New York State continues efforts to end the AIDS and hepatitis C epidemics and reduce new infections of sexually transmitted infections. In 2022, the New York State Department of Health AIDS Institute released its first-ever Research Agenda. This Research Agenda was systematically developed following input from internal and external research and community stakeholders. We used a participatory and iterative process to prioritize research knowledge gaps related to HIV/AIDS; sexual health and sexually transmitted infections; hepatitis C; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender health; drug user health; health equity; and emerging issues such as COVID-19. Questions were prioritized on the basis of the alignment with the following 5 criteria: magnitude of impact; funding and resources; feasibility of conducting research; translatability; and addresses an internal priority area. Findings are anticipated to generate actionable results that can be readily translatable into programs, policies, and practices. This Research Agenda includes 79 research and program evaluation questions prioritized for internally led and collaborative research. Efforts on 35 of the 61 internally led questions and funding of 11 collaborative research projects related to Research Agenda priorities began in 2022. An evaluation survey was conducted among all stakeholders involved in the prioritization process. All were satisfied or very satisfied with the process, and results yielded recommendations for future processes including weighting of questions relative to one another within each focus area and other suggestions to streamline the process. In year 1, 10 of the 35 questions were completed. Lessons learned include use of a participatory process to facilitate support and completion of Research Agenda, prioritize research questions to maximize impact and translatability, streamline the prioritization process by restricting proposed questions to those with clear potential for innovative research, emphasize anticipated resources necessary to implement the Research Agenda to set a realistic and actionable plan, and adaptability toward shifting priorities.

ABSTRACT Equity goals have shaped participatory budgeting (PB) in North America, but little is known about their impact on PB allocations. Focusing on New York City (PBNYC), this paper examines whether PB-associated increases in public school investments have benefited higher needs students. The paper proposes a model of three key project decision-points in a PB process and examines equity at each: project development, vote, and final budget allocation. Across three PBNYC cycles, analyses confirm the use of two potentially equity advancing tactics during project development: equity descriptors were found for 7.2% of school-related ballot items; and bundling described 33.9% of school-related ballot items. Both tactics were associated with winning PB votes. However, in those years, PB-funded school projects did not benefit higher (or lower) needs students compared to school projects council members funded on their own discretion. Interviews with PB volunteers support these findings and highlight diverse assessments of need and equity.

Given the proportion of young children experiencing disadvantages in achieving optimal health due to inequities related to race, place, and income, there is increasing attention to developing effective early childhood (EC) systems. As EC leaders embrace methods such as collective impact in driving systems change, there is a growing recognition that a one-size-fits-all approach to developing integrated EC systems may be inappropriate as systems-building efforts may differ in their “maturity.” Systems maturity, as we define, refers to the ability of child-focused organizations, across disciplines and sectors, to successfully collaborate toward continuous improvement in supporting optimal child well-being. A flexible, developmental framework of systems building accounting for maturity better articulates the nuances of EC systems-building work. This article describes an emergent framework of EC systems development observed from states and communities participating in the Early Childhood Comprehensive Systems Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (ECCS CoIIN) and aiming to build systems for increased developmental promotion and screening. The framework depicted both acknowledges the complexity of systems building while providing a simplified frame for assessing the status of a system to drive further system development. This framework can be utilized to guide effective implementation and evaluation of EC systems-building initiatives.

L’article interroge la fonction du coach dans le coaching. Lacan insistait sur le fait que la thérapie gagnait à se passer du « discours du maître » du thérapeute, nous nous en inspirons pour explorer l’idée d’un « coaching sans coach ». La réflexion repose sur l’étude de cas du groupe de coaching MM dans lequel les coachés se coachent eux-mêmes sans « coach », en présence toutefois d’un « modérateur » chargé de bloquer certains comportements comme la désignation de boucs émissaires. Une des singularités de Lacan est qu’il envisageait comme contre-productifs le contrôle et de subordination imposés par les thérapeutes au sein de l’« ego-psychology ». Dans une perspective lacanienne (notamment telle qu’interprétée par Žižek), le « coaching sans coach » en est un corollaire naturel. Lacan conceptualise l’identité psychologique avec son modèle I-S-R (Imaginaire-Symbolique-Réel), la littérature dominante sur le coaching utilise la triade Coaché-Coach-Organisation – nous proposons une synthèse avec le Nous-Coaché-Symbolique. Après avoir exploré les caractéristiques d’un tel « coaching sans coach », nous poserons, en discussion et conclusion, un ensemble de questions sur l’éthique et sur la désirabilité du modèle.