REDAP Team Review AH Updates

[AHolder1]

After @AHolder1 is done with her initial review and adding content to each page of the Handbook - other REDAP Team Co-working members follow and review/revise content as needed in preparation for internal review

When you've with your review of a page - @ yourself after the page title below.
When all REDAP Team members have completed a review, check the box to indicate that page has been completed!
Once all pages have been completed - close this issue and initiate internal review process

Ready For Review by @NMartorano @DevanBurke @esuglia

Review, streamline, add content to each page of the Handbook

• Welcome @NMartorano @esuglia @DevanBurke
• Background @NMartorano @esuglia @DevanBurke
• Getting Started @NMartorano @esuglia @DevanBurke
  • Establishing Common Language @NMartorano @DevanBurke @esuglia
• Publish Your Data (See Issue for more details) @DevanBurke @NMartorano @esuglia
• Plan & Prepare @DevanBurke @NMartorano @esuglia
  • Planning @NMartorano @DevanBurke @esuglia
  • Data Preparation @NMartorano @DevanBurke @esuglia
• Collect & Process @DevanBurke @NMartorano
  • Data Collection
  • Data Processing @DevanBurke @esuglia
• Assure & Analyze @DevanBurke
  • Quality Assurance @DevanBurke @esuglia
  • Data Analysis @DevanBurke @esuglia
  • Data Visualization @DevanBurke @esuglia
• Preserve & Store @DevanBurke @esuglia
• Publish & Share @DevanBurke @esuglia
• Discover & Integrate (aka process Evaluation) @DevanBurke
• Describe (aka Documentation) @DevanBurke
• Use Cases @DevanBurke
  • SWAMP @DevanBurke
• Resources
• Inspiration @DevanBurke

On @AHolder1 to-do list:

• Use Cases
  • Demographics Data

[NMartorano]

We should explore if it's wise to have so much on the best practices subpage and then also have other categories with the same names and headers, I think that could get confusing but I'm not sure...

[esuglia]

Under Data Collection > Common Data Sources there is a header for Locally and Regionally Collected Data with no links. Do we want to add some or remove that section?

[esuglia]

A couple flagged items to discuss under the section "Demographics Data Needs Context":

1. After "A detailed example of using R programming to estimate demographics..." there is a link to the example, and then right after that the text just says "Example - SAFER Fund Expenditure Plan" and I was confused about what kind of example this was. At first I thought it was a continuation of the text on R programming to estimate demographics, but figured out through reading that it was an example under the broader heading of "Demographics Data Needs Context." I think the reader would benefit from some transition text or a more informative header than "Example" here.
2. The link for the SAFER Fund Expenditure Plan takes you to the landing page for the program. Do we want a direct link to the pdf? https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/docs/2024/draft-final-fy2024-25-fep-clean-version.pdf

[AHolder1]

Hi @esuglia - FYI the Data collection page isn't yet ready for your review. I still have a number of edits I plan on making that aren't reflected in the page yet.

[esuglia]

Oh thanks @AHolder1 ! I missed the "to do list" at the bottom.

[esuglia]

On the "Quality Assurance" page, I am confused by this sentence: "Do the standards, thresholds, or limits we’re using align with the needs of those facing inequity or disparities - are or likely will be affected by a policy, program, or process? If not, how might we modify the them to better align with those needs?", specifically the part of the sentence I bolded after the dash. @AHolder1 can you rephrase to clarify, or maybe separate into two sentences?

[NMartorano]

Hmm that seems like two thoughts that got combined. The bolded sentence should be removed and maybe reframed as a separate question although I'm not sure how that fits into Quality Assurance. In my opinion the question of potential impacts to underserved communities should be asked at the onset of any Policy, Program and process, or at least that's a goal.