Central Coast Regional Equity Initiative: Co-Creating and Actionizing a New Community-Led Equity Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Brief Summary: This article is about how the Community Consultations (focus groups with community members asking questions about structural racism and classism and experiences post COVID-19) informed the Towards a Just and Equitable Central Coast report and the Strategic Action Planning (SAP) process, which in turn contributed the Equity Initiative.

The strengths of this article include taking actions from asset-based perspectives and illustrating how community-led approaches contribute to more sustainable action. For example, the approach to the SAP shifted, based on community members’ input. The research demonstrated agile approaches informed by community members.

General Concept Comments: In some ways, the paper reads as a very clear accounting of “here’s what we did,” but the overarching connection to a single research question or set of research questions was missing. What is the article trying to convey, as a whole, and how does each section move us towards that end? The authors engage in a very impressive (!) cross sector community collaboration. The paper tells the story of the collaboration. The story absolutely has rigorous findings that others could learn from, but the paper is not yet structured in such a way to high-light that. The authors need to decide: what is the research question, what is the data (in relation to the research question), and what findings do the data lead to (in relation to the research question). I hope the authors will work on restructuring the paper, because this is an important piece of work that others could learn from. This restructuring can be done in large part with the development of specific research questions, topic sentences that lead back to these research questions, and explicitly linking claims to data (and the research questions). The article could also be strengthened by having more clear descriptions of terms and more specific details in the methodology section.

Specific Comments on Writing Clarity & Structure:

The introduction seemed to take a while to get to the purpose of the article. Can you get to this purpose description faster? “In this article, we share how the Community Consultations that informed the Towards a Just and Equitable Central Coast report and the Strategic Action Planning (SAP) process contribute to and inform the growing Equity Initiative. This article aims to share the processes of community-led research to address the intersectional inequities in California’s Central Coast. It will highlight the key community contributions that informed the phases of data collection, and demonstrate how adaptability in research processes contributes to more robust and sustainable action.”

Further, you need to explain what you mean by Community Consultations, if it is a specific set of actions/ideas.

Same, the term Community Consultations is used and capitalized again in the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods section. The first time you use this term (outside the abstract), you need to clearly define. Are there specific questions or format for these consultations? Who facilitates? Who designs questions? How do you ensure equity of voice and speaking, etc.? Who is in the room? Can you give demographic breakdown of community members present? As I read on, this becomes more clear in the paragraph that begins with, “Participants for the Community Consultations were located through…” But this paragraph comes well after the term is first used. Additionally, of the 160 participants, how many participate in multiple conversations? What are their demographics and intersectional identities?

The “Initiative’s frameworks” are referred to as a proper noun. What do you mean by “the Initiative”? Define the first time you use the term.

These sentences felt a bit like add-ons and not interconnected with the methodology section, “Cross-sector collaborative frameworks advocate for a variety of re- search designs and the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods (Bryson et al. 2015, 650).” “In addition, studies have described successful community research projects to be designed with and alongside community members and blends a variety of data collection methodologies including qualitative, quantitative, and visual (Fine and Torre 2019, 435).” Follow up to these quotes to say specifically how they applied to how you designed your study. Make the connection easy for your reader.

The paper needs a clearer roadmap or outline (which can be accomplished in part through topic sentences) that help the reader move from one concept to the next, all guided by the research question and/or main purpose of your paper. As I read about community consultations, then the strategic action plan, and then workgroups, I wanted to know how these ideas threaded back to your main research question/purpose of the article. You write very clearly what the purpose of each is; however, their connection to an overarching theme was more difficult to decipher.

It wasn’t clear to me that the “Community Consultations” were used to write the “Towards a Just and Equitable Central Coast Report” until I got to the results section. I needed some sentences earlier on that laid out things like, “The purpose of the “Towards a Just and Equitable Central Coast Report” was to … The report included sections on … In order to write the report, Community Consultations with xyz community members were utilized for data gathering, deciding on report contents and purpose (?), actual writing (?), report feedback (?),  … Once I completed reading the well-written results section, this became clear, however, I was confused until I got there.

Perhaps the article would benefit from a visual chronological timeline.

Community Consultations à Equitable Central Coast Reportà Workgroup 1à Workgroup 2àSAP …

I’m still confused (p. 7 of 14), what is the relationship between the equity initiative and the SAP (and the report)?

The results to the interview section on the pillars are so rich and interesting to read! This section flowed beautifully and was powerful. For example, this was such an interesting finding, “Lastly, participants shared that reciprocity looks like mutual loss/sacrifice and holding each other accountable.”

