Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge due to the inherent tension between respecting parental autonomy and ensuring the child’s well-being, particularly when a parent’s decision may not align with established public health recommendations for a vulnerable population. The public health professional must navigate complex ethical considerations and regulatory frameworks to act in the best interest of the child while maintaining a professional relationship with the family. Careful judgment is required to balance these competing interests effectively. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes education, collaboration, and adherence to established public health guidelines while respecting the family’s concerns. This approach begins with a thorough assessment of the family’s understanding of the recommended immunization schedule and the rationale behind it. It then involves providing clear, evidence-based information about the benefits of vaccination, the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases, and the specific recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for maternal and child health. Crucially, this approach emphasizes open dialogue, actively listening to the parent’s concerns and addressing any misinformation or fears with empathy and factual data. The goal is to empower the parent with accurate information to make an informed decision that aligns with public health best practices for their child’s protection. This aligns with the ethical principle of beneficence (acting in the child’s best interest) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm), as well as the regulatory expectation to promote public health through evidence-based interventions. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves immediately escalating the situation to child protective services without attempting to engage the parent in a constructive dialogue. This bypasses the opportunity to educate and build trust, potentially alienating the family and making future interventions more difficult. It also fails to acknowledge the parent’s right to make decisions for their child, even if those decisions are not ideal, unless there is clear evidence of abuse or neglect. Another incorrect approach is to dismiss the parent’s concerns outright and insist on immediate compliance with the immunization schedule. This demonstrates a lack of respect for parental autonomy and can lead to defensiveness and resistance, hindering the public health professional’s ability to achieve the desired outcome. Furthermore, it fails to address the underlying reasons for the parent’s hesitation, which is essential for effective intervention. A third incorrect approach is to provide incomplete or biased information, focusing only on the benefits of vaccination without acknowledging potential, albeit rare, side effects or addressing specific parental anxieties. This erodes trust and can be perceived as manipulative, undermining the professional’s credibility and the effectiveness of public health messaging. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a comprehensive assessment of the situation, including understanding the family’s background, beliefs, and concerns. This is followed by information gathering, ensuring all relevant public health guidelines and evidence-based practices are considered. Ethical principles, such as beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, should guide the intervention strategy. Collaboration with the family, open communication, and a commitment to providing accurate, unbiased information are paramount. When faced with parental decisions that may impact a child’s health, professionals should first attempt to educate and persuade through respectful dialogue. Escalation to formal authorities should be a last resort, reserved for situations where there is a clear and present danger to the child’s well-being that cannot be mitigated through other means.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a professional challenge related to the Applied Maternal and Child Public Health Board Certification’s blueprint weighting, scoring, and retake policies. The challenge lies in interpreting and applying these policies accurately to ensure fair and equitable assessment for candidates, while also upholding the integrity and standards of the certification process. Misinterpreting these policies can lead to candidate dissatisfaction, potential appeals, and damage to the board’s reputation. Careful judgment is required to balance the need for consistent application of rules with the potential for individual circumstances. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the official Applied Maternal and Child Public Health Board Certification handbook and any accompanying policy documents. This approach ensures that all decisions regarding scoring and retake eligibility are based on the explicitly stated rules and guidelines. Specifically, understanding the blueprint weighting dictates how different content areas contribute to the overall score, and the scoring methodology determines how candidate performance is evaluated against established benchmarks. Retake policies outline the conditions under which a candidate can reapply, including any waiting periods, additional requirements, or limitations. Adhering strictly to these documented policies is crucial for maintaining the validity and fairness of the certification process, preventing arbitrary decisions, and providing clear expectations for candidates. This aligns with ethical principles of transparency and fairness in professional assessment. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves making assumptions about the scoring or retake policies based on general knowledge of other certification exams or informal discussions with colleagues. This is professionally unacceptable because it disregards the specific regulations governing the Applied Maternal and Child Public Health Board Certification. Such assumptions can lead to misapplication of rules, potentially disadvantaging candidates by denying them opportunities or incorrectly assessing their performance. It violates the principle of adhering to established, documented procedures. Another incorrect approach is to deviate from the stated retake policy based on a candidate’s perceived effort or personal circumstances, without explicit provision for such exceptions within the official policy. While empathy is important, professional certification boards must operate within defined parameters to ensure consistency and prevent bias. Making ad-hoc exceptions undermines the integrity of the scoring and retake system, potentially creating a perception of favoritism and eroding trust in the certification process. This fails to uphold the regulatory framework that mandates adherence to established policies. A third incorrect approach is to interpret the blueprint weighting in a subjective manner, giving more or less importance to certain sections than is officially designated. The blueprint weighting is a critical component of the exam’s design, ensuring that candidates demonstrate proficiency across the defined scope of practice. Subjective interpretation can lead to an inaccurate assessment of a candidate’s overall competency, as their performance might be over- or under-valued in specific areas. This directly contravenes the established blueprint and the scoring methodology derived from it, compromising the validity of the certification. Professional Reasoning: Professionals faced with interpreting certification policies should adopt a systematic approach. First, always consult the official documentation (e.g., candidate handbook, policy manual) for the most accurate and up-to-date information. Second, if ambiguity exists, seek clarification from the designated authority or committee responsible for policy interpretation within the certifying body. Third, apply the policies consistently and equitably to all candidates, avoiding personal biases or subjective interpretations. Finally, maintain clear records of decisions and the rationale behind them, particularly in cases involving appeals or unique circumstances, to ensure accountability and transparency.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires a nuanced understanding of the eligibility criteria for board certification in Applied Maternal and Child Public Health. Misinterpreting these criteria can lead to an applicant being unfairly denied an opportunity or, conversely, being admitted without meeting the necessary standards, which undermines the integrity of the certification process. Careful judgment is required to ensure adherence to the established framework that governs who is qualified to hold this specialized certification. Correct Approach Analysis: The best professional practice involves a thorough review of the applicant’s credentials against the explicit eligibility requirements as defined by the certifying body. This approach ensures that all applicants are assessed using the same objective standards, promoting fairness and upholding the rigor of the certification. Specifically, the certifying body’s guidelines clearly state that eligibility is contingent upon a combination of formal education in public health, relevant professional experience in maternal and child health settings, and successful completion of a comprehensive examination. Adhering to these defined criteria is paramount for maintaining the credibility and validity of the Applied Maternal and Child Public Health Board Certification. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach involves prioritizing the applicant’s perceived passion and enthusiasm for maternal and child health over the established eligibility criteria. While passion is valuable, it does not substitute for the required academic background, practical experience, or demonstrated competency assessed through examination. This approach fails to uphold the regulatory framework that mandates specific qualifications for certification. Another incorrect approach is to grant eligibility based solely on the applicant’s current role within a maternal and child health organization, regardless of whether that role aligns with the defined scope of experience required for certification. The certification is not merely about holding a position but about possessing the specific knowledge, skills, and experience that the certification aims to validate. This overlooks the qualitative and quantitative aspects of experience mandated by the certifying body. A further incorrect approach is to waive certain eligibility requirements due to the applicant’s long tenure in a related field, even if that field is not directly maternal and child public health. While experience is important, the certification is specialized. Deviating from the defined eligibility pathways without explicit provision within the regulations compromises the standardization and purpose of the certification. Professional Reasoning: Professionals evaluating certification eligibility should adopt a systematic process. First, they must thoroughly familiarize themselves with the official guidelines and requirements of the certifying body. Second, they should meticulously compare the applicant’s submitted documentation against each stated criterion. Third, any ambiguities or potential equivalencies should be addressed through established protocols for review, ensuring consistency and fairness. The ultimate decision must be grounded in objective adherence to the established regulatory framework, prioritizing the integrity and purpose of the certification.