Evaluating Community Partnerships and Coalitions with Practitioners in Mind (original) (raw)
Related papers
Coalitions for Impacting the Health of a Community: The Summit County, Ohio, Experience
Population Health Management, 2013
Community coalitions have the potential to catalyze important changes in the health and well-being of populations. The authors demonstrate how communities can benefit from a multisector coalition to conduct a community-wide surveillance, coordinate activities, and monitor health and wellness interventions. Data from Summit County, Ohio are presented that illustrate how this approach can be framed and used to impact community health positively across communities nationwide. By jointly sharing the responsibility and accountability for population health through coalitions, communities can use the Health Impact Pyramid framework to assess local assets and challenges and to identify and implement programmatic and structural needs. Such a coalition is well poised to limit duplication and to increase the efficiency of existing efforts and, ultimately, to positively impact the health of a population. (Population Health Management 2013;16:xxx-xxx)
Effectiveness of Alliances and Partnerships for Health Promotion
Health Promotion International, 1998
This paper assesses the impact of alliances or partnerships for health promotion in northern and southern nations, as described in published papers and through contemporary accounts of best practice. The balance of evidence from published literature and case study accounts is clear. Alliance or partnership initiatives to promote health across sectors, across professional and lay boundaries and between public, private and nongovernment agencies, do work. They work in tackling the broader determinants of health and well-being in populations in a sustainable manner, as well as in promoting individual health-related behaviour change. The greater the level of local community involvement in setting agendas for action and in the practice of health promotion, the larger the impact. Volunteer activities, peer programmes and civic activities ensure the maximum benefit from community approaches. In addition, durable structures which facilitate planning and decisionmaking, such as local committees and councils, are key factors in successful alliances or partnerships for health promotion. Such mechanisms also support the sharing of power, responsibility and authority for change, the maintenance of order and of programmatic relevance, and allow local people one means of reflection and for dissent. At a national, regional, district, village and local community or neighbourhood level, this review found that the existence and implementation of policies for health promotion activities were also crucial to sustainability. The evidence from the review suggests the need for new`social' indicators to measure the effects of health promotion. Indicators for success which focus only upon benefits for individuals cannot capture adequately the extent of the impact of the many and varied collective, collaborative health promotion initiatives, alliances or partnerships currently underway around the world. These have been shown to affect families, communities, institutions and aspects of the organisation of social and civic life. This paper posits the notion of social capital as one important new framework for organising our thinking about the broader determinants of health and how to influence them through communitybased approaches to reduce inequalities in health and well-being.
Peer Reviewed: From Program to Policy: Expanding the Role of Community Coalitions
Preventing chronic …, 2007
BackgroundDiabetes mortality at the United States–Mexico border is twice the national average. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasingly diagnosed among children and adolescents. Fragmented services and scarce resources further restrict access to health care. Increased awareness of the incidence of disease and poor health outcomes became a catalyst for creating community-based coalitions and partnerships with the University of Arizona that focused on diabetes.ContextFive partnerships between the communities and the University of Arizona were formed to address these health issues. They began with health promotion as their goal and were challenged to add policy and environmental change to their objectives. Understanding the meaning of policy in the community context is the first step in the transition from program to policy. Policy participation brings different groups together, strengthening ties and building trust among community members and community organizations.MethodsData on progress and outcomes were collected from multiple sources. We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) 2010 Community Change Model as the capacity-building and analytic framework for supporting and documenting the transition of coalitions from program to policy.ConsequencesOver 5 years, the coalitions made the transition, in varying degrees, from a programmatic focus to a policy planning and advocacy focus. The coalitions raised community awareness, built community capacity, encouraged a process of "change in change agents," and advocated for community environmental and policy shifts to improve health behaviors.InterpretationThe five coalitions made environmental and policy impacts by engaging in policy advocacy. These outcomes indicate the successful, if not consistently sustained, transition from program to policy. Whether and how these "changes in change agents" are transferable to the larger community over the long term remains to be seen.
A Model-Driven Approach to Qualitatively Assessing the Added Value of Community Coalitions
Journal of Urban Health, 2011
Community-based coalitions are commonly formed to plan and to carry out public health interventions. The literature includes evaluations of coalition structure, composition, and functioning; evaluations of community-level changes achieved through coalition activities; and the association between coalition characteristics and various indicators of success. Little information is available on the comparative advantage or "added value" of conducting public health interventions through coalitions as opposed to less structured collaborative mechanisms. This paper describes a qualitative, iterative process carried out with site representatives of the Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project (CAACP) to identify outcomes directly attributable to coalitions. The process yielded 2 complementary sets of results. The first were criteria that articulated and limited the concept of "added value of coalitions". The criteria included consensus definitions, an organizing figure, a logic model, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The second set of results identified site-specific activities that met the definitional criteria and were, by agreement, examples of CAACP coalitions' added value. Beyond the specific findings relevant to the added value of coalitions in this project, the use of a social ecological model to identify the components of added value and the placement of those components within a logic model specific to coalitions should provide useful tools for those planning and assessing coalitionbased projects.
Journal of Urban Health, 2008
Improving community health "from the ground up" entails a comprehensive ecological approach, deep involvement of community-based entities, and addressing social determinants of population health status. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General, and other authorities have called for public health to be an "inter-sector" enterprise, few models have surfaced that feature local health departments as a key part of the collaborative model for effecting community-level change. This paper presents evaluation findings and lessons learned from the Partnership for the Public's Health (PPH), a comprehensive community initiative that featured a central role for local health departments with their community partners. Funded by The California Endowment, PPH provided technical and financial resources to 39 community partnerships in 14 local health department jurisdictions in California to promote community and health department capacity building and community-level policy and systems change designed to produce long-term improvements in population health. The evaluation used multiple data sources to create progress ratings for each partnership in five goal areas related to capacity building, community health improvement programs, and policy and systems change. Overall results were generally positive; in particular, of the 37 partnerships funded continuously throughout the 5 years of the initiative, between 25% and 40% were able to make a high level of progress in each of the Initiative's five goal areas. Factors associated with partnership success were also identified by local evaluators. These results showed that health departments able to work effectively with community groups had strong, committed leaders who used creative financing mechanisms, inclusive planning processes, organizational changes, and open communication to promote collaboration with the communities they served. KEYWORDS Community health partnerships, Local public health departments, Communitybased health promotion, Resident involvement, Collaboration, Social determinants of health.
Advancing Coalition Health Equity Capacity Using a Three-Dimensional Framework
Health Equity, 2019
We examined coalition health equity capacity using a three-dimensional conceptual framework in a 3-year study (2011-2014) of 28 local coalitions engaged in health promotion. Methods: Coalition health equity capacity was defined according to (1) conceptual foundations, (2) collective action and impact, and (3) civic orientation. This framework was used to qualitatively assess progress in capacity building efforts at two time points. Coalition materials and archival documents were analyzed qualitatively for indications of each dimension of coalition health equity capacity. Results: The overall cohort of coalitions was initially determined to be near mid-range in conceptual foundations, above mid-range on collective impact, and below mid-range on civic orientation. As part of ongoing training and technical assistance, coalitions were offered examples of high coalition health equity capacity in each dimension. At time point two, growth in health equity capacity was observed in a majority of coalitions. Conclusions: These findings indicate that a multidimensional approach to coalition health equity capacity can be useful for both analysis and practical purposes of community capacity building, which may, in turn, produce long-term gains in health equity.