Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Gerontologist logoLink to The Gerontologist
. 2013 Jul 25;54(2):314–321. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt072

The Evolution of an Academic–Community Partnership in the Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Experience Corps® Baltimore City: A Courtship Model

Erwin J Tan 1,*, Sylvia McGill 2, Elizabeth K Tanner 3, Michelle C Carlson 4, George W Rebok 3, Teresa E Seeman 5, Linda P Fried 6,7
Editor: Kimberly Van Haitsma
PMCID: PMC3954416  PMID: 23887931

Abstract

Purpose: Experience Corps Baltimore City (EC) is a product of a partnership between the Greater Homewood Community Corporation (GHCC) and the Johns Hopkins Center on Aging and Health (COAH) that began in 1998. EC recruits volunteers aged 55 and older into high-impact mentoring and tutoring roles in public elementary schools that are designed to also benefit the volunteers. We describe the evolution of the GHCC–COAH partnership through the “Courtship Model.” Design and Methods: We describe how community-based participatory research principals, such as shared governance, were applied at the following stages: (1) partner selection, (2) getting serious, (3) commitment, and (4) leaving a legacy. Results: EC could not have achieved its current level of success without academic–community partnership. In early stages of the “Courtship Model,” GHCC and COAH were able to rely on the trust developed between the leadership of the partner organizations. Competing missions from different community and academic funders led to tension in later stages of the “Courtship Model” and necessitated a formal Memorandum of Understanding between the partners as they embarked on a randomized controlled trial. Implications: The GHCC–COAH partnership demonstrates how academic–community partnerships can serve as an engine for social innovation. The partnership could serve as a model for other communities seeking multiple funding sources to implement similar public health interventions that are based on national service models. Unified funding mechanisms would assist the formation of academic–community partnerships that could support the design, implementation, and the evaluation of community-based public health interventions.

Key Words: Community-Based participatory research, Community-Institutional relations, Intergenerational relations, Organization and administration, Randomized controlled trials as topic, Volunteerism

The partnership between Greater Homewood Community Corporation (GHCC) and the Johns Hopkins Center on Aging and Health (COAH) exemplifies how communities can benefit when academic institutions are involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of community interventions. Conversely, the partnership demonstrates how academic researchers need community partners who hold the trust of community stakeholders and the capacity to implement community-based interventions. Experience Corps Baltimore City (EC) is a product of a partnership between GHCC and COAH. In EC, older adult volunteers are trained and placed in the Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS) as AmeriCorps members, in a program designed both as a public health intervention for the older adults and an academic intervention for the children (Freedman & Fried, 1999; Fried et al., 2004; Rebok et al., 2004). The potential health benefits of volunteering have also been observed in other national and community service models that engage older adults in environmental stewardship and engage adolescents in volunteer activities that support school engagement in young children (Pillemer, Fuller-Rowell, Reid, & Wells, 2010; Schreier, Schonert-Reichl, & Chen, 2013). When the GHCC–COAH partnership began in 1998, GHCC was a local community nonprofit involved in community building and strengthening the quality of neighborhood elementary schools. COAH was nationally known as the codesigner and cofounder of Experience Corps (Freedman & Fried, 1999) and a center of excellence for research on healthy aging. Within 10 years, EC had expanded into 20 schools in Baltimore with a $1.4 million operating budget. This expansion supported a National Institute of Aging (NIA)–sponsored study of the health and academic benefits of the EC model: The Baltimore Experience Corps Trial (BECT) (Freedman & Fried, 1999; Fried et al., 2004; Fried et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2010). In 2008, GHCC and COAH were honored by Partners for Livable Communities, a national nonprofit, for a 10-year academic–community partnership that resulted in the Experience Corps program in Baltimore City (Experience Corps® Baltimore, 2008).