Claims are made in the discussion section for which the clear linkage to the data is not explicitly named. For example, you write, “Crucial to supporting this is both flexibility and willingness to adapt throughout the research process; consistent integration of participant perspectives and feedback, as well as the ability to adjust research focus and questions accordingly. This ultimately contributes to not only a deeper understanding of the questions addressed, but to a body of work that is more holistic and reflective of the nuances of intersectional collective community problem-solving for deeply ingrained and large-scale equity issues.” How do you know this is the case? From a philosophical perspective, I agree, but how does your data SHOW this? You need to make this link explicit.

Similarly, you write, “Key to starting and sustaining this work is building trusting cross-sector collaborative relationships that honestly acknowledge power and privilege, which leads to opportunities for reciprocal collaboration and an initiative that can be sustained long-term.” How do you know this is the case? What part of your data shows this? Again, I agree philosophically, but you need to make the connection between your data and your findings more explicit.

Again, you write, “Honest acknowledgements of existing power imbalances and privileges, and a genuine willing- ness to reassess allocations of such power and privilege, are necessary for collaborative action.” But you do not explicitly connect this to your data. You have great quotes that name this exact issue, you can refer back to the quote to provide the evidence for this claim. Then you write, “Genuine effort to do this not only builds and deepens trusting relationships, but leads to the reciprocal relationships necessary for collaboration.” I’m not sure if you have data that illustrates this, but I would guess that you might based on what you did share. The claims in the discussion section need to be explicitly tied to the data from your research. The claims are clearly related to your data, but the direct tie is not made explicit, this is crucial from a methodological perspective.

Specific Comments on Grammar/Style:

Suggest tightening the following sentence: “It is also a time to reassess and reorder our priorities in light of the long-standing inequities this confluence of challenges has brought so starkly into view.”

I use APA style and I am not familiar with including a page number unless there is a direct quotation. This sentence has no quotes, but includes a page number. “The depth and extent of these inequities were brought to the surface by the devastating, racially disparate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they are rooted in structural trends, policies, and practices that have been shaping regional fortunes for decades (O’Connor et al. 2022, 4).”

Add word: “…helping community [members] frame questions, providing research path options, consistently seeking community feedback with a willingness to adapt research methodologies,…”

Citation needed: “Engagement in true community-led research contributes to a greater readiness for cross-sector collaborative action, a sense of community ownership over solutions to equity issues, and sets the stage for deeper rooted, long-term success.” I agree, but can you provide citations?

I cannot follow this sentence. Break into two or make the sentence purpose clearer. “Building upon the Community Consultations framing the Towards a Just and Equitable Central Coast report and the SAP process strategizes turning data into action through community-led research, community- led data implementation, and continuous community engagement, thus contributing to an equity-centered action organizing framework that advances the Central Coast towards a more just and equitable future.”

I believe “wide ranged” has an “-“ (i.e., wide-ranged).

Incomplete sentence: When asked about how satisfied they were with the overall SAP process on a scale from 1 (Not very satisfied) to 5 (Very much satisfied), with 55% Very much satisfied, 27% Satisfied, and 18% Neutral.

Incomplete sentence: When asked how beneficial they think the SAP will be for the work that they’re doing on a scale from 1 (Not very beneficial) to 5 (Very much beneficial), with 46% Very much beneficial, 36% Beneficial, and 18% Neutral.`

Long sentence, consider breaking into two: “Centering community as not only equal knowledge producers, but as equal solution partners from policy solutions to philanthropic investment decisions can begin to heal community trauma– particularly, that experienced by community organizers at the forefront of social movements – resulting from previous efforts of action planning that either fails to center the voices of those most impacted or does not result in tangible change.”

I am not sure what format the references are in, if it’s APA, I believe it needs some proofreading.

Overall, the paper is clear and well-written from an English language perspective. I just had a few minor comments, as noted below.

Specific Comments on Grammar/Style:

Suggest tightening the following sentence: “It is also a time to reassess and reorder our priorities in light of the long-standing inequities this confluence of challenges has brought so starkly into view.”

I use APA style and I am not familiar with including a page number unless there is a direct quotation. This sentence has no quotes, but includes a page number. “The depth and extent of these inequities were brought to the surface by the devastating, racially disparate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they are rooted in structural trends, policies, and practices that have been shaping regional fortunes for decades (O’Connor et al. 2022, 4).”

Add word: “…helping community [members] frame questions, providing research path options, consistently seeking community feedback with a willingness to adapt research methodologies,…”

Citation needed: “Engagement in true community-led research contributes to a greater readiness for cross-sector collaborative action, a sense of community ownership over solutions to equity issues, and sets the stage for deeper rooted, long-term success.” I agree, but can you provide citations?

I cannot follow this sentence. Break into two or make the sentence purpose clearer. “Building upon the Community Consultations framing the Towards a Just and Equitable Central Coast report and the SAP process strategizes turning data into action through community-led research, community- led data implementation, and continuous community engagement, thus contributing to an equity-centered action organizing framework that advances the Central Coast towards a more just and equitable future.”

I believe “wide ranged” has an “-“ (i.e., wide-ranged).

Incomplete sentence: When asked about how satisfied they were with the overall SAP process on a scale from 1 (Not very satisfied) to 5 (Very much satisfied), with 55% Very much satisfied, 27% Satisfied, and 18% Neutral.

Incomplete sentence: When asked how beneficial they think the SAP will be for the work that they’re doing on a scale from 1 (Not very beneficial) to 5 (Very much beneficial), with 46% Very much beneficial, 36% Beneficial, and 18% Neutral.`

Long sentence, consider breaking into two: “Centering community as not only equal knowledge producers, but as equal solution partners from policy solutions to philanthropic investment decisions can begin to heal community trauma– particularly, that experienced by community organizers at the forefront of social movements – resulting from previous efforts of action planning that either fails to center the voices of those most impacted or does not result in tangible change.”

I am not sure what format the references are in, if it’s APA, I believe it needs some proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The piece describes a curious study in which the aim was to deepen the understanding of regional disparities, facilitate a region-wide multi-sectoral conversation, and advance social, health, environmental, and economic equity through a community and research-informed action framework. Overall, there are some issues/problems that made the manuscript, which looked promising at the beginning, turned out to be relatively disappointing. I will try to make clear what puzzles me:

- The abstract doesn’t explain who the participants are or how many are them. The abstract don’t clearly communicate the central contribution of the manuscript, the results and conclusions.

- The aims of the article should be made clearer. Why is such a description useful or necessary? What does such an analysis provide for readers of the journal? Will this be relevant to a broad, international audience? What else could this analysis teach us?

- I feel ambiguous about the methodology. Where is the instrument? What about its validity? Is it reliable? Without these data, the rigor of the study remains in question. On one hand, did the participating students know the research purpose? The participants are very few.

- The results aren’t clear. There are no graphs that represent the data.

- Discussion and conclusions are very brief. There is little discussion with other previous studies, perhaps the theoretical framework is too short and for that reason this happens in this section.

- Finally, citations in the text don’t follow the referencing style used by this journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good job! You have successfully addressed many of the concerns I had. Firstly, the summary is much more comprehensible now. Secondly, the objectives of the article are much clearer. Thirdly, the methodology has been improved. Fourthly, the qualitative data line of highlights iprovides valuable insights for better understanding the results. Lastly, the discussion has also shown improvement.

However, there are still two crucial issues that need to be resolved. The first one is the inclusion of validity for the instrument used, along with its exact questions. It would be beneficial to include this information as an annex. The second issue is to ensure compliance with the citation and reference rules of the journal, as outlined in the following link:  https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions 

The link clearly specifies the format for jounal articles, for instance: 

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, and Author 2. Year. Title of the Article. Journal Title 6: 100–10.

I am confident that addressing these two concerns will further enhance the quality of your work.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2’s Comments (2)

Good job! You have successfully addressed many of the concerns I had. Firstly, the summary is much more comprehensible now. Secondly, the objectives of the article are much clearer. Thirdly, the methodology has been improved. Fourthly, the qualitative data line of highlights provides valuable insights for better understanding the results. Lastly, the discussion has also shown improvement.

Point 1: However, there are still two crucial issues that need to be resolved. The first one is the inclusion of validity for the instrument used, along with its exact questions. It would be beneficial to include this information as an annex. 

Response 1: Please see updates made to Section 2.2.2, Section 3.2.2, Annex 1, and Annex 2. 

Point 2: The second issue is to ensure compliance with the citation and reference rules of the journal, as outlined in the following link:  https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions 

The link clearly specifies the format for journal articles, for instance: 

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, and Author 2. Year. Title of the Article. Journal Title 6: 100–10.

Response 2: We have re-formatted journal articles per https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions#ethics

Additional Note: Please see attached Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form. 

Thank you.