| 1 |
The Long Beach HOPE project (Long Beach, California)—Health, opportunities, Problem‐solving, and empowerment project |
The partnership framed sexual harassment from a structural, social, and environmental viewpoint, instead of an individual one: “The personal is political” (Cheatham‐Rojas & Shen, 2003, p. 125). The solution was advocated in terms of student safety with a gender focus to meet the concern of local actors from schools. “Sexual harassment was thus framed as an issue of school safety for girls (…)” (Ibid, p. 130) |
Development of HOPE projects for Southeast Asian girls by the community organization (ACRJ) catalyzed the project (the Long Beach HOPE project was one of the two) |
Technical, professional skills in the ACRJ staff; Experience from the ACRJ staff in community organizing; Support for youth participation; Experiential knowledge from the HOPE members; Direction and action provided by youth in the community; Funding (e.g., stipend for participation; funding for project) |
District‐wide school policy changes including educational sessions provided at schools around sexual harassment, training to school interveners, improved grievance procedure to monitor and address incidents. This project has allowed to build capacities of the community partner. Khmer Girls in action, an independent community‐based organization, is an offshoot of this project. HOPE is now a vibrant community organization and plays an important role within the larger reproductive justice community |
|
| 2 |
The Latino Health for All Coalition (LHFA), (Kansas City, Kansas) |
Health was framed as a social and complex issue with multiple causes. The resulting program was developed around different levels of interventions, targeting different behaviors and their social determinants, and taking into account a shared Latino culture |
Earlier participatory work around chronic disease prevention in Kansas City and testing of the Health for All Model of action laid the groundwork. This project developed in the context of a specific funding program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
Experience from a previous academic–Community Partnership in Kansas City (Health for all model); Skills and knowledge from academic partners; Skills, knowledge of the local context from the community partner; Existing tools to build community capacity and to monitor and evaluate activity and communicate (Community Tool Box and the Action Tool Kit); Funding, including a grant from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health |
A variety of physical, social, and environmental changes have been achieved at the individual, family, organizational, and community levels. The changes include (for instance) the creation of community gardens, a new soccer program for youth, and an expanded health fair with screening for diabetes and referrals to safety‐net clinics. The Coalition has been sustained and they have continued to be funded |
|
| 3 |
West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP) (West Oakland, California) |
Diesel truck traffic was first framed as a safety and environmental justice health concern, but the problem was strategically framed as a health issue (instead of a traffic, or walkability one) when advocating for a solution (truck route ordinance) to local policy makers. “We could have said the truck route was about traffic. We could have said it was about walkability in the neighborhood. We could have said it was about a whole lot of things [but] we said it was about health” (Gonzalez et al., 2011, p. S169) |
An initial collaboration between the two partners laid the groundwork for a CBPR project. The collaboration's work drew attention from local media and the community. Then, the partnership received funding from the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Health Services |
Expertise, skills, and knowledge from the academic partner; Technical expertise from a consulting firm; Experiential knowledge from the community partner; Policy‐maker allies; Funding from many private foundations (Bank of America Foundation, Firedoll Foundation, Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., The San Francisco Foundation, and the Wells Fargo Foundation) |
Policy change, mainly a city ordinance for the implementation of a truck route in the neighborhood. There was also an increased community capacity to involve and train people in CBPR. Subsequently to the project, the partnership secured $22 million from the EPA to retrofit or replace old trucks and they significantly reduced pollution over a 5‐year period |
|
| 4 |
Food security in Round Valley Indian Reservation community (Northern California) |
Food insecurity was first framed as a racial, structural, and environmental issue. “[Community members] pointed out that the absence of Native‐owned stands at the weekly farmers' market as well as its location in a mostly white area of town made Native people feel unwelcome.” (Jernigan et al., 2012, p. 650). The racial justice angle, which was seen as an “overwhelming and somewhat abstract” issue (Ibid, p. 650), was evacuated to focus on more actionable factors. |
The project developed thanks to funding from different agencies and the process was led and facilitated by the principal investigator |
Knowledge and expertise from academic partners; Leadership, experience, knowledge, and credibility of community leaders; Funding for the project itself and for specific miniprojects from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation New Connections Active Living Research program, California Endowment, and California Department of Transportation |
Social, physical, environmental, and policy changes including the creation of a Producers' Guild, which foster an integrated community supported agriculture and commodity food program, the addition of Electronic Benefits Transfer machine at the local market, the introduction of culturally appropriate foods at the local market and inclusion of vegetables, fruits, and food for people with diabetes at the grocery store. After successfully addressing issues related to food insecurity, the coalition garnered broader engagement and conducted more formal training. The initial work of the coalition built capacity and provided synergy for additional work |
|
| 5 |
Partnership with the Healthy City Committee of New Castle (New Castle, Indiana) |
The health status (problem) of the community was framed in terms of deficit (compared to national goals and norms) to raise awareness. In this “conservative and anti‐regulatory” community (Minkler et al., 2006, p. 298), the solution was implemented in incremental changes, and advocated in terms of individual rights (“make the healthy choice the easy choice” (Ibid, p. 295)) instead of policy changes |