The successful implementation of Experience Corps in Baltimore City was the result of local community foundation funding, local government funding, federal funding from AmeriCorps, and research funding. A principal conflict that the GHCC–COAH partnership faced was that academic and community organizations, and their respective funding sources, measure success differently. This tension would increase as the partnership became more successful and was able to access increased resources from their respective stakeholder bases. Although COAH and GHCC were both interested in the successful implementation of EC, their stakeholders had different strategic goals that operated on different time scales. COAH’s research agenda was linked to securing and successfully completing a 5-year NIH-sponsored randomized controlled trial (RCT) of EC as a community-based health promotion program for the older adult volunteers. GHCC community stakeholders were particularly interested in evaluating EC’s impact on academic performance in the children and the annual achievement tests that occurred in March of each year. From GHCC’s perspective, the rigors of the research protocol would challenge GHCC’s ability to quickly demonstrate the academic impact of EC to GHCC stakeholders, such as school principals. The success of the BECT would rest on the ability of the GHCC–COAH partnership to both satisfy the mission of local stakeholders and the rigorous research methods of a RCT (Fried et al., 2013).

In this paper we use the GHCC–COAH partnership as an example of an academic–community partnership’s evolution through the “Courtship Model” described by Kanter and Linden (Kanter, 1994; Linden, 2002). This model borrows concepts that have been used in both the personal relationship and business relationship literature: (1) partner selection or courtship, (2) getting serious or getting engaged, (3) setting up housekeeping or commitment, and (4) leaving a legacy (Kanter, 1994; Linden, 2002). We now use it to describe how the partners applied community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles to manage differences in the organizational culture of the partners in this community-engaged research partnership. CBPR is research that is conducted through an equal partnership between academic and community partners. Ross described how community–academic partners can use the CBPR principles to navigate research questions at various stages of a research protocol (Ross et al., 2010). Using the “Courtship Model” we describe how CBPR principles were applied in different ways at different stages of this community-engaged research partnership. The GHCC–COAH partnership was the foundation in implementing EC as both a public health intervention and a national service project. The GHCC–COAH partnership could serve as a model for other communities seeking multiple funding sources to implement similar public health interventions that are based on national service models.

Evolution of the Partnership

Poole defined partnerships as “an association between two or more persons, groups, or organizations who join together to achieve a common goal that neither one alone can accomplish” (Poole, 1995). In academic–community partnerships, both sides have a tremendous amount to gain from the strengths and resources of the other partner and the financial, political, and human capital that a partnership can draw upon. At later stages of the “Courtship Model,” GHCC developed increased capacity to sustain EC. This changed the advantages and disadvantages of continued partnership with COAH.

Partner Selection

Established in 1969, the GHCC is a nonprofit community organization, which serves neighborhoods in north-central Baltimore City. As a small nonprofit operating on a tight budget with limited resources, GHCC is a community impact–focused organization that was responsive to local stakeholders. COAH is the interdisciplinary center of excellence for aging for the Johns Hopkins Schools of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, with faculty from across the University. COAH possesses the strengths and limitations of a leading research institution. COAH, like other public health institutions in the United States, has grounded its mission in solving critical questions through rigorous scientific method and independence from vested stakeholders (Fairchild, Rosner, Colgrove, Bayer, & Fried, 2010; Ross et al., 2010).

Dr. Linda Fried, then director of COAH, designed the national EC model with Mr. Marc Freedman (Civic Ventures Inc.) to be a “win-win” for older adults, children, and society. Dr. Fried developed a social marketing intervention that would promote the core product of increased physical, cognitive, and social activity in the augmented product of an intergenerational national service program. The involvement of public health scientists ensured that the core product, which involved a minimum of 15hr of volunteering a week, would promote a significant amount of physical activity through travel to and from the school, as well as activity within the school. Volunteer roles that included tutoring and mentoring children were also designed to provide significant cognitive activity for the EC volunteers. Finally, the augmented product of an intergenerational national service program was designed to promote social ties between the volunteers and the children. It was the volunteers’ commitment to the children that would provide the incentive to “get out of the house” and adhere to this public health intervention. It was Dr. Fried’s vision to evaluate EC’s potential as a public health intervention in a RCT that would determine the model’s ability to impact mobility-associated disability, memory, and volunteer self-efficacy (Carlson et al., 2008; Fried et al., 2004, 2013; Tan et al., 2009, 2010).

