Table 2.

Factors Identified by the HCNI Team Members that Contributed to a Successful Community-Academic Partnership (CAP).

Strengths	Partnership Accomplishments
Characteristics of the Partners
Consistent and committed leadership with shared vision	Kept the study team focused on the needs of the community Helped community partners and residents navigate through some of the challenges of research from a community perspective.
Many of the original team members continue to partner, and there are generally several representatives from each agency/institution involved in the project	Maintained continuity Presented a consistent face to the community Depth of agency/institution involvement meant that leadership changes did not destabilize the partnership
Transparency about needs of the community	Kept the needs of the community foremost Used the strengths of the community to enhance partnership, study design, and data collection. Pursued extramural funding for future opportunities
Transparency about needs of academic partners	Addressed the needs of the academic partners Pursued extramural funding for future opportunities Supported publications and other deliverables for academic promotion
Transparency about the partnership	Maintained a high level of communication and copied team members who were not present so they do not feel excluded Agreed that information on working group activities would be shared with the larger group at a given periodicity Minimized small group conversations that can be destructive and bring to the entire group as soon as possible
Several individuals (both community and academic partners) had prior experience with (CBPR/CPPR*)	Created a more efficient process New or less experienced members mentored by community and academic members with more experience in CBPR/CPPR
Characteristics of the Partnership
Trust within partnership	Pre-existing partnerships grounded in trust helped study team work together with similar assumptions, which provided a foundation for a more committed partnership; Helped to navigate with balance between trust and skepticism
Peer Governance and Egalitarian Processes that were informed by group discussions, presentations by “resident” experts from community and academia, and invited presentations from other individuals when outside expertise was needed	Improved operations and reduced tensions and hierarchies Allowed team to make informed decisions regarding study design, protocols, data collection, and ethical issues within the study team
Built trust within the community	Strengthened community support of the project, enhanced participation of stakeholders, and facilitated honest feedback and engagement of community members
Emphasis on a non-deficit, asset based approach to working with community	Demonstrated respect and regard for community being served Synthesized information on community resources that could be shared with residents, local agencies, and academic institutions
Commitment to ethical behavior within the partnership	Developed an expectation of fair, equitable, and respectful treatment of and by all members of the partnership
Identified benchmarks and celebrated interim successes	Enhanced the engagement of individual participants in the process Highlighted achievements of individuals, organizations, and the HCNI team
In-kind funding from CAP despite initial limited funding	Staff time Space for project activities Project materials Administrative support Obtaining local funding to support the partnership
Recognition of mutual benefits	Recognized these needs also had relevance for community members whose employment prospects could be enhanced

^*CBPR/CPPR = Community-Based Participatory Research/Community-Partnered Participatory Research, a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings, to jointly explore answers to complex socio-medical questions. An emphasis on partnering with communities rather than possessing a location within the community to conduct research.