The pre‐existing community partner (Healthy City Committee of New Castle) had a mission of promoting the health of the city through multisectoral collaborations. A grant from the WK Kellogg Foundation funded the initial collaboration |
Knowledge and expertise from the academic partner; Experience, skills, and network from the community partner; Initial funding from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation |
Social, physical, environmental, and policy changes including a bill restricting indoor smoking in public places, an elaborated playground on City owned land, tree planting, and an initiative to develop a system of trails throughout the county |
|
| 6 |
Vietnamese REACH for Health Initiative (VRHI) Coalition, (Santa Clara County, California) |
Cervical cancer screening was conceived of as an individual, medical, and systemic issue, with multiple pathways of intervention. “The VRHI Coalition concluded that improvements in knowledge alone would be insufficient to address the barriers, particularly financial and cultural, to Pap testing in a sustainable manner.” (Nguyen et al., 2006, p. 36) “The Logic Model for the [Community Action Plan] was based on the Pathways Model, which posits that healthy behaviors occur after successful negotiations of complex pathways, each of which contain predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors.”(Ibid, p. 36) |
The pre‐existence of the community–academic research organization (VCHPP), which had a long history of collaboration with the community, laid the ground work for the project. The project took form thanks to a CDC planning grant |
Expertise, skills, and knowledge from the Academic partner; Credibility of the community–academic research partner, VCHPP; Experience of the local and cultural context, professional skills, networks, and media of the community partners; Knowledge and resources of community members (not only leaders but also staff and lay health workers) in partner organizations; Credibility of the community members that provided reach into the community; Local assets (existing ethnic media, pagodas, CBO); Media from the partners; Funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Asian American Network for Cancer Awareness, Research and Training, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Control |
Social, physical, environmental, and policy changes such as the restoration of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Control Program in a culturally appropriated site and the establishment of a weekly low‐cost Pap clinic staffed by a Vietnamese‐speaking female physician. The project also built capacity in the community to mobilize and bring about further changes and projects (focusing, for instance, on breast cancer screening, colorectal screening, and tobacco use) |
|
| 7 |
The Earth Crew project, Partnership between West Harlem Environmental Action (WE ACT) and Columbia University (West Harlem, New York) |
From the start, air pollution was framed as an environmental justice issue. “City‐wide benefit of public transportation services is Northern Manhattan's burden” (Vasquez et al., 2006, p. 103). One of the solutions carried out by the partnership involved initiating a legal complaint against a public agency, and the problem was reframed as a racial discrimination one. “Charging the MTA with siting diesel bus depots and parking lots disproportionately in minority neighborhoods in Northern Manhattan, WE ACT and its collaborators invoked Title VI's prohibition of racial discrimination (…)” (Ibid, p. 106) |
The existing partnership between the community (WE Act) and academic partners (Columbia University) facilitated the project |
Experience form previous background work between the two partners; Expertise, guidance, and knowledge from the academic partner; Expertise, local experience, and knowledge from the community partner in advocacy and community mobilization; Credibility of the partnership's research; Strong policy alliances; Medias; Funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) |
Policy change, mainly a substantial impact on the conversion of the Metropolitan Transport Authority bus fleet to clean diesel, the establishment, by the Environmental Protection Agency of permanent air monitoring in Harlem and other local and national “hot spots” and the development of an environmental justice policy at a state level. From this project, there was an empowered capacity in youth to address environmental justice issue in the neighborhood. WE ACT is still partnering with community‐based youth serving organizations, which helps them leverage resources and maximize their reach |
|
| 8 |
The Good Neighbor Program (Bayview Hunters Point, San Francisco, California) |
Formed thanks to the Tobacco Free Project, the partnership first framed food insecurity according to tobacco food subsidiary. Food insecurity was viewed as an environmental justice issue linked to the corporate dominance of the food system: “The relationship between health and the corporate dominance of the food system became an integral part of the LEJ partnership's problem definition and later policy intervention” (Vasquez et al., 2007). The solution advocated to local policy makers was strategically linked with the community improvement priority of the city. “The city‐based priorities of redevelopment and community violence also may have served as windows of opportunity to produce an ideal environment for opening the discussion about food insecurity and its connection to community improvement.” (Ibid, p. 346) |
Existing community organizing work around environmental pollution and participatory research initiatives in the community, laid the groundwork for the project. Moreover, there were some efforts from the municipality to prioritize redevelopment and address food insecurity through environmental justice programs. The community organization (LEJ) was created and supported by the health departmet with this aim |
Knowledge, technical expertise and assistance from the health department and evaluator partner; Networks, allies (policy makers) and experience of the health department with community actors; Funding from the San Francisco Department of Public Health's Tobacco Free Project; Four city departments contributing staff, resources, and incentives to manage and sustain the program |
Physical, social, environmental, and policy changes, including the implementation of the Good Neighbor Program, a voluntary community food security program fostering the availability of fresh and healthy foods at affordable prices in the neighborhood, and the development of a city‐ and foundation‐sponsored initiative to expand the program. This initiative laid the ground for other work in other parts of the city (e.g., Health Retail San Francisco in the Bayview and Tenderloin area of the city). In 2013, a legislation that created Healthy Retail San Francisco was introduced |
|
