Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

members a letter requesting specific items in return for their participation
A formal response to the letter was not provided by the university part-
ner; instead, the requested changes were inserted into the proposal and a
revised draft circulated to community partners with the assumption that it
would address their requests This was not the understanding of the community
partners, and this misunderstanding strained future relationships
The CBO felt that it had not received the answers it had requested, and the
university coinvestigator believed that revising the proposal addressed the
CBO’s requests The miscommunication persisted for months and resulted
in difficulty in establishing the operations of the CTSA once it was funded
Action Steps
The issue was finally addressed when the university coinvestigator approached
the CBO for help in writing another NIH proposal At that time, it emerged
that the CTSA-related issues had never been resolved and that the CBO felt
its cooperation was being taken for granted A meeting was held with the
CBO president, another member, and two university researchers who were
dues-paying members of the CBO During this meeting, the misunderstanding
was clarified and apologies were offered and accepted Both the CBO and
the university members realized that in a rush to complete grant-writing
assignments, shortcuts had been taken that should have been avoided
Take-Home Messages
• University partners should be clear in responding to written requests from
a community for communication about specifics on research collaboration
Communications can be easily misunderstood by well-intentioned
individuals Asking for feedback should be routine practice
• It is critical for partners to respect and include the input of the community
they are trying to serve
• The lines of communication must remain open until all issues are considered
resolved by everyone involved
• Transparency is always essential for all entities.
143