PRC/MI Reverse Site Visit

499 views
445 views

Published on

Describes the PRC/MI activities and accomplishments from 2004-2009

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
499
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Our story… story of growth, maturation and expansion. If we use this slide as the overview of the tree analogy, do we need to change the lessons learned slides in some way?? Use more of the colorful images?
  • No outline on photos. Use the drop shadow rectangle under format drop down.
  • -change titles to black Need new photos --?> Anna can help find photos. -one photo can be logo --one of the prc office (susan’s suggestion) --
  • -change titles to black Need new photos --?> Anna can help find photos. -one photo can be logo --one of the prc office (susan’s suggestion) --
  • Use logos for different offices… Group logos into 3 groups: Office of Public Health Practice, uM med school, etc.
  • Add images in same style of virtual tour. of UM Flint logo, white building (health professions building), plus one other flint campus photo
  • Org chart Arb picture Yes staff
  • PRC/MI partners????
  • Policies
  • Mrs. D. Community board – images of people, partners
  • Ward
  • The GCHD by its nature as a local public health department is uniquely positioned to assure the sustained partnership between the university and the CBOs.  The GCHD isn’t the ivory tower like the university, but part of our nature leans that way and we do have staff with “bench” expertise.  On the other hand, we are of/by/for the community, and in that respect have a natural affinity with the CBOs.  We kind of have a foot in both camps, so to speak, and can and have acted as broker between the university and the community. Also, having the GCHD at the PRC table facilitates the inclusion of other essential local institutional partners such as health systems and schools on PRC projects.
  • Our relationship with the PRC has opened so many doors for the GCHD to interact with UM/UMSPH outside of direct PRC channels.  This has greatly strengthened our LHD and has helped us cultivate a productive relationship with universities in the context of universities being a local public health system (LPHS) partner. The same is of course true with respect to Genesee County CBOs.  Our relationship with the PRC has opened so many doors for the GCHD to interact with our own community and our CBOs, again, greatly strengthening our department and enabling us to cultivate productive relationships with our CBOs as local public health system partners. We also need LPHS partners who value the local health department.  Through the PRC/MI, university and CBO partners have come to know and value the GCHD.
  • We also need LPHS partners who value the local health department.  Through the PRC/MI, university and CBO partners have come to know and value the GCHD. I think the GCHD has also helped the university, for example when Tom Reischl needed access to birth certificate records from the state for research data and couldn’t obtain approval on his own, the GCHD acted as the liaison with the state. The example of partnership the PRC/MI displays between CBOs/LHD/UMSPH is very much noticed by other communities and specifically other LHDs.  They recognize the value and want in on the bandwagon. We have certainly learned that we cannot take the relationships between the PRC/MI partners for granted.  We have to pay attention to the health of the relationships and the processes if we want good projects and good product.  Unfortunately, it is a challenge to quantify this kind of intangible and communicate its importance to our funder!  I would add further that despite the time and often pain that is involved in tending to the relationships, we’re still willing.
  • Insert all logos all state partners … inserted logos
  • Small images of various projects Yes image, Men 4 health, Your blessed health PIR
  • Improvement to local economy
  • National Involvement
  • Needs some formatting … formatted line spacing
  • Needs some formatting … formatted line spacing
  • Needs some formatting … formatted line spacing
  • Evaluation Core of PRC/MI Goal : To improve public health through rational discourse and democratic deliberation. Community-Based Participatory Strategy : Engaging community partners and other stakeholders in planning, implementing, interpreting, and disseminating evaluation research.
  • Activities of the Evaluation Core: Internal Evaluation Studies: Periodic review of how we operate as a network of partnerships Evaluation Services: PRC faculty and research staff providing evaluation research consultation and contractual services for core and affiliated projects. Evaluation Training: Workshops, seminars, collaborative evaluations, teachable moments – providing our partners with the knowledge and skills to work effectively with evaluation researchers and to conduct their own evaluation studies.
  • Every 2 or 3 years, we engage our partners in an systematic effort to review our progress as a PRC. Interviews and surveys of PRC board members, lead faculty, and administrative staff. Discussions of evaluation results to review progress toward our goals and to redefine our goals. Logic models have been very useful for defining the scope of the internal evaluations and the goals of our center.
  • The logic model for the 2003 renewal proposal for the 2004-2009 funding period. The model looks similar to the National PRC Logic Model at that time but highlights the resources and activities that are unique to our center. Our internal evaluation studies have focused on PRC Resources [left side of the figure] – the strength of our partnerships and how effectively we identify, expand, and mobilize our resources and capacities. The work of our community and state boards is to review our activities and outputs [center of the figure]. We have used specific project outcome studies, the Speak to Your Health! Community Survey, and other epidemiological data to monitor our progress on outcomes [right side of the figure].
