Table 2. Characteristics of Strong, Moderate, and Weak Community Partnerships, as Assessed by Project Coordinators, North Carolina, 2010–2012.
| Characteristic | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
|---|---|---|---|
| History with partner | ● Project coordinators had worked with their partner before project implementation ● A working relationship was, in some capacity, previously established between partners | Project coordinators had prior knowledge about their partners from previous study project successes, but did not express any sentiments about prior experience with their partners | ● No prior experience working with partners ● New relationships were built during project development and implementation |
| Partner reputation and community connectedness | Project coordinators had prior positive impressions about their partners’ reputation and community connectedness | Project coordinators had prior positive impressions about their partners’ reputation but limited information about community connectedness | Project coordinators’ descriptive commentary did not clearly associate their experience with partner reputation and community connectednessa |
| Partner interest, enthusiasm, and engagement | ● Partners took a serious interest in the project ● Partners actively involved ● Partners expressed passion for project implementation ● Partners had a high level of engagement, worked well with their project coordinators throughout the duration of the study | ● Partners took a serious interest in the project ● Partners actively involved, but considered a moderate level of engagement ● Project coordinators worked well with their partners, but some difficulties related to partner replacements and other external barriers | ● Project coordinators did not always experience high levels of partnership engagement ● Partners not always available ● Partners did not fully understand the details and actions needed for project implementation ● Frequent difficulties with partners ● Partnership replacements ● Personal complications with partners |
| Clarity of roles and responsibilities | Roles and responsibilities for partners and project coordinators were adequately defined and fulfilled throughout the duration of the project | ● Duties and roles not always fulfilled by partners ● Roles and responsibilities held between partners not clearly defined | ● Partnership disorganization ● Roles not defined or understood throughout duration of the project ● Duties and responsibilities of partners not fulfilled |
| Willingness to engage in a future partnership | Project coordinators expressed no doubt about working with their partners in the future | Project coordinators expressed some hesitance in regard to working with their partners in the future | Project coordinators expressed doubt and hesitance about working with their partners in the future |
a
Weak partnership was not reflected in the data regarding partner reputation and community connectedness.