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in maternal and child public health management: balancing the need for efficient resource allocation with the ethical imperative to ensure equitable access to essential services. The pressure to demonstrate cost-effectiveness can inadvertently lead to policies that disadvantage vulnerable populations, requiring careful navigation of regulatory frameworks and ethical principles. Correct Approach Analysis: The most appropriate approach involves a comprehensive review of existing service utilization data, disaggregated by socioeconomic status, geographic location, and race/ethnicity, to identify disparities in access and outcomes. This data should then be used to inform targeted interventions and resource allocation strategies that address identified barriers. This approach is correct because it aligns with the principles of health equity and social justice, which are foundational to public health policy. Specifically, it adheres to guidelines that mandate the identification and mitigation of health disparities. By focusing on data-driven insights into differential access, it allows for the development of policies that are not only financially responsible but also ethically sound, ensuring that all segments of the maternal and child population have a fair opportunity to achieve optimal health. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: One incorrect approach would be to implement across-the-board service reductions based solely on overall utilization rates without considering demographic factors. This fails to acknowledge that lower utilization in certain groups may stem from systemic barriers rather than a lack of need, leading to further marginalization and exacerbating health inequities. This approach violates the ethical obligation to address social determinants of health and can contravene regulations aimed at promoting equitable access to care. Another incorrect approach would be to prioritize services with the highest documented return on investment (ROI) without a thorough assessment of their impact on the most vulnerable maternal and child populations. While financial efficiency is important, an exclusive focus on ROI can lead to the divestment from essential preventive services or programs that serve marginalized communities, even if these programs are critical for long-term health outcomes and reducing future healthcare costs. This overlooks the broader public health mandate to protect and improve the health of all, particularly those at highest risk. A third incorrect approach would be to rely on anecdotal evidence or the loudest advocacy groups to guide resource allocation decisions. While community input is valuable, basing policy solely on such factors without robust data can lead to inefficient or misdirected resource deployment. This can result in programs that do not effectively address the most pressing public health needs or reach the populations most in need, undermining the principles of evidence-based practice and responsible stewardship of public funds. Professional Reasoning: Professionals in maternal and child public health must adopt a data-driven, equity-focused approach to policy and management. This involves a continuous cycle of needs assessment, program evaluation, and strategic resource allocation, always with an eye toward reducing disparities and promoting the health of all children and mothers. When faced with resource constraints, the decision-making process should prioritize interventions that have the greatest potential to improve health outcomes for the most vulnerable populations, guided by both regulatory requirements and ethical commitments to equity.

The performance metrics show a concerning rise in infant mortality rates within a specific demographic group in a federally funded maternal and child health program. This scenario is professionally challenging because it requires immediate and effective intervention to address a critical public health issue while adhering strictly to federal regulations governing data privacy, program reporting, and equitable resource allocation. The pressure to demonstrate program effectiveness and accountability to federal oversight bodies adds another layer of complexity. The best approach involves a multi-pronged strategy that prioritizes data-driven intervention and transparent reporting, consistent with the Public Health Service Act and its implementing regulations, particularly those related to data collection, analysis, and program evaluation for federally funded initiatives. This approach necessitates a thorough review of program data to identify root causes, followed by the development and implementation of targeted interventions. Crucially, it requires clear communication with federal agencies regarding findings and proposed actions, ensuring all activities align with established performance measures and reporting requirements. Ethical considerations demand that interventions are culturally sensitive and address social determinants of health impacting the affected demographic. An incorrect approach would be to immediately reallocate resources based on preliminary, unverified data without a comprehensive analysis of contributing factors. This fails to meet the regulatory requirement for evidence-based decision-making and could lead to inefficient or ineffective interventions, potentially violating principles of sound public health practice and federal program oversight. Another incorrect approach is to delay reporting the concerning trend to federal oversight bodies while attempting to resolve the issue internally. This violates the spirit and letter of federal reporting requirements, which mandate timely notification of significant adverse trends or program deficiencies. Such a delay could impede federal support and oversight, and potentially exacerbate the problem. Furthermore, an approach that focuses solely on clinical interventions without addressing broader social determinants of health, such as access to prenatal care, nutrition, and safe housing, would be incomplete and ethically deficient. Public health interventions must be holistic and consider the multifaceted factors influencing maternal and child health outcomes, as mandated by the comprehensive nature of federal public health initiatives. Professionals should employ a systematic decision-making process that begins with rigorous data analysis to understand the scope and causes of the problem. This should be followed by consultation with relevant stakeholders, including community representatives and federal program officers, to develop evidence-based, culturally appropriate interventions. Transparency in reporting and adherence to all regulatory guidelines are paramount throughout the process.