After the initial design, which involved community input from both educators and older adults, the national EC model underwent two national demonstrations that evaluated the face validity and feasibility of this model (Freedman & Fried, 1999). Dr. Fried was seeking a community partner to help bring the program to Baltimore City to optimize the program and provide service to Baltimore City residents. In addition to determining the impact of the program on the health and wellbeing of older adults, she sought to evaluate EC’s impact on the academic success of children in schools through gains in the annual state-wide assessments (Fried et al., 2013; Rebok et al., 2004). The partnership with GHCC allowed COAH access to the public schools that COAH would have struggled to obtain as an academic institution without a community-based partner.

Ms. Sylvia McGill was Director of Public Educational Programs at GHCC in 1998. The GHCC had existing relationships with the Johns Hopkins Homewood campus and both leaders had extensive experience across the academic–community divide. These two individuals would represent the coleadership of EC. Initially, the leadership structure was limited to the consensus of these two senior leaders, with collaborative input from the GHCC staff and the multidisciplinary academic team. Weekly research and implementation meetings occurred at COAH as the leadership team expanded to include neuropsychologists, lifespan specialists, and early child educational researchers. The partnership had few resources beyond human capital, and what was available was equally shared. During the initial period, each participant from GHCC and COAH was given a vote at the table in a consensus model of governance. However, although this ad hoc governance structure was democratic and appropriate at this stage of the “Courtship Model,” it would later be altered to achieve parity between the two partners (Fried et al., 2004; Glass et al., 2004; Rebok et al., 2004).

Getting Serious

In 1999, EC began the Experience Corps Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial (EC Pilot Trial), with the introduction of the program in BCPSS schools located in the Greater Homewood neighborhood of Baltimore City. Three schools were randomly assigned to receive EC and three were selected to be on a waiting list. GHCC had been working for several years with these six schools within the GHCC area. COAH staff helped to design the eligibility requirements that were effective for both volunteers and schools and formalized the training curricula to ensure program fidelity. Recruitment of the volunteers utilized a social marketing framework in which the core product was marketed through generative messages such as “Share your Wisdom”(Martinez et al., 2006; Tan et al., 2010). Volunteers were trained in high-quality, standardized roles that were designed to address the highest priority unmet needs of the schools as identified by the school principals: literacy support, library support, and two conflict resolution programs (Rebok et al., 2004). In later stages of the “Courtship Model,” GHCC would increasingly assume a larger role in the training of the volunteers as the capacity of the community partner grew through the partnership.

The EC Pilot Trial was designed to introduce Experience Corps into Baltimore City to conduct preliminary evaluation of impact as well as to assess the feasibility of a more definitive study. Both parties supported the random assignment of volunteers to either immediate participation in EC or a wait list for EC positions, with all volunteers agreeing to participate in the research evaluations. As a result of GHCC’s concern over the community perception of randomization of schools, the initial plan for a 2-year follow up period would be modified, resulting in a 1-year waiting list for the control cohort. The EC Pilot Trial data showed evidence of potential for increased physical (by self-report) and brain activity (by functional MRI) in the older adults and improved academic and behavioral outcomes (standardized testing and principal reports) among the schoolchildren, which parlayed into future funding for both GHCC and COAH (Carlson et al., 2009; Frick et al., 2004; Fried et al., 2004, 2013; Glass et al., 2004; Rebok et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2009).

