Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

30% community/70% university split of direct costs In addition, every dol- lar of direct cost awarded to the university partner garnered an additional 51 cents, because the university had negotiated a 51% indirect cost rate with NIH However, the community partner received no indirect cost add-on because it had no negotiated rate with NIH The irony in allocating program funding to the community partner was that this sharing gave the community partner more administrative work to do, even though the partner received no support from indirect costs A second challenge arose that highlighted the difference in expectations between university and community partners The grant required that community workers facilitate discussion groups To accomplish this, the community portion of the budget had to pay to train community workers and trainees as well as cover costs such as meeting rooms, food, and materials Inevitably, the community’s small pool of funds was exhausted, and some university funds were required Getting community researchers and research expenses paid by the university took a month or longer University faculty are accustomed to lengthy delays in reimbursement, but community members expect prompt payments Both the community-based and university-based PIs were put in the uncomfortable position of having to continually ask those waiting for payment to be patient Documentation procedures were not as extensive and wait times were shorter when community research funds flowed through the community organization Action Steps It would have been administratively easier for the university partner to pay the community partner on a subcontract However, this arrangement was prohibited by NIH because the purpose of the Partners in Research grant was to establish an equal partnership In future CBPR projects, the community partner may consider subcontracting as a way to decrease administrative burden, even if it decreases control over research funds Also, the university-based PI should have more thoroughly investigated the procedures for university payments, alerted community members to the extended wait times for payments, and advocated for streamlined procedures with university administration and accounting A second challenge arose that highlighted the difference in expectations between university and community partners. 145
Take-Home Messages • “Splitting budgets in half” is too blunt a tool for the delicate work of building equal partnerships Exploring more nuanced mechanisms to balance power between community and academic partners is critical • Make no assumptions about the capabilities of the institution (university or CBO) or how it functions • University and CBO partners need to come to agreement on all processes and timetables that might be involved • Foster open communication with those affected to maintain organizational and personal credibility References Butterfoss FD Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007 Williams KJ, Gail BP, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Reisz I, Peranteau J Modeling the principles of community-based participatory research in a community health assessment conducted by a health foundation Health Promotion Practice 2009;10(1):67-75 C. How do you harness the power and knowledge of multiple academic medical institutions and community partners? Carolyn Leung Rubin, EdD, MA, Doug Brugge, PhD, MS, Jocelyn Chu, ScD, MPH, Karen Hacker, MD, MPH, Jennifer Opp, Alex Pirie, Linda Sprague Martinez, MA, Laurel Leslie, MD, MPH Challenge In some cases, several CTSA sites are clustered in a small geographic area and thus may be well suited to demonstrating how institutions can overcome competitive differences and work together for the good of their mutual communities 146
Page 1 and 2:
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS CTSA Community En
Page 5 and 6:
Editorial and Research Staff Mina S
Page 7 and 8:
For further information on the CTSA
Page 9 and 10:
FOREWORD As Surgeon General, I am p
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary
Page 13 and 14:
of Veterans Affairs, and other fede
Page 15 and 16:
REFERENCES Ahmed SM, Palermo AG Com
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1 Community Engagement: Def
Page 19 and 20:
clinics, agencies, after-school pro
Page 21 and 22:
The eligibility criteria that scien
Page 23 and 24:
2 Design and delivery—Improvement
Page 25 and 26:
There is no question that culture a
Page 27 and 28:
oot causes of problems while at the
Page 29 and 30:
• Know the community, its constit
Page 31 and 32:
• Coalitions require that each pa
Page 33 and 34:
studies demonstrate that IRBs gener
Page 35 and 36:
action at those levels This approac
Page 37 and 38:
• S o c i e t y : Advocate for th
Page 39 and 40:
According to Rogers, the characteri
Page 41 and 42:
is the added value of CBPR to the r
Page 43 and 44:
• It is important to understand c
Page 45 and 46:
Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC (2002) Tow
Page 47 and 48:
Flicker S, Travers R, Guta A, McDon
Page 49 and 50:
Jones MR, Horner RD, Edwards LJ, Ho
Page 51 and 52:
Minkler M Community organizing and
Page 53 and 54:
Shore N Community-based participato
Page 55 and 56:
Yale Center for Clinical Investigat
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter 2 Principles of Community E
Page 59 and 60:
• Ask community members to specif
Page 61 and 62:
trust for a true partnership Such m
Page 63 and 64:
that affect health and health dispa
Page 65 and 66:
difference in the health of the pop
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 3 Successful Examples in th
Page 69 and 70:
59 TABLE 3.1. MATRIX OF CASE EXAMPL
Page 71 and 72:
a mission statement written in the
Page 73 and 74:
2. HEALTH-E-AME Background: The Med
Page 75 and 76:
3. PROJECT SUGAR Background: Gullah
Page 77 and 78:
Websites http://academicdepartments
Page 79 and 80:
of the community context, developme
Page 81 and 82:
5. HEALING OF THE CANOE Background:
Page 83 and 84:
6. FORMANDO NUESTRO FUTURO/SHAPING
Page 85 and 86:
7. IMPROVING AMERICAN INDIAN CANCER
Page 87 and 88:
and the mistreatment of some Americ
Page 89 and 90:
access to resources for healthy eat
Page 91 and 92:
9. THE DENTAL PRACTICE-BASED RESEAR
Page 93 and 94:
10. DIABETES EDUCATION & PREVENTION
Page 95 and 96:
11. PROJECT DULCE Background: Diabe
Page 97 and 98:
References Gilmer TP, Philis-Tsimik
Page 99 and 100:
milestones in child development, ch
Page 101 and 102: Chapter 4 Managing Organizational S
Page 103 and 104: engagement is not limited to coalit
Page 105 and 106: Practice Element 1: Know the Commun
Page 107 and 108: each capacity component for this pr
Page 109 and 110: REFERENCES Butterfoss FD. Coalition
Page 111 and 112: Table 4.1. Know the Community, Its
Page 113 and 114: Table 4.3. Build and Sustain Networ
Page 115 and 116: Challenges in Improving Community E
Page 117 and 118: ecommended public health practices
Page 119 and 120: community setting can be just as ri
Page 121 and 122: These challenges do not compare, ho
Page 123 and 124: halted its efforts to collect data
Page 125 and 126: mechanisms for communication, the c
Page 127 and 128: The researchers and the community b
Page 129 and 130: Horn K, McGloin T, Dino G, Manzo K,
Page 131 and 132: Take-Home Messages • Be explicit
Page 133 and 134: At meetings of the CAB, decisions w
Page 135 and 136: 3. WORKING WITH NONTRADITIONAL COMM
Page 137 and 138: B. How do you engage a state as a c
Page 139 and 140: to those applying for funds The eva
Page 141 and 142: 4. INITIATING A PROJECT WITH A COMM
Page 143 and 144: B. How do you set up and maintain a
Page 145 and 146: References Blumenthal DS A communit
Page 147 and 148: parties grew frustrated The partner
Page 149 and 150: 5. O VERCOMING COMPETING PRIORITIES
Page 151: Reference Reifsnider E, Hargraves M
Page 155 and 156: Although the CTSA sites in the Bost
Page 157 and 158: Chapter 6 The Value of Social Netwo
Page 159 and 160: Social networks can also play an im
Page 161 and 162: engagement effort, relationships mu
Page 163 and 164: engagement Furthermore, social medi
Page 165 and 166: REFERENCES Arthur T The role of soc
Page 167 and 168: Program Evaluation and Evaluating C
Page 169 and 170: approaches to evaluation that are p
Page 171 and 172: Several institutions have identifie
Page 173 and 174: Planning Defining and identifying s
Page 175 and 176: Once the positive outcome of a prog
Page 177 and 178: The major goal of empowerment evalu
Page 179 and 180: Table 7.1. Types of Evaluation Ques
Page 181 and 182: The evaluation of community engagem
Page 183 and 184: for understanding a community and i
Page 185 and 186: REFERENCES Anderson RM, Funnell MM,
Page 187 and 188: Patton MQ Qualitative evaluation an
Page 189 and 190: Chapter 8 Summary Donna Jo McCloske
Page 191 and 192: • Know the extent to which the fo
Page 193 and 194: Appendix A: Acronyms
Page 195 and 196: CDC Centers for Disease Control and
Page 197: NIH Publication No. 11-7782
show all

Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?