The monitoring system demonstrates a critical need for robust candidate preparation resources and a well-defined timeline for the Applied Maternal and Child Public Health Board Certification. This scenario is professionally challenging because ensuring candidates are adequately prepared is paramount to upholding the integrity of the certification process and, by extension, the quality of maternal and child public health services provided. Inadequate preparation can lead to a failure to pass the exam, causing significant personal and professional setbacks for candidates, and potentially impacting the public’s access to qualified professionals. Careful judgment is required to balance the need for comprehensive preparation with the practical constraints candidates face. The best approach involves developing a multi-faceted preparation strategy that integrates official study materials, structured learning pathways, and realistic timeline recommendations. This strategy should clearly outline the scope of the examination, suggest a phased approach to studying based on the complexity of topics, and provide guidance on how to effectively utilize available resources. This is correct because it directly addresses the core need for structured learning and resource utilization, aligning with the ethical obligation to provide candidates with the best possible opportunity to succeed. It also implicitly supports the regulatory goal of ensuring competent practitioners by facilitating thorough knowledge acquisition. An approach that solely relies on candidates independently sourcing and synthesizing information from disparate sources is professionally unacceptable. This fails to provide structured guidance, potentially leading to gaps in knowledge or inefficient study habits. It neglects the ethical responsibility to offer equitable preparation opportunities and may inadvertently disadvantage candidates with fewer resources or less experience in self-directed learning. Another unacceptable approach is to provide an overly compressed timeline without acknowledging the breadth and depth of the material. This can create undue stress and anxiety for candidates, leading to superficial learning rather than deep understanding. It undermines the professional commitment to thorough preparation and could result in candidates passing the exam without truly mastering the subject matter, thereby compromising public health standards. Finally, an approach that focuses exclusively on memorization of facts without emphasizing application and critical thinking is also professionally flawed. While factual recall is important, public health practice demands the ability to apply knowledge to real-world scenarios. This approach fails to equip candidates with the necessary skills for effective practice, potentially leading to suboptimal decision-making in maternal and child health contexts, and thus failing to meet the underlying purpose of the certification. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that prioritizes candidate support and the integrity of the certification. This involves understanding the learning needs of the target audience, identifying essential knowledge and skills, and designing preparation resources that are accessible, comprehensive, and promote deep learning. Regular review and feedback mechanisms for preparation materials and timelines are also crucial to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness.

Scenario Analysis: This scenario presents a common challenge in public health: balancing the need for robust data to inform program planning and evaluation with the ethical imperative to protect sensitive participant information. The professional challenge lies in navigating the complex landscape of data privacy regulations and ethical guidelines to ensure that data collection and utilization are both effective and compliant. Careful judgment is required to select methods that yield meaningful insights without compromising the trust of the community or violating legal mandates. Correct Approach Analysis: The best approach involves a multi-faceted strategy that prioritizes de-identification and aggregation of data from the outset. This means designing data collection instruments and protocols that inherently minimize the collection of personally identifiable information. When direct identifiers are necessary for specific program functions (e.g., tracking individual progress for tailored support), robust de-identification techniques, such as anonymization or pseudonymization, must be implemented immediately after data collection and before any analysis or reporting. Data should then be aggregated to a level that prevents re-identification of individuals, aligning with principles of data minimization and privacy by design, as mandated by ethical guidelines and data protection regulations that emphasize the protection of vulnerable populations. This approach ensures that program insights are derived from trends and patterns rather than individual case details, thereby safeguarding participant confidentiality. Incorrect Approaches Analysis: Collecting detailed individual-level data with the intention of de-identifying it later without a clear, documented plan and robust technical safeguards is ethically problematic and potentially non-compliant. This approach risks data breaches during the interim period and increases the likelihood of re-identification if de-identification processes are