Exam 14: Community-University Partnerships to Promote Change

Correct Answer:

Verified

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is defined as a collaborative approach to research in which stakeholders play an equitable role in the process of combining knowledge with action to ultimately achieve sustainable change. This form of research is arguably the prime means by which effective community-university (CU) partnerships function. Core tenets of CBPR include co-learning and the reciprocal transfer of expertise and knowledge through the creation of partnerships that promote mutual learning and benefit for all partners. That is, partners recognize what each "brings to the table" and the strengths of all partners are utilized. Thus, whether an individual is a caregiver of a child with a mental health diagnosis, a nonprofit organization executive director or staff member, or a neighborhood representative, that individual's knowledge, perspective, and insight are valued when identifying the questions to be addressed, deciding upon methods and measures, collecting data, making sense of findings, considering the implications of results, and establishing and working to enact plans for dissemination and action. In fact, when CU partnerships practice in a manner that aligns with a CBPR approach, they are characterized by shared decision-making and dual ownership of the work's processes and products.
A CBPR approach is distinct from a model of evaluation capacity building (ECB), which has as its ultimate goal a method of evaluation that can be sustained by the partner/practitioner, they are similar in that they both advocate for university/community evaluators to ask questions that matter and use findings for decision-making and action. Building on this capacity building framework, previous researchers presented three hallmarks of a community-based approach to evaluation. These three hallmarks align well with core elements of CBPR, that is, that community-based evaluation (1) is community-driven (e.g., is of relevance to the community, particularly those most affected by the issue, and community members have a voice throughout the process), (2) employs equitable participation (e.g., shared control of the research/evaluation design, implementation, and dissemination), and (3) is targeted toward action and change (e.g., cyclical and continuous change and reflection). To be sure, multiple frameworks share key "must have" elements as those that guide CU evaluations.

Correct Answer:

Verified

The recommendations for a successful community-based partnership include:
1. Build relationships to help develop projects collaboratively: In order to conduct research or evaluation that is of relevance to its intended users, one should take steps to develop and sustain a partnership based on shared, mutual interests. It sounds simple, but building relationships is key. Of critical importance for any evaluator or university-based faculty member or student: You should not assume that just because you would like to pursue a project on a topic that you find interesting or that may fill a gap in the literature that anyone at the community organization is interested in the topic in a practical way.
Building trust and relationships over time cannot be overstated, particularly in the field of evaluation, where practitioners may be apprehensive or resentful of having their (personal) program evaluated. It takes careful skill, best built on trust and transparency, to allow community staff to truly understand the benefits of evaluation while not feeling as though they are personally being evaluated (or at least are prioritizing the benefit of the former over the potential discomfort of the latter). Regardless of whether their operating budgets come from donations or public funds, all community organizations are necessarily sensitive about how they are viewed and to the potential for "outsiders" to use limited data to make them look bad. They need to be able to trust that evaluation is used for the purpose of improving programs, services, and supports, to the benefit of those served and other stakeholders, and not used by the evaluator for a "gotcha" moment in which the evaluator can appear superior at the expense of the program. Overall, new partnerships should first focus on building trust and relationships and emphasize creating mutually beneficial projects or studies that address short- and longer term needs for all partners. This requires a personal relationship between faculty and key members of community organizations. We recommend that university faculty who are interested in conducting a program, research study, and/or a program evaluation partner with the relevant school district department's leadership, key staff at the nonprofit agency, or other community stakeholder prior to the development of the project. This will assist both the university faculty and the community agency in working toward a partnership that yields the greatest benefit.
2. Engage in regular, direct communication: It is extremely important to be clear about the needs and responsibilities up front. From the community organization perspective, there is nothing worse than agreeing to something (no matter how potentially beneficial to your organization) and later feeling as though you have been hoodwinked when it becomes clear that much more is required. This usually takes the form of "small things" and generally minor requests that, over the course of an evaluation, add up to considerable time for the community member, such as compiling data or information about programs or previously completed studies. Such materials can surely serve as relevant background information for the researcher, but they may not have been identified as useful up front. We recommend a contract, data-sharing agreement, or memorandum of understanding (MOU) that clearly identifies what the roles and responsibilities of each party will be as well as the data to be shared. Partners should have a clear opportunity for "informed consent" regarding the nature of their potential involvement, the time commitment, and the like.
Once the partnership has been established and the MOU signed by all parties, we recommend taking specific steps to maintain open communication. While regular communication via email and even phone calls can be useful, meeting in person regularly is critical. The team should commit to and follow through on regular and scheduled-in-advance meetings to keep everyone in the loop. In our experiences, weekly meetings are probably too often (and not necessary) but quarterly is probably not often enough; we recommend monthly or bi-monthly meetings. In advance of those meetings, create and share clear agendas so that participants are not left wondering what will be covered or why they are present, and make sure that the agenda addresses the concerns of all present (draft agendas with invitations to add or delete items can be helpful). During the meetings, work to create an environment in which everyone feels comfortable raising questions, bringing their suggestions, and sharing information openly. After the meetings, to continue to maintain trust, you must provide action minutes/summaries, and follow through on requests and agreed upon action steps. Throughout the project, we recommend that the evaluator provide opportunities for joint review and feedback of letters, reports, presentations, and other products.
Stability of community connection and support is important. To truly formalize this, if funding allows, it is useful to have a single person who is committed to the partnership and explicitly works for both teams, so that a single person has deep knowledge and understanding about the evaluation work and the community organization work. This is especially beneficial when working with large school districts where individuals from the district's various departments/sites do not always work closely together or in the same office space. In smaller districts, these responsibilities may be carried out by a single person or certain positions may not exist (e.g., a research/data department). If it is not possible to support such a staff position, partnerships are facilitated by having continuity of contacts (e.g., university-based evaluators), a project lead (e.g., a graduate student project coordinator), and clear community leads for different aspects of the project. Doing so is not only important relationally and for partnership function, it reduces the likelihood of responsibility diffusion.
To summarize these first two recommendations, relationships are powerful and partnerships are strengthened when partners have developed a track record of communication and commitment. Yet, partners need to be honest with one another about what each party can accomplish and what is not feasible given time and resource constraints.
3. Foster shared learning: University faculty should not assume the role of the singular expert. After all, the community members (and potential partners) have diverse expertise, including the local or organizational context and its strengths and needs. As we have previously pointed out, it is especially important for evaluators to recognize the capacity, skills, and expertise of community partners--and the limits of their own knowledge--and to appreciate the context for the work. Knowing this, it is often necessary to strike a balance (or resolve a tension) between the rigor of an evaluation or research design and pragmatic factors. This issue can arise when university-based faculty evaluators do not consider fully the secondary effect of a suggested research design. In sum, sound partnerships tap into the complementary skills and expertise of both the community and university staff in order to work toward common interests. It is important for evaluators to recognize each member of the team's strengths and expertise and to engage in co-learning practices throughout the partnership's work.
4. Remember that community organization leadership and staff already have full-time jobs with regular responsibilities: Arguably, the most substantial obstacle for any community partner is the presence of competing priorities. The addition of a grant-funded project or evaluation is "one more thing" that gets added to their day-to-day responsibilities (typically, time cannot be bought out for salaried employees in community organizations); the time required to add another project gets added on to an already-full workload for salaried employees. This quickly becomes too much, and additional projects have diminishing returns because employees are spread too thin to adequately devote sufficient time to them.
5. Use dissemination and communication strategies and approaches that support and influence decision-making: At its core, CBPR is applied research. Thus, for any partnership to be truly successful, findings must be actionable. The general notion is that all partners should focus on using data to do, to guide decision-making and resource allocation, to improve practice, and to effect change. To that end, some suggest that collaboration between researchers/evaluators and practitioners ought to extend beyond the evaluation, such that researchers/evaluators are continuously engaged through the process of policy development. The goal of the partnership will be best served when the university evaluators can help guide action in a way that is aligned to the needs of the community organization (while upholding research/evaluation integrity).

Correct Answer:

Verified

To determine the key dimensions required for academic-community partnership readiness, Andrews and her colleagues conducted interviews and focus groups with academic and community participants who were experienced with CBPR partnerships. They defined CBPR partnership readiness as "the degree to which academic-community partners 'fit' and have the 'capacity' and 'operations' necessary to plan, implement, evaluate, and disseminate CBPR projects that will facilitate mutual growth of the partnership and positively influence targeted social and health needs in the community." Ultimately, they developed the CBPR Partnership Readiness Model, which includes three major dimensions (and their indicators): (1) goodness of fit (shared values, compatible climate, mutual benefit, and commitment), (2) capacity (effective leadership, inclusive membership, complementary competencies, and adequate resources), and (3) operations (congruent goals, transparent communication, conflict resolution, and equal power). Andrews and colleagues later created a tool kit that allows community and academic partners, ideally with the help of a facilitator, to assess their readiness.
While the readiness resources were designed to help gauge the readiness of both academic and community partners, it must be recognized that all partnerships are not created equal. Some work and are effective, sustaining, and successful. Timing and broader contextual factors are certainly of relevance.