Staff Spotlight: Celeste Enriquez

 

Celeste Enriquez, BA, Earns Department of Medicine Staff Excellence Award

 

UCSF BHHI Project Manager and operational leader of the the Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project (SVGIP), Celeste Enriquez, earned the 2025 ZSFG DOM Staff Excellence in Research Award.

The award recognizes staff members who provide exemplary support in research (including basic science, clinical, data sciences, or translational research) and whose outstanding contributions advance the research mission of their unit in a way that extends beyond the ordinary fulfillment of a position’s duties.

“In every group, there is a quiet powerhouse who lifts others higher,” said Oanh Nguyen, MD, MAS, ZSFG Chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, ARC Core Faculty member, and Principal Investigator of the Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project, “Celeste exemplifies what research leadership should look like — rigorous, relational, and deeply grounded in respect for the communities we serve.”

Retaining participants in the random controlled trials of guaranteed income is notoriously difficult. National benchmarks for 12 month follow up in similar studies range from 40-55%. Under Celeste’s project leadership, the BHHI team has achieved an extraordinary 12-month retention rate of 90%.

“Her work not only makes the science stronger, but makes the entire research enterprise more human, ethical, and equitable,” said Dr. Nguyen,

Still leading in full swing, Celeste provided us with a moment of reflection about designing and managing the project to date.

 

 

ARC: Your retention innovations directly impact data quality and scientific validity. How does your community-partnered approach manage to serve participants ethically and produce stronger science? How does this make a case for funding research infrastructure that prioritizes relationships?

Celeste Enriquez: Our community-partnered approach strengthens the science by building real trust with the people at the heart of the research. This trust leads to better retention and richer, more complete data that reflect the real experiences of participants. Families experiencing homelessness can be hard to reach and even harder to keep involved in long-term studies but working alongside trusted community organizations like Destination: Home, the Sí Se Puede Collective, Sacred Heart Community Service, and the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing has made a huge difference.

When people feel respected and supported, they are more open to sharing their stories. Small things like asking about preferred language or how someone wants to be contacted help the study fit into their daily lives rather than asking them to fit into ours. That kind of flexibility creates a stronger foundation for honest, consistent engagement.

This is why funding research that prioritizes relationships matters so much. It is not just the ethical thing to do. It produces stronger, more meaningful science. When communities help shape how research is done, the work becomes more grounded, more relevant, and more likely to lead to lasting change.

 

Your work is described as 'culturally responsive' rather than just 'culturally competent.' What's the difference in practice?

For us, cultural responsiveness means staying open, flexible, and willing to learn alongside the communities we work with. It’s not about checking boxes or mastering a set of competencies. Cultural competence often focuses on learning about people, while cultural responsiveness is about learning with them. It’s an ongoing process that values listening, trust, and adapting in real time.

For example, we worked with community organizations to create recruitment materials that reflected participants’ experiences and avoided language that might feel stigmatizing. We translated all study materials, hired bilingual staff to lead consent and data collection, and offered several ways for people to stay in touch, including text, email, phone, or mail. Whenever possible, we met in familiar places like local libraries or community partner buildings. We built simple tracking systems so participants did not have to repeat their lived history or preferences during quick calls with each new team member which gave survivors of interpersonal violence or families who had lost custody of a child sensitivity without the need to ask. We used peoples’ lived names before that became a formal policy at UCSF. These changes were not about checking inclusivity boxes. They were about creating research spaces where people felt valued and respected for who they are and where they are, both physically and in their lives.

 

The Department of Medicine Staff Excellence Award nomination emphasizes your leadership style combining 'clarity and humility.' In research environments that often prioritize credentials over community knowledge, how did you build a team equipped for this work?

When building our team, I looked for people who brought empathy, humility, and lived experience in addition to technical skills. Many of our research assistants and work-study students come from underserved communities or the same communities we serve, which helps build real connection. My focus as a leader has been to provide clarity about our shared goals while creating a space where community knowledge carries the same weight as academic expertise. This approach helped our team stay grounded and connected to the people behind the research.

 

If you could mandate one change to how universities conduct research with marginalized populations—whether it's funding structures, staffing models, ethical review processes, or timeline expectations—what would create the most meaningful improvement?

If I could change one thing, I’d make it easier for universities to build real, lasting partnerships with the communities they serve and to cut through the red tape that often gets in the way. There’s a lot of strong, community-minded work happening, but rigid systems and outdated processes can slow things down and make it harder to respond to what participants actually need.

For example, simple things like providing stipends or gift cards can turn into major hurdles because of university purchasing rules or technology systems that don’t reflect how people live or get paid today. These barriers can unintentionally exclude participants who are undocumented, unbanked, or prefer to support local businesses rather than large corporations.

Universities need to meet research teams halfway when it comes to community-based studies. That means being flexible with things like paying participants in cash or buying gift cards for study incentives. These aren’t small details, these accommodations are often what makes it possible for people to take part, especially for participants who don’t have stable housing or easy access to banks. The systems we have now are built for traditional academic studies, not for work that engages real people in the community. A little flexibility can make the difference between a study that’s inclusive versus one that leaves people out

 

For ongoing Silicon Valley Guaranteed Income Project updates visit the BHHI website.