The partnership also allowed GHCC and COAH to share both internal and external resources. For example, a large local foundation did not fund research but was able to fund community nonprofit organizations and chose to fund EC through GHCC. In a similar fashion, COAH was able to be the initial AmeriCorps grantee because of existing federal grant management infrastructure. However, as GHCC capacity grew, its ability to manage federal grants would increase, which would necessitate shifting responsibilities in the partnership.

Commitment

As previously mentioned, the results of the EC Pilot Trial showed evidence of inceased physical and brain activity in the volunteers as compared to controls (Carlson et al., 2009; Fried et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2009). This evidence of health benefits for the older adult volunteers and the highly positive assessment by the six schools (Fried et al., 2004, 2013; Rebok et al., 2004) led to a commitment by GHCC and COAH to expand the program from 6 schools in the 2004–5 school year to 12 schools in the 2006–7, with an eventual expansion to 20 schools. This expansion, which was funded by BCPSS, the City of Baltimore, local foundations, and AmeriCorps, allowed COAH to conduct the BECT, an evaluation of the impact of EC for children, schools, and older adults (Fried et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2010). The EC expansion and BECT represented a major commitment to the GHCC–COAH partnership, as both partners were dependent on the other to meet significant commitments to external stakeholders. By this time GHCC’s capacity had increased so that it could be the AmeriCorps grantee; however, COAH would be responsible for recruiting study participants. BECT study participants were then randomly assigned to volunteer in the EC program or to usual low-intensity volunteer options, with placement on a 2-year waiting list for EC (Fried et al., 2013; Tan et al., 2010). This resulted in several delays in recruitment, along with a chronic struggle to meet the study recruitment goal of 700 randomized older adults. This in turn affected GHCC’s ability to meet the timely demands of stakeholders. For example, the BCPSS expected a critical mass of volunteers in the schools early enough in the academic year to prepare students for the state-wide achievement tests that occurred in March of each year. Recruitment for the BECT was one of the conflicts that would prompt a revision of the partnership governance structure.

In 2007, COAH and GHCC designed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two organizations to deal with EC governance (GHCC & JHU, 2007). MOUs have been described as being valuable in supporting CBPR. In CBPR, the “degree of trust that exists prior to the initiation of a research protocol may influence the extent to which roles and responsibilities need to be formally delineated and strictly followed, versus the degree to which accommodations and modifications can occur as the project ensues” (Ross et al., 2010, p. 2). In prior stages of the “Courtship Model,” GHCC and COAH were able to rely on the trust developed between the leadership of the partner organizations. However, a formal MOU was important at this stage as both partners had rapidly expanded operations and shifted some responsibilities that were critical to the success of the other partner. Old decision-making structures that relied on consensus were becoming outdated and needed to be re-examined. For example, the greater number of COAH researchers had meant that GHCC staff was consistently outnumbered at the meetings. The MOU also reflected GHCC’s increased institutional capacity, which had grown in part due to the partnership. The ability to make changes from within the partnership is often required to maintain partnerships at this stage of the “Courtship Model” (Kanter, 1994). This formalization of the decision-making process characterizes many partnerships in the “commitment phase” and is often necessary in the midst of occasionally competing missions among the partners and funders (Horowitz, Robinson, & Seifer, 2009; Metzler et al., 2003).

The MOU clearly defined the role of each partner and the goal of the partnership: COAH would retain responsibility for recruitment and research evaluation, whereas GHCC would assume responsibility for running the program as part of a planned transition that would lead to the sustainability of the program in the community. The MOU reflected the fact that the EC expansion and the BECT were funded through a patchwork of funding sources. NIA funds awarded to COAH were only available for older adult recruitment, data collection, and research evaluation. An AmeriCorps grant would support the EC member stipends but required nonfederal matching funds. The MOU acknowledged that in “a collaboration of two entities with joint goals, but with different missions and expectations, it is not unlikely that conflict might occur” (GHCC & JHU, 2007) and that these conflicts would have to be managed within the GHCC–COAH partnership. The implementation of the MOU provided the governance structure to negotiate these occasionally competing missions:

  1. “Issues purely programmatic in nature and unrelated to the research agenda will be dealt with by GHCC, but with appropriate information regarding such issues conveyed in a timely fashion to COAH.” This acknowledged that COAH would support the GHCC Board need to honor the legal contracts with the BCPSS, the City of Baltimore, and assorted funding agencies (GHCC & JHU, 2007).