not meticulously executed. Furthermore, relying solely on verbal consent for the use of sensitive data for research or program evaluation, without providing clear information about data storage, access, and potential secondary uses, fails to meet the standards of informed consent required by ethical review boards and data protection laws. Finally, using data collected for one purpose (e.g., direct service delivery) for program evaluation without explicit, informed consent for that secondary use constitutes a violation of privacy principles and may contravene regulations governing the secondary use of health data. Professional Reasoning: Professionals should adopt a data governance framework that integrates privacy and ethical considerations from the initial stages of program planning. This involves conducting a thorough privacy impact assessment, developing clear data management policies, and ensuring staff are adequately trained on data protection protocols. When planning data collection, always ask: “Is this data absolutely necessary for the program’s objectives?” and “How can we collect this information in a way that minimizes privacy risks?” Prioritize de-identification and aggregation techniques that are appropriate for the type of data and the intended use. Regularly review and update data protection measures in response to evolving technologies and regulatory landscapes.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires navigating the complex landscape of public health communication with diverse stakeholders who hold varying levels of understanding, trust, and influence regarding maternal and child health initiatives. Effective risk communication is paramount to ensure public understanding, promote adherence to recommendations, and foster community engagement, all of which are critical for improving maternal and child health outcomes. The challenge lies in translating scientific information into accessible language, addressing potential misinformation, and building consensus among groups with potentially competing interests or priorities. Careful judgment is required to select communication strategies that are both scientifically accurate and culturally sensitive, while also respecting the autonomy and concerns of all involved parties. The best approach involves proactively engaging all identified stakeholders in a transparent and collaborative manner from the outset of the risk communication planning process. This includes actively seeking their input on the nature of the risks, the potential impacts, and the preferred communication channels and messaging. By fostering a sense of shared ownership and ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered and integrated into the communication strategy, this approach builds trust and facilitates alignment. This aligns with ethical principles of public health, which emphasize informed consent, community participation, and the equitable distribution of health information. It also reflects best practices in risk communication, which advocate for two-way dialogue and responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. An approach that focuses solely on disseminating information through official channels without prior stakeholder consultation is professionally unacceptable. This failure to engage stakeholders upfront can lead to mistrust, resistance, and the perception that their concerns are being ignored. It risks the spread of misinformation if the official communication is not perceived as credible or comprehensive by the target audience. Ethically, this approach neglects the principle of community engagement and can undermine efforts to achieve equitable health outcomes. Another professionally unacceptable approach is to tailor communication messages to specific groups without a clear, evidence-based rationale for the differential messaging, and without transparency about this tailoring. While tailoring can be effective, doing so without a robust justification or without informing stakeholders about the process can be perceived as manipulative or as creating an unequal playing field of information. This can erode trust and lead to accusations of bias, hindering the overall effectiveness of the public health initiative. Finally, an approach that prioritizes speed of dissemination over accuracy and clarity, leading to the release of incomplete or potentially misleading information, is also professionally unacceptable. In risk communication, accuracy and clarity are foundational. Rushing to communicate without ensuring the information is well-vetted and easily understood can have severe consequences, including public panic, non-compliance with critical health recommendations, and long-term damage to the credibility of public health institutions. This directly violates the ethical obligation to provide truthful and helpful information. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a thorough stakeholder analysis to identify all relevant groups and their potential concerns. This should be followed by a collaborative planning process where communication objectives and strategies are co-developed. Continuous evaluation and adaptation of communication efforts based on ongoing feedback are essential. This iterative process ensures that communication remains relevant, accurate, and responsive to the evolving needs and understanding of the community, thereby maximizing the likelihood of successful public health outcomes.

This scenario presents a common challenge in maternal and child public health: balancing the need for timely and accurate surveillance data with the ethical imperative to protect individual privacy and ensure community trust. The professional challenge lies in designing a surveillance system that is both effective in identifying emerging health threats to mothers and children and compliant with privacy regulations and ethical principles. Careful judgment is required to navigate these competing demands. The best approach involves leveraging existing, anonymized data sources and implementing robust data security measures. This strategy aligns with public health principles of data utility and privacy protection. By utilizing aggregated, de-identified data from sources like birth certificates, immunization registries, and electronic health records, public health agencies can identify trends and patterns without compromising individual identities. The ethical justification stems from the principle of beneficence (acting in the best interest of the population) and non-maleficence (avoiding harm, including privacy breaches). Regulatory frameworks, such as those governing health data privacy (e.g., HIPAA in the US, GDPR in Europe, or equivalent national legislation), mandate de-identification and secure data handling. This approach prioritizes data integrity for public health action while minimizing the risk of re-identification and unauthorized disclosure. An approach that relies on direct, individual-level data collection through mandatory, unsolicited surveys of pregnant individuals and new mothers without clear consent mechanisms or robust data anonymization protocols is ethically problematic. This would likely violate privacy rights and could erode community trust, making future participation in public health initiatives difficult. It also risks creating a surveillance system that is overly burdensome and intrusive, potentially deterring individuals from seeking necessary healthcare. Another unacceptable approach would be to solely rely on voluntary reporting from healthcare providers without standardized protocols or a clear mechanism for data aggregation and analysis. While voluntary reporting can be a component of surveillance, it is often incomplete and subject to reporting biases. Without a systematic and comprehensive approach, critical trends may be missed, and the data would not be sufficiently robust for effective public health interventions. This also fails to address the need for standardized data collection and analysis required by many public health mandates. Finally, an approach that prioritizes the immediate sharing of raw, identifiable data with multiple external agencies without established data-sharing agreements, security protocols, or a clear public health purpose is a significant ethical and regulatory failure. This would create an unacceptable risk of data breaches, misuse of sensitive information, and violation of privacy laws. It demonstrates a lack of due diligence in protecting vulnerable populations and undermines the foundational principles of responsible data stewardship in public health. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with clearly defining the public health objective. This should be followed by an assessment of available data sources and existing surveillance infrastructure. Ethical considerations, including privacy, confidentiality, and community engagement, must be integrated from the outset. Regulatory requirements must be thoroughly understood and adhered to. Finally, a plan for data security, analysis, and dissemination that balances public health needs with individual rights is essential.

This scenario presents a professional challenge because it requires balancing the immediate need for effective public health interventions with the ethical and legal obligations to ensure community engagement and informed consent, particularly when dealing with potential environmental exposures. The complexity arises from the need to act swiftly to protect maternal and child health while respecting individual autonomy and avoiding undue alarm or stigmatization. Careful judgment is required to select an approach that is both scientifically sound and ethically defensible. The best approach involves a multi-pronged strategy that prioritizes immediate risk assessment and communication while simultaneously initiating robust community engagement and data collection. This includes promptly informing affected communities about potential risks, outlining protective measures, and establishing clear channels for feedback and participation in the investigation. This approach is correct because it aligns with public health ethics principles, such as beneficence (acting in the best interest of the population), non-maleficence (avoiding harm), and justice (fair distribution of benefits and burdens). It also adheres to principles of transparency and accountability, which are foundational to building trust and ensuring effective public health action. Furthermore, it respects the right of individuals and communities to be informed and to participate in decisions that affect their health. An approach that focuses solely on immediate containment measures without transparent communication or community involvement is ethically flawed. It risks creating distrust, fostering resistance to public health efforts, and potentially violating principles of informed consent and community autonomy. Such an approach fails to acknowledge the right of individuals to know about potential risks and to have a voice in how those risks are managed. Another unacceptable approach is to delay any public notification until a definitive causal link is established. While scientific certainty is important, prolonged silence in the face of potential harm can be detrimental. Public health ethics often requires acting on the best available evidence, even if it is not conclusive, to prevent or mitigate potential harm. This approach neglects the principle of precautionary action and the duty to warn. Finally, an approach that relies solely on expert opinion without seeking community input or considering local context can be problematic. While expert knowledge is crucial, public health interventions must be tailored to the specific needs and concerns of the communities they serve. Ignoring community perspectives can lead to interventions that are ineffective, culturally inappropriate, or perceived as imposed, thereby undermining their success. Professionals should employ a decision-making framework that begins with a rapid assessment of potential risks to maternal and child health. This should be followed by an immediate, transparent communication strategy to affected communities, outlining known information, potential risks, and recommended protective actions. Concurrently, plans for robust data collection, environmental sampling, and epidemiological investigation should be initiated, with a commitment to involving community representatives in the process. Ethical considerations, including beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, transparency, and community engagement, should guide every step of the response.