Valuing Our Communities: Ethical Considerations for Economic Evaluation of Community‐Based Prevention

Abstract

Restricted public budgets and increasing efforts to link the impact of community interventions to public savings have increased the use of economic evaluation. While this type of evaluation can be important for program planning, it also raises important ethical issues about how we value the time of local stakeholders who support community interventions. In particular, researchers have to navigate issues of scientific accuracy, institutional inequality and research utility in their pursuit of even basic cost estimates. We provide an example of how we confronted these issues when estimating the costs of a large-scale community-based intervention. Principles for valuing community members’ time and conducting economic evaluations of community programs are discussed.

Busy Streets Theory: The Effects of Community‐engaged Greening on Violence

“…It is likely that greening activities have multiple benefits in terms of crime prevention, but also through the promotion of social capital. These potential benefits, however, must be weighed against the ethicality of engaging residents as the chief implementers of the intervention and valuing volunteers’ time appropriately so as not to unintentionally burden residents, particularly those in vulnerable communities (Crowley & Jones, 2017). Ensuring community organizing partnerships between residents and other stakeholders are organic can reduce the likelihood of unintentional exploitation and have benefits beyond economic considerations such as development of social capital, beautification of neighborhoods, and community well-being and resilience (Aiyer et al, 2015; Hernándezi-Cordero, Ortiz, Trinidad, & Link, 2011).…”

Complicating Narratives: Defining and Deconstructing Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology

“…The Belmont Report defined respect at the individual level of analysis, but community psychology researchers and practitioners explicitly value respect at multiple levels—individual, group, community, and cultural. For example, Crowley and Jones (2017*) demonstrate how respect for individuals can be directly assessed and formally valued in our research. They note that in cost analysis studies, the time and effort of program volunteers are often not captured, a problematic approach that does not reflect the true resources needed to implement and sustain interventions.…”