  2. “Issues related exclusively to the impact evaluation will be handled within the framework of the policies and procedures established by the impact evaluation’s Steering Committee, but with appropriate information regarding such issues conveyed in a timely fashion to GHCC.” This recognized that EC would need to comply with relevant Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board (IRB) and NIA Data Safety Monitoring Board mandates (GHCC & JHU, 2007).

  3. Finally, the MOU created a process by which issues “involving the intersection of the impact evaluation and program operations” could be addressed (GHCC & JHU, 2007). The MOU formalized the authority of the role of a new EC Program Policy Board—a senior advisory committee on program matters of the GHCC Board of Directors. The Policy Board would serve as a counterpart to COAH leadership and would have equal weight on the EC Steering Committee, which was the primary coordination and decision-making body between the COAH and BECT.

CBPR projects with randomized designs can expe rience tension between the researchers’ commitments to evaluate causality and obtain valid results and the community partner’s primary commitment to provide rapid community impact (Krieger, Allen, Roberts, Ross, & Takarow, 2005; Ross et al., 2010). When the EC Steering Committee agreed to seek funding to conduct a RCT, a key challenge was randomization of schools. The initial BECT plan was to enroll schools randomly, as they had done in the EC Pilot Trial; however, the BCPSS wanted to expand EC into the schools with the greatest needs. The expansion of EC was further complicated by the political realities of continued city funding, which required a specific geographic distribution. Therefore, a longitudinal observational design, with selection of matched schools for comparison, was created by the COAH researchers so as to best approximate randomization in evaluating outcomes in the schools and children (Fried et al., 2013).

Throughout these stresses to the partnership, the mutual goals of implementation of service and determination of impact were consistently reaffirmed. There were many clear instances where the GHCC–COAH partnership was understood to be vital and of mutual benefit. This was demonstrated by GHCC participation in several meetings with NIA, reflecting a strong commitment to the academic–community partnership. GHCC participation was critical to gaining NIA grant funding for the BECT and critical for compliance with the NIA data safety monitoring board.

Leaving a Legacy

Leaving a legacy may be the most important product of a successful partnership (Linden, 2002). Partnerships are often formed when two parties need resources or capabilities that the other possesses. However, partners often develop or transfer these resources and capabilities in the form of technology transfer or social capital through the partnership process, making long-term partnerships inherently unnecessary or unstable (Inkpen & Paul, 1997). The transfer of skills and capacity building from the academic institution to the community partner represents an empowering process that is a key principle of community-based research (Hawe, Noort, King, & Jordens, 1997; Israel, Schulz, Parker, & Becker, 1998). With the completion of the randomized trial and the planned transfer of all programmatic responsibilities, the program will assume responsibility for recruitment for the program. However, although COAH will become independent of EC, there will continue to be opportunities for collaboration.

Scientific evidence of the impact of the EC model represents a legacy extending outside of the GHCC–COAH partnership (Carlson et al., 2008, 2009; Frick et al., 2004; Fried et al., 2004; Parisi et al., 2010; Tan et al., 2009). The expansion from 6 to 20 schools is partially a legacy of the success of the initial partnership that produced the evidence that EC participation increased physical, cognitive, and social activities in the EC volunteers, along with preliminary evidence of improved academic and behavioral performance in the children attending EC schools (Frick et al., 2004; Fried et al., 2004; Glass et al., 2004; Rebok et al., 2004). The BECT can serve as the scientific foundation for expansion of public health interventions based on older adult civic engagement (Tan et al., 2010).

