|
Evaluating a Community Partnership Using a Community-based Participatory Approach: The Men’s Health League Partnership in Cambridge, Massachusetts
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Omonyele Adjognon, Institute for Community Health, oadjognon@challiance.org
|
| Shalini Tendulkar, Institute for Community Health, stendulkar@challiance.org
|
| Elisa Friedman, Institute for Community Health, efriedman@challiance.org
|
| Claude- Alix Jacob, Cambridge Public Health Department, cjacob@challiance.org
|
| Marsha Lazar, Cambridge Public Health Department, mlazar@challiance.org
|
| Albert Pless Jr, Cambridge Public Health Department, apless@challiance.org
|
| Barbara Kibler, Margaret Fuller Neighborhood House, bkilbler@margaretfullerhouse.org
|
| Abstract:
In 2007, three institutions— the Margaret Fuller Neighborhood House, the Cambridge Health Alliance and the Cambridge YMCA—joined efforts to address health disparities in Cambridge, with two main goals. The first was to create the Men’s Health League program in order to reduce the risk of diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and stroke among men of color in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The second was to evaluate this partnership between the three institutions. The program developers defined an effective partnership as the entity that would: a) identify strengths and weaknesses in the collaboration, b) develop and implement strategies to improve collaboration, and c) share lessons learned and best practices around local partnerships.
This paper proposes to share methods used by the Institute for Community Health (an external research and evaluation institution) to evaluate this community-based partnership. Additionally, evaluation results, challenges to and lessons learned from the partnership evaluation process will be discussed.
|
|
To Tell or Not to Tell: Strategies of Breaking Through the Walls and Gaining the Trust of Evaluation Participants
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Bellarmine Ezumah, Howard University, bellaezuma@gmail.com
|
| Abstract:
The process of evaluation is often met with resistance because it can very easily be construed as prying. Mabry (1999) calls it a “judgment-intensive craft” (p. 201). Whether it aims at assessing the extent to which a program lives up to its objective, or searching for ways of improvement, the overarching process entails some probes and questioning. Therefore, parties involved in the organization of the evaluand sometimes become defensive and uncooperative. This paper is a case example of how the author as evaluator gained trust of participants through applying some of the guidelines of the The Joint Committee for Educational Evaluation (1994) standards including, establishing evaluator credibility, values identification, understanding the cultural, socio-political, language, and economic dynamics of participants, involving a broader spectrum of stakeholders, among other things, in a dissertation research that evaluated a computer program designed for the low income communities of the world.
|
|
Utilizing Participatory Processes in Program Design and Implementation Sets the Framework for a More Streamlined Evaluation Process Especially for Participatory Evaluations
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Carlene Baugh, CHF International, cbaugh@chfhq.org
|
| Scott Yetter, CHF International, syetter@chfhq.org
|
| Abstract:
Participatory processes in programs set a seamless framework for participatory evaluation. Effective participatory processes include active stakeholder participation through consensus, conflict-resolution and ownership - key themes of participatory evaluation processes.
1. The Participatory Action for Community Empowerment (PACE) lays the foundation process-wise and experientially by raising key issues about participation. It helps to create a common value set throughout the program’s life cycle. Participatory evaluation focuses on who initiates and undertakes the process and who learns and benefits from the findings (IDS, 1998).
2. PACE supports community decision-making and problem solving - key criteria for participatory evaluation processes. (King, Jean, Making Sense of Participatory Evaluation, 2007)
3. PACE process promotes skills for evaluators. An emerging theme in the last decade is the need for evaluators to be trained not just in how to gather and analyze data, but also in negotiation and conflict resolution skills. (2009 Claremont Debates, Patton, M. 2009)
|
|
Assessing a Model to Support Community-Driven Research Initiatives: The Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute’s Community Engagement and Research Mini-grant Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Tabia Henry Akintobi, Morehouse School of Medicine, takintobi@msm.edu
|
| Lewis Autor, Rock of Escape, rockofescape@yahoo.com
|
| Jacqueline Brown, Empowerment Resource Center for Women Inc, jbrown@empoweryoungwomen.org
|
| Joyce Essien, Emory University, essien@fox.sph.emory.edu
|
| Katherine Erwin, Morehouse School of Medicine, kerwin@msm.edu
|
| Daniel Blumenthal, Morehouse School of Medicine, dblumenthal@msm.edu
|
| Michelle C Kegler, Emory University, mkegler@emory.edu
|
| Winifred W Thompson, Emory University, wthomp3@sph.emory.edu
|
| Abstract:
Background: The Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute’s Community Engagement and Research Mini-grant Program promotes community-campus partnership through funding ($4000) and technical assistance to non-profit, community-based organizations (CBOs) in Metropolitan Atlanta and Southwest Georgia. Methods: A request for applications was followed by engaging academicians and community leaders in a grant review process to identify applicants who clearly identified their community need, health project, evaluation plans, and agreement to partner with Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University or Georgia Institute of Technology researchers. Results: CBO grants addressed asthma awareness, HIV risk reduction, peer education and physical activity. Cross-site trends in CBO outreach, training, as well as knowledge, skill, or ability changes in communities were among tracked measures. Equally important was identification of the perceived value added by community-academic partnerships and recommendations to strengthen the program. Discussion: Processes and outcomes that will be presented have implications for developing community-academic partnerships advancing research translation.
|
|
Utilizing Participatory Action Research Framework to Prevent HIV Infection Among Youth Living in Public Housing
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Meelee Kim, Brandeis University, mlkim@brandeis.edu
|
| Peter Kreiner, Brandeis University, pkreiner@brandeis.edu
|
| Suzanne Boucher, Wayside Youth and Family Support Network, suzanne_boucher@waysideyouth.org
|
| Abstract:
Multiple studies document the disproportionate rates of HIV infection and HIV/AIDS diagnoses among persons of color in the U.S. Residents living in public housing around the Boston area reflect a diverse group of ethnic minorities. For example, Haitians and Hispanics/Latinos represent more than half of the public housing residents in Somerville, MA. While there are cultural differences within and among ethnic groups, there are some shared common factors that place individuals living in public housing at increased risk of HIV/AIDS: discrimination; stigma; poverty; high mobility; isolation; and marginalized status. The spread of this disease grows faster and farther in conditions of poverty, powerlessness, and lack of accurate information. Therefore, ethnic enclaves within public housing can help perpetuate cultural biases, myths, and fears related to HIV/AIDS. Utilizing a participatory action research framework helps to prevent HIV infection through activities that build and sustain community capacity to address social issues surrounding HIV/AIDS.
|
| | | | |