Why do you think a lot of the people who try to sound really smart, they argue against people like in the street or at a college or whatever? Because they're taking their strongest version of their argument and arguing against, you know, a 19-year-old who's passionate but doesn't have a strongly formed argument. So, that's a straw man argument. That's a logical fallacy.
Another logical fallacy is called the slippery slope. Slippery slope fallacy is if we blank, it asserts that we will eventually reach this other thing. If we enforce the existing laws that we have for um, you know, uh checking to see if someone has a violent felony before selling them a gun. If we enforce existing gun check laws for uh uh federal crimes against other people, what will h that will eventually lead to the police coming into your house and taking all your guns away. That's called a slippery slope. This one thing, people will even sometimes say it, which is hilarious because it's a logical fallacy. They'll say, "This is a slippery slope." And if someone says that out loud, you'll be like, "Well, then you're full of shit." Because if the slippery slope is an actual logical fallacy. Um, because it's an assertion that if one thing happens, it leads to these other things. You have to support every step of the slope if you want to prove it. You can't just say it's a slippery
slope or assert that it is. So, those are two of the more common logical fallacies. Um, there's so many good ones though if you want to, if you, if you're interested in uh firming up your critical thinking and your critical uh assertions, which are really helpful in advocacy to be able to construct an argument that even people who are good at, you know, good at speaking and good at picking apart arguments, that they aren't able to pick apart your arguments simply because you have logical fallacies.
>> Questions.
>> I think the, I think the public speaking class is where I learned about those.
>> Yeah. And there's a, there's a chunk of advocacy that is public speaking. You're speaking, you know, if you're going to be the backbone support for an advocacy program, you're going to have to talk to some people about it. You're gonna have to get it rolling.
>> And and then they're going to, you're going to prepare a beautiful speech and then they're going to tell you you have half a minute.
>> Oh, yeah. I, I have this old, I, I think I saw it on a poster at Clark 10 or 15 years ago, but it's like, if you want me to speak for two hours, I only need to prepare for 10 minutes, but if you want me to speak for 10 minutes, I need to prepare for two hours. Uh, because it is, it's much harder, especially in advocacy, to speak for a very short period of time.
Yeah, I know. Oh, the public comments section of our, of our meeting today is 2 minutes and 35 seconds. We have Tanya. Uh, Tanya, did you want to say something? That your time starts now. It's like, what?
>> Learned that the hard way recently.
>> Yeah, totally.
>> Really fast.
>> Yep.
>> Uh, okay. Uh, next. So that was an appeal to logic. Uh, an appeal to emotions. Now, I spoke very deeply about the importance of an appeal to logic, but that sometimes isn't enough. It is okay to appeal to the emotions of the folks you're talking to. Some of the things we are advocating for are very deeply connected with our core emotions. We're talking about child advocacy. We're talking about child advocacy. And so it is okay to allow to appeal to the emotions of people, to appeal to the, the maternal and paternal instincts and and archetypes of the people in the room. That is okay. That is can be part of your appeal. It just can't be the only part of your appeal. You can't just appeal to emotions because there are some folks who respond to an appeal to emotions and there are some folks who respond to an appeal to logic. So, here are some cautions when doing an appeal to emotions. The first caution is called hand ringing. Um, sometimes when people do an appeal to emotion, they, they, they sort of, it's called hand ringing because people sort of dig deep into the emotional experience that they want you to tap into. But I, I have to tell you, there is a tolerance level for each person in the room on how much they can empathize until they dissociate. And so if you get too much into, you know, maybe you've had a personal or family experience with what you're advocating for and you start to talk about it and you feel the room going with you, at some point of of sort of the uh, the intensity of the emotions, you will start to see people one at a time kind of popcorn into dissociation and you'll be like, when did I lose the room? And that's what we call hand ringing. When someone goes so far into the emotions of something where they start to lose people, it, it either, uh, it either seems d more dramatic than they want to, uh, empathize with, or quite frankly, they just can't tolerate that intensity of emotions and so you lose them.
Questions about hand ringing. So I want to, I want to acknowledge the cultural parts of a white male talking about hand ringing because there is a inherent cultural bias that white men put on other cultures, genders about how much emotion they can express. And so please do not take this to mean you shouldn't appeal to emotions. You absolutely should say what needs to be said. Get people pissed off or angry or or sad. Get, get in there and appeal to emotions. Uh, just know if you're trying to be your most effective, you're, you're going to want to tune into, you know, when you've got them, when you've got them, and when if you go even further, you might lose some.
Questions?
Okay. Next, uh, is blaming the decision maker. Um, I talked a little bit about this when, when we were talking about the, uh, the getting the folks in the room and trying to keep them in the room. Uh, but like I said before, there are times when, uh, part of advocacy is saying, and you need to do this differently. That can be part of advocacy. Hey, you, you're doing this wrong. Um, but usually, if you're doing that type of advocacy, the person, the people you're engaging in the process are not the people you're pointing at because you're unlikely to engage that person. It should work. Speaking truth to power should make power change. Um, and sometimes it does. People have realizations in in society, even elected officials. But having said that, when you put the lion share of the blame on the one of the change agents, often the best use of that is to engage the other folks in the room that are going to be your stakeholders. Uh, or you can try to do it in a manner that is, uh, that gets them engaged in the process because it, it is especially poignant for decision makers in my opinion when you connect the call to action with the blame. So the call to action is, and you can help us with this. So there, the, if you connect the blame to a call to action, it's, it, it can be a bit more effective. Uh, but just know when you're doing an appeal to emotion, if you share the emotion and then go, when it's their fault, it's the, the outlet of the emotion, uh, uh, will not be toward change. It will be towards the person or people. Um, and maybe that's what you're going for, but a lot of advocacy is trying to be, get, get folks into, uh, the the process.
Questions about appeal to emotions and some of the cautions?
Okay. Next is appeal to character. So this is who is speaking. The appeal is the character, the, the character of the person who is speaking. So, um, let me, let me explain. Um, I, uh, I think he would be very fine sharing with me sharing his name. There is an advocate for medications for opioid use disorder, like Suboxone, uh, you know, uh, and and methadone, um, uh, and his name is Dr. John Hart. And he has shared publicly over and over again that in his early stages of his medical career, he was speaking in favor of prescribing more opiates. He was speaking, and he was a pain management guy. He, he was part of the problem, he would say. And later in his career, he came to the realization that the opioid industry and the overprescribing of medications is part of why we're in an opioid epidemic. And he has then since then dedicated his career to broadening the understanding of the medical profession, specifically in of medications for opioid use disorder, like Suboxone and methadone, and pushing very, uh, persuasively for jails and hospitals and and, uh, physicians to get people connected to these medications and to and to treatment for opioid use disorder.
Now, if I, I was in a situation years ago where I was working with a hospital in a different part of Washington and, um, I was trying to communicate to the medical director of this hospital in a different part of Washington and to the e, the the direct, the medical director of the emergency department at this hospital, the benefits of having an opioid treatment program in the hospital. And it was not landing. And so I called up Dr. Hart and I said, "Can I loop you in on a call with these doctors because you're a doctor, they're a doctor, I'm nobody." And he said, "Absolutely. When do you need me?" And it was at, like, it's like 6:00 a.m. in in the middle of nowhere. I mean, he didn't drive. He, he was on a call on a, on a like a Zoom type call. Uh, but he did, he got on that call and he said, if you need me to help you with the formulary, if you need me to write out a prescribing manual, if you need me to share a white paper that proves, he spoke the language of these doctors in a way that I couldn't, even if I said the same words, I wouldn't have the credibility. This is a doctor who's been in the pain management field for 40 years and he's well, he's a well-known and well-respected doctor. And so there are going to be times when the source of delivery of the message is important. When you meet, uh, someone, a champion that is a, a that has a certain character that you may need, um, don't lose them. If you meet a sheriff who is down for, uh, you know, a law enforcement diversion to to treatment, get that sheriff's name, talk to them, see if they'd be willing to speak to other law enforcement that you work with. Because an appeal to character can land in a way that an appeal to logic or appeal to emotions just won't. It's one thing for some advocate to say, "Hey, our community will be safer if we divert these people with substance use disorder to treatment instead of take them to jail." It's another thing to say, "Hi, I'm the sheriff of wherever. Uh, we started doing these law enforcement diversions and we've seen our property crimes go down." You know, they're, they're very different. So, appeal to logic, emotions, and when possible, appeal to character as well.
Questions or comments?
>> So in the subject matter experts, would you include people with lived experience?
>> Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. Um, you'll, you'll notice, uh, in a lot of the, uh, groups that I get together, there is an emphasis on lived experience. Uh, not only because lived experience or lived expertise is a necessary voice, but also that they are often the champions for individuals who are in addiction or in early recovery. They can speak in a language that, uh, um, demonstrates their lived expertise. Um, also, but it's more than that. Um, I want people who have had who have interacted with these systems to tell us when we're going the wrong way. Uh, it, it, you know, you have to have people with lived experience and lived expertise to to make sure that any, any advocacy program you're going to do is not messed up. Now, you don't have to, I'm not saying that this will be a grading criteria for advocacy program. I'm speaking more broadly in the day job that I do. Yeah. So absolutely people with, uh, lived experience are are critical for a variety of reasons.
Okay. Uh, other questions about appeal to character. I, I'll say that it, you know, someone who has a story of success and it's them, um, can be a successful appeal to character even to other groups. So, I talked about a sheriff talking to law enforcement, but what about someone who has been in the Clark County Jail who's like, "Hey, I was in the Clark County Jail a couple times, guys. You might recognize me." "Hey, is that Officer Joe?" Yeah. Yeah. You picked me up a couple times a few years ago. Yeah. Well, now I've been in recovery for two years and and I really attribute a lot of that to this, you know. So, lived experience can be, um, an appeal to character as well. Yeah.
Okay. Next is know your audience. Um, so, you know, it is helpful to understand what, what types of appeals you know, you just don't hit them with the kitchen table. If, what, if what they primarily need is an appeal to logic and quantitative data, then give them that if that's the primary, the group you're working with. You don't have to, you know, hit them with everything. Try to know your audience and give them what, what will work the best.
Okay. And lastly, before we call it a night, is a persuasive argument. So, this is a bit like an appeal to logic because it is an argument that has a, a firm foundation. So, the claim is the assertion. It's what you're trying to say. The example I've been using because, and I'm purposely not using an adolescent advocacy or a child advocacy because I don't want to steal anyone's idea or everyone to write the thing so that, and so I'm using the example of peer transportation from the jail to treatment because I know no one's going to use that for your assignment because it's child advocacy anyway. I guess you could do that for adolescents, but still. So the claim is, I'm saying that I, I am asserting that if we can, if we can hire peers that are trained and certified, that they will have an impact on the likelihood of people who are released from jail to treatment to of actually showing up to treatment. The evidence is, and then you're going to share the evidence that you've got from your initial secondary research, and you might share qualitative and quantitative research, the stories of support, other programs that are similar. Uh, and then, uh, the warrant, you're going to say this is the bridge between your evidence and your claim. So, you're going to say, uh, you know, this, this has been shown to work in, you know, Schemania County and, uh, you know, and I, I think it will probably work here in Clark County as well. So, that connection between the warrant is the connection between your evidence and how it supports directly supports your claim. And that is as simple as you can make a persuasive argument. Really, you could make it one step simpler is just claim and support. But still, um, claim, evidence, and then the connection between the two is a succinct way to think of it.
Okay, any questions?
So we do have, uh, another quiz, uh, next Monday, and so, uh, make sure you're ready for that quiz. Quiz 4, um, you know, the material primarily that has been covered has been, uh, the two lectures here in the assigned reading. So, take, take a look at the, the lecture tonight and the one from last week, check your reading and, and your notes from whatever I covered at the beginning of class on, uh, after the quiz, uh, and before practical application two Mondays ago.
Any questions about that?
Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for your attention. Specifically, Tanya, Tanisha, thanks for turning on your cameras for a bit. Uh, and, uh, I will see you all on Monday. Thank you.
>> Uh, Jim, I have a question.
>> Of course.
>> Um, I was looking at the problem cause solution formatting.
>> Okay.
>> And, um, I was going through it and then on the cause, they also put optional next to it. So, if that, if the format is problem, cause solution, why would they say the cause is optional?
>> Are we, uh, is there a specific page in the book you're looking at?
>> Yeah, I'm looking at 110.
>> Thank you. Else if I see the context. Oh, yeah. Preparing effective materials. Okay. So, where's the? So, um, maybe we, maybe we don't know for sure the cause. Okay.
>> So, may maybe the, the, the problem is, um, 14-year-olds, the, there's been a drastic increase in 14-year-olds using opioid pain pills. Um, and you propose that the solution is, um, person in the environment, uh, adolescent peer support groups, for those you don't necessarily know the cause for sure. Now, if you think you might, the cause might be connected to your, uh, problem and it connects your problem to your solution, go for it. But there are going to be some problems where the cause is a little amorphous, but the solution still, uh, applies.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. That's why it says optional because sometimes we just don't know and we don't want to assert that we know if we don't know for sure. Like, why do adolescents use drugs? Like, we don't want to say, well, I know why.
>> Mhm.
>> You know?
>> Does that make sense?
>> Yeah.
>> Great. Cool. Okay. Any other questions?
>> There's one in the chat.
>> Oh, there is. Real quick, advocacy plan is due March 4th and it has to be child advocacy, not advocacy in general. Correct.
>> That is correct, Juan. Uh, and anyone else who's listening, um, this is specifically child advocacy. So, it can go up to adolescence if you want to do adolescent advocacy. Uh, uh, something strikes out to you that is in that realm of adolescence, go for it. Uh, but yeah, it's not meant to be adult advocacy. That's why I'm using examples of adult advocacy because I don't want to steal anyone's child advocacy, uh, idea.
>> Uh, quick question.
>> Yes.
>> March 4th, is that a Wednesday?
>> Uh, well, let me pull up the syllabus. Let's see where March 4th is. A Wednesday. That would be impossible. Uh, okay. So, I think that it is most reasonable to make it later, not earlier. So, let's talk about it in class, but, um, I'll, uh, I think it, it is makes the most sense that it is due by the 9th. Um, so, yeah. Uh, so I, I do not know why I put that on a Wednesday because that is virtual copy on a Wednesday.
>> That's what I was going to ask. So then you, we don't do them on Canvas like we do it on?
>> No. Yeah. I need physical. Yeah.
>> Print it out and hand it to me.
>> Okay.
>> Yep. I'm a dinosaur.
>> Thank you. Good question, James. I appreciate it. Thanks.
>> Not a problem. Thank you.
>> I like thing.
>> Help me to remember to cover it on, uh, um, on Monday because I want everyone to take a pen and change the date in their syllabus. Uh, but I don't, I don't think I can do that over the virtual sphere. Someone might miss it.
>> Okay.
>> Sounds good.
>> Thank you. Any other questions? If we're doing an advocacy. So, I was thinking of something like YWCA.
>> Because it's like, it is technically based on adults. However, it has a huge impact on children. As long as it's got something that's like, this will benefit kids, can it still be?
>> Like this is more adult-based, but the benefit is?
>> That I'm focusing on kids. I mean, YWCA is not an advocacy plan. It's an organization. So if the advocacy plan is within YWCA, like maybe you're providing child care with education or something in YWCA, then yeah, absolutely. Go for it.
>> Okay.
>> Yep. Good question. And you know, please, if you, if you're thinking, uh, this weekend about your advocacy plan and you're not sure if it fits or you have questions about how it might, how you might make it real, bring them with you to class, um, at the end of class. I'm happy to take as many questions as anybody has about the advocacy plan they're thinking of doing.
>> Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Good questions.
>> Uh, just a heads up, it looks like the reflection paper may be due on the 11th, uh, a Wednesday as well.
>> Yeah, I saw that. Uh, so that one will probably due on the final when everybody comes in for the final.
>> Perfect.
>> Okay, great. All right. Well, thank you guys and I will see you all on Monday.
>> Thank you, Jim. Thank you too.