Just as EC has become more independent of COAH, EC has formally separated from GHCC. With the subsequent expansions of the program, EC has expanded far beyond the traditional catchment area of GHCC. The Baltimore City Experience Corps program joined AARP in 2012 to become the AARP Experience Corps Baltimore City and now works directly with AARP’s national network of older Americans as a branch office. Just as the EC model is based on generative motives (i.e., to make a difference for the next generation; Fried et al., 2004; Tan et al., 2010), it is perhaps fitting that the most important legacy of the GHCC–COAH partnership—the Experience Corps program in Baltimore City—would eventually become so successful as to be independent of the two parent organizations.

Discussion

The implementation of EC demonstrates how academic–community partnerships struggle with the requirements of their respective stakeholders, and how different funding requirements can challenge the sustainability of a long-term partnership. For much of the relationship, roles, and responsibilities were flexible and partners were able to trust in shared long-term goals. As the GHCC–COAH partnership evolved through what we describe as the “Courtship Model,” the partners were able to leverage funds from their respective communities and invest in the capacity of the community partner. However, the very success of the partnership necessitated a more formal governance structure as the academic and community partners entered the “commitment stage” and became dependent on each other to meet commitments to their respective funders.

The MOU provided a formal structure by which two culturally different institutions could resolve conflicts over EC to their mutual benefit and retain their confidence in the partnership. Notably, although the skills required for community participatory work are well described, the methodology needed to develop and maintain these partnerships is often not taught in academic or public policy settings (Nyden, 2003; Parker, Margolis, Eng, & Henriquez-Roldan, 2003; Rosenthal et al., 2009; Wallerstein, Duran, Minkler, & Foley, 2005). Exposure to community nonprofits is often lacking in academic training programs. Similarly, community partners may not be sufficiently aware of the expertise, rigor, and safety responsibilities that accompany human research. Increased formal training and practical experience in crossing the academic–community divide could support the development of future successful academic–community partnerships (Dalal, Skeete, Yeo, Lucas, & Rosenthal, 2009; Navarro, Voetsch, Liburd, Giles, & Collins, 2007; Nyden, 2003; Rosenthal et al., 2009).

This analysis of the GHCC–COAH partnership has significant limitations. The courtship model was used to describe the evolution of the community-engaged research partnership retrospectively. It remains to be determined if this model could guide future academic–community partners in CBPR. Although the involvement of the principal actors in the partnership as coauthors provides essential data, histories are limited by personal memories, personal sensibilities, and political considerations. In the case of this report, when opinions differed, the authors attempted to achieve consensus. Prospectively, formal interviews of academic and community partners, with qualitative analyses by an independent researcher, would greatly benefit the literature, as would a comparative analysis of unsuccessful partnerships.

The GHCC–COAH partnership demonstrates how academic–community partnerships can serve as a research and development incubator for a social innovation. Although EC utilized an intergenerational model as a social marketing tool to engage older adults in a public health intervention (Tan et al., 2010), other models have been developed to engage community volunteers from a wide range of age groups in service activities from environmental stewardship to school engagement (Pillemer et al., 2010; Schreier et al., 2013). The creation of unified funding mechanisms would assist the formation of academic–community partnerships that could support social innovation through the design, implementation, and the research evaluation of community-based public health programs (Social Innovation Fund, 2013). Although differences in organizational culture were an important source of tension, much of the conflict was also due to the occasionally conflicting requirements of the funding sources. The “patchwork” of funding sources was due, in part, to the lack of a unified funding mechanism that could fund both community development and a rigorous scientific research and evaluation. The GHCC–COAH leadership navigated competing priorities of multiple funding sources through a MOU, which allowed the academic–community partnership to meet the needs of both stakeholder communities. Funding opportunities that combine programmatic and research evaluation dollars could support academic–community partnerships that could in turn develop national service models with evidence of impact.

Funding

Funding support for this manuscript was provided in part by National Institute on Aging (NIA contracts P01 AG027735, 3P01AG027735-03S2, and 3P01AG027735-02S3); the NIA Johns Hopkins Older Americans Independence Center (contract P30-AG02133); the NIA Women’s Health and Aging Study (contract R37-AG19905); and the John A. Hartford Foundation.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Greater Homewood Community Corporation, Experience Corps, the Baltimore City Public School System, the City of Baltimore, the Commission on Aging and Retirement Education, and the Harry and Janette Weinberg Foundation for ongoing vision and support. This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of Paul Willging, PhD, and his role in supporting and enhancing the GHCC–COAH partnership. This manuscript represents work done while Dr. Tan was at the Johns Hopkins Center on Aging and Health and Ms. McGill was at Greater Homewood Community Corporation. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the Corporation for National and Community or the United States Government.

References

  1. Carlson M. C., Erickson K. I., Kramer A. F., Voss M. W., Bolea N., Mielke M, et al. (2009). Evidence for neurocognitive plasticity in at-risk older adults: The experience corps program. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 64, M1275–M1282. 10.1093/gerona/glp117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carlson M. C., Saczynski J. S., Rebok G. W., Seeman T., Glass T. A., McGill S, et al. (2008). Exploring the effects of an “everyday” activity program on executive function and memory in older adults: Experience Corps. The Gerontologist, 48, 793–801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dalal M., Skeete R., Yeo H. L., Lucas G. I., Rosenthal M. S. (2009). A physician team’s experiences in community-based participatory research: Insights into effective group collaborations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(6 Suppl 1), S288–S291. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.163956 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Experience Corps® Baltimore (2008). Partners for livable communities Retrieved March 19, 2010, from http://www.livable.com/livability-resources/best-practices/252-experience-corpsr-baltimore
  5. Fairchild A. L., Rosner D., Colgrove J., Bayer R., Fried L. P. (2010). The EXODUS of public health. What history can tell us about the future. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 54–63. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.163956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Freedman M., Fried L. P. (1999). Launching Experience Corps: Findings from a two-year pilot project mobilizing older Americans to help inner-city elementary schools. Oakland, CA: Civic Ventures; [Google Scholar]
  7. Frick K. D., Carlson M. C., Glass T. A., McGill S., Rebok G. W., Simpson C, et al. (2004). Modeled cost-effectiveness of the Experience Corps Baltimore based on a pilot randomized trial. Journal of Urban Health, 81, 106–117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fried L. P., Carlson M. C., Freedman M., Frick K. D., Glass T. A., Hill J, et al. (2004). A social model for health promotion for an aging population: Initial evidence on the Experience Corps model. Journal of Urban Health, 81, 64–78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fried L. P., Carlson M. C., McGill S., Seeman T. E., Xue Q. L., Frick K, et al. (2013). Experience Corps: A dual trial to promote the health of older adults and children’s academic success. Contemporary Clinical Trials. Advance online publication. 10.1016/j.cct.2013.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. GHCC & JHU (2007). Memorandum of understanding between Greater Homewood Community Corporation and The Johns Hopkins University Center on Aging and Health. Baltimore, MD: GHCC & JHU; [Google Scholar]
  11. Glass T. A., Freedman M., Carlson M. C., Hill J., Frick K. D., Ialongo N, et al. (2004). Experience Corps: Design of an intergenerational program to boost social capital and promote the health of an aging society. Journal of Urban Health, 81, 94–105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawe P., Noort M., King L., Jordens C. (1997). Multiplying health gains: The critical role of capacity-building within health promotion programs. Health Policy (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 39, 29–42 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Horowitz C. R., Robinson M., Seifer S. (2009). Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: Are researchers prepared? Circulation, 119, 2633–2642. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.729863 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Inkpen A. C., Paul W. B. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22, 177–202 [Google Scholar]
  15. Israel B. A., Schulz A. J., Parker E. A., Becker A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kanter R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 96–108 [Google Scholar]
  17. Krieger J., Allen C. A., Roberts J. W., Ross L. C., Takarow T. K. (2005). What’s with the wheezing? In Israel B. A., Eng E., Schultz A. J., Parker E. A. (Eds.), Policy analysis and advocacy, in methods in community-based participatory research for health (pp. 230–250). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; [Google Scholar]
  18. Linden R. M. (2002). Working across boundaries. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; [Google Scholar]
  19. Martinez I. L., Frick K., Glass T. A., Carlson M., Tanner E., Ricks M., Fried L. P. (2006). Engaging older adults in high impact volunteering that enhances health: Recruitment and retention in The Experience Corps Baltimore. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 941–953 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Metzler M. M., Higgins D. L., Beeker C. G., Freudenberg N., Lantz P. M., Senturia K. D, et al. (2003). Addressing urban health in Detroit, New York City, and Seattle through community-based participatory research partnerships. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 803–811 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Navarro A. M., Voetsch K. P., Liburd L. C., Giles H. W., Collins J. L.; National Expert Panel on Community Health Promotion (2007). Charting the future of community health promotion: Recommendations from the National Expert Panel on Community Health Promotion. Preventing Chronic Disease, 4, A68 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Nyden P. (2003). Academic incentives for faculty participation in community-based participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 576–585 doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20350.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Parisi J. M., Rebok G. W., Fried L. P., Seeman T. E., Tan E. J., Carlson M. C, et al. (2010). Can the wisdom of aging be activated and make a difference societally? Educational Gerontology, 35, 867–879 doi:10.1080/03601270902782453 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Parker E., Margolis L. H., Eng E., Henriquez-Roldan C. (2003). Assessing the capacity of health departments to engage in community-based participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 472–476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pillemer K., Fuller-Rowell T. E., Reid M. C., Wells N. M. (2010). Environmental volunteering and health outcomes over a 20-year period. The Gerontologist, 50, 594–602. 1093/geront/gnq007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Poole D. L. (1995). Partnerships buffer and strengthen. Health and Social Work, 20, 2–5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rebok G. W., Carlson M. C., Glass T. A., McGill S., Hill J., Wasik B. A, et al. (2004). Short-term impact of Experience Corps participation on children and schools: Results from a pilot randomized trial. Journal of Urban Health, 81, 79–93 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosenthal M. S., Lucas G. I., Tinney B., Mangione C., Schuster M. A., Wells K, et al. (2009). Teaching community-based participatory research principles to physicians enrolled in a health services research fellowship. Academic Medicine, 84, 478–484. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819a89e8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ross L. F., Loup A., Nelson R. M., Botkin J. R., Kost R., Smith G. R., Gehlert S. (2010). The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5, 19–31 doi:10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Schreier H. M., Schonert-Reichl K. A., Chen E. (2013). Effect of volunteering on risk factors for cardiovascular disease in adolescents: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 167, 327–332. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.1100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Social Innovation Fund (2013). Corporation for National and Community Service Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/social-innovation-fund
  32. Tan E. J., Rebok G. W., Yu Q., Frangakis C. E., Carlson M. C., Wang T, et al. (2009). The long-term relationship between high-intensity volunteering and physical activity in older African American women. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 64, S304–S311 doi:10.1093/geronb/gbn023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Tan E. J., Tanner E. K., Seeman T. E., Xue Q. L., Rebok G. W., Frick K. D, et al. (2010). Marketing public health through older adult volunteering: Experience corps as a social marketing intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 727–734. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.169151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wallerstein N., Duran B., Minkler M., Foley K. (2005). Developing and maintaining partnerships with communities. In Israel B. A., Eng E., Schultz A. J., Parker E. A. (Eds.), Methods in community-based participatory research in health (pp. 27–51). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Gerontologist are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES