Community engagement in the context of social distancing
Draft for your critical Review and Comment
Community engagement sits at the heart of much of our communication and media for development and social change work. The UN Brisbane Declaration on Community Engagement defines it as a two-way process by which the aspirations, concerns, needs and values of citizens and communities are incorporated at all levels and in all sectors in policy development, planning, decision-making, service delivery and assessment; and, by which governments and other business and civil society organisations involve citizens, clients, communities and other stakeholders in these processes. It elicits images of community members sitting together under a tree, in a courtyard, a public square or religious space and discussing development priorities and concerns. It also speaks to public meetings where leaders listen to and answer questions from the people affected by their decisions, call in radio programmes where dialogue on priority issues takes place, social media spaces where information and opinion is shared, workshops and discussions with journalists on accurate reporting on development issues, or dialogue with influential people to encourage them to be advocates for social or behavioural change. Regardless of the context, it is a social endeavor and requires the exchange of views and knowledge, active listening, respect for different perspectives, and an understanding that those most affected by an issue or decision have a right to participate in, and influence, change in their own community.
COVID-19 challenges our thinking and practice in the creation of spaces for community engagement. Physical distancing presents a challenge but it should not mean social distancing nor should it mean the end of community engagement. In fact, our success in dealing with this pandemic depends on strengthening our ability to engage communities in a common response to reduce infection. What follows is a reflection on how varied COVID-19 responses impact on approaches and potential spaces for community engagement, the importance of protecting staff and communities, and tools and approaches that can be useful for engaging communities in safe and effective ways. By design we have tried to keep this simple, quick to review, practical (we hope) and with links to more in-depth dialogue. We view these as living documents and hope you will add your own thoughts, comments and resources through the comment space below.
The first thing to consider is the context for social or physical distancing in the area you are working in. Not every country will pursue the same policies nor implement them in the same manner. For instance, there is growing debate about the efficacy of social distancing as it has been used in China, South Korea, Europe and North America in low income countries where the population is younger, high numbers of people work in the informal sector for day wages, and the health system has limited capacity. See for example, Should Low-Income Countries Impose the Same Social Distancing Guidelines as Europe and North America to Halt the Spread of COVID-19?. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has also laid out a series of evidence and social/political reality considerations that should be taken into account in the development of social distancing measures in its document Considerations Relating to Social Distancing Measures in Response to the COVID-19 Epidemic. Furthermore, social distancing itself can take many forms from enforced lock downs to voluntary recommendations - Quarantine. Self-Isolation. Lockdown. Shelter in Place. What’s the Difference? The point being that different approaches to community engagement will be required for different modalities of physical distance policy.
The second thing to consider is the safety of community engagement workers and the communities they engage. While safety standards and best practice are to some degree standardized (see for instance, Guidance for health workers from the WHO COVID website) ensuring safety in real world, less than perfect settings, will require rigorous attention and innovation at local level. Regardless of the context and the innovation required for local realities, worker safety and not contributing to the spread of infection through community engagement must remain the highest priority.
Once the context and safety issues have been defined it should be possible to identify a range of activities and objectives. In general, community engagement should focus on building broad support for behaviours that reduce infection rates. More specifically, it engages communities in dialogue that encourage communities to raise concerns and questions and to identify challenges they face in adopting and/or sustaining such behaviours. Community engagement needs to be a conduit of accurate information to communities, a space for open dialogue and exchange, and a source of information on community perception and priorities that can be used to respond to challenges as they emerge and adjust responses accordingly.
Community engagement is also more resource intensive than other forms of communication such as message dissemination through mass media. It therefore needs to focus on high risk and vulnerable groups. Again, there is no one size fits all and care needs to be taken to identify who and where these vulnerable groups are. There are already some COVID-19 related resources appearing on how to do this such as, COVID-19: How to include marginalized and vulnerable people in risk communication and community engagement. The Science in Humanitarian Action Platform has distilled lessons from Ebola that can be applied to assessing the vulnerability of informal urban settlements in its brief Key Considerations: COVID-19 in Informal Urban Settlements. The polio programme has extensive knowledge on vulnerable populations that can be considered against evolving COVID-19 risk criteria to create a map of vulnerable populations.
For the polio programme the focus is on adapting existing human and programmatic resources by temporarily transitioning them to support for the COVID-19 response. Practically, there are a number of ways to adapt existing approaches and networks. Some of this has been captured in guides such as Community Engagement from a Distance - Guide which was developed by BBC Media Action based on its experience in Bangladesh. It discusses how to adapt existing methods of community engagement such as courtyard meetings, mobile miking, counselling and information sessions at health centres, telephone hotlines, and social media so they are safe and relevant to COVID-19. Networks of influencers within the polio programme for instance, could be trained virtually and regular online or telephone meetings could be held with them to answer their questions, gather information on community perception and priorities, and feedback issues and concerns that can be acted upon.
In conclusion community engagement techniques in a social distancing context require:
1. Understanding and defining the social distancing context in which the communities to be engaged live.
2. Making certain any activities you undertake are safe for workers and communities alike.
3. Clearly defined objectives for engaging communities that listen and respond to community concerns as well as provide transparent and accurate information.
4. Focusing on vulnerable populations and the specific risks and challenges they face.
5. Adapting, as much as possible existing networks, spaces for community engagement and approaches.
Some further resources that might also be of use:
COVID-19 – the role of mass gatherings
Social Distancing – The Communications and Compliance Challenge
COVID-19: Community Radio Broadcasting Coronavirus Prevention Education in Bangladesh
New Coronavirus Risk Communication and Community Engagement Strategy - Africa
Epidemic Ready: Community Engagement Key in Fight against Ebola
- Log in to post comments