  • I want to share with you how the internal evaluation of our community board focused our discussion about our future goals. The range of activities in Genesee County expanded during the past five-year funding period. The center’s core projects increased the engagement of community partners in the development of their capacity to conduct prevention research activities AND to conduct the Speak to Your Health! Community Survey efforts in 2005, 2007, and 2009. We also expanded the number of focused prevention research studies within Genesee County in the areas of: Maternal and child health (REACH, Friendly Access) Child and adolescent development (Fathers & Sons, YVPC, YES, FAS, Motherly Intercession) Healthy lifestyles (environmental approaches) In 2005, we conducted a survey study of all PRC community board members and key PRC faculty and staff and learned that different constituencies (CBOs, Health Dept., Health Service Sector, and University) had disparate views about our goals and our accomplishments. To create more consensus about goals, the Community Board decided to initiate a planning process guided by the focused study of an ad hoc “Futures Committee.” The Futures Cte had four members – one from each of the different constituencies represented on the community board. The report of Futures Committee made recommendations regarding the goals, the partnerships, board structures and processes, and leadership of the PRC/MI. Discussions of the committee’s report guided the development of the 2008 renewal application.
  • Our center has increased its capacity to conduct program evaluation studies of community-based public health initiatives. Our state and community partners value the university partner’s skills to design and implement program evaluation studies and they often ask us to help them conduct evaluations of their efforts. Many RFAs that state and community partners pursue require evaluation research—our center offers evaluation services to meet these requirements. Some recent examples: REACH 2010 focuses on reducing disparities in perinatal health and infant mortality in Genesee County, Michigan, through multi-faceted community based intervention strategies. (Dan Kruger, lead faculty) Your Blessed Health reduce HIV among youth by building capacity of Faith Institutions and Leaders to carry out programs and change norms within churches. (Derek Griffin, lead faculty) Motherly Intercession: This translational research project will locally tailor and implement the evidence-based Strengthening Families Program (SFP) to meet the needs of 5- to 11-year old children with incarcerated mothers. (Allison Miller, lead faculty)
  • With the help of our community partners, PRC/MI designed and taught 3-day workshop titled, “Conducting Useful Program Evaluations” This course has been taught many times since by a variety of faculty associated with one of our university partners, the Michigan Public Health Training Center. Our “Partners in Research” project trains community and university personnel on how to work effectively in partnerships, including partnering on evaluation studies. Our evaluation faculty have also provided consultation services to ongoing projects such as helping projects develop their own logic models and evaluation plans. We also value all of our collaborative projects as opportunities to learn from each other.
  • Lesson 1: Evaluating a program can be a risky undertaking. The search for quality may reveal the lack of quality. Evaluation evokes systematic and critical analysis – a form of persuasive power. There can be winners and there can be losers. Lesson 2: Effective evaluations require a great deal of trust and trustworthy action. Lesson 3: We have come to understand the need to invite all stakeholders to share this persuasive power – that evaluations must be collaborative and steeped in democratic values and processes. Lesson 4: Evaluations should not be controlled only by those conducting the evaluations or those paying for the evaluations. Evaluations should be responsive to the interests of all stakeholders. Lesson 5: Fundamental to these democratic values is the need for rational deliberation and critical discourse about evaluation research methods. Lesson 6: There is a need for all stakeholders to understand the strengths and limitations of evaluation research, to recognize the how evaluation studies vary in terms of their validity and their certainty. Lesson 7: Evaluation studies must be directly useful to stakeholders, to help them make decisions about how to address or solve important problems.
  • 2 areas of communication
  • Header slide
  • Screenshots of Findings, health briefs, annual reports
  • Publications Presentations Book chapters Tech reports
  • Part the PRC/MI’s mission is to “create and foster knowledge resulting in more effective public health programs and policies.” Public health programs cannot be most effective without taking into account community resources, deficits, local institutions, social and environmental conditions, and political climate. This is why we are constantly expanding our own knowledge and providing training and educational opportunities for the students and the numerous and varied partners we collaborate with to carry out our prevention research projects. Training and education are critical components of the PRC/MI and integrated into nearly everything we do.   This presentation will provide a brief introduction to the types of training activities we sponsor and collaborate on, the participants in our training and education activities, a few examples of some of our training activities, and lessons we have learned in the past 5 years.
  • Although do formal workshops, series of workshops, and academic courses (ranging from a hour to a semester), more training/education experiential. “Really getting feet wet and seeing how things work in real world” Experiential opportunities: on-the-job education for students; through collaboration on research projects for partners; Technical assistance on topics spanning virtually every aspects of developing, funding, carrying out, evaluating, and disseminating prevention research projects AND the effective functioning of a Center for Prevention research Mentoring (and not just students!)
  • Conduct training for diverse groups of people PRC/MI faculty and staff, including career development of Junior Faculty and post-docs Community partners: CBOs especially, with Capacity Building project this Fiscal Period Institutional Partners in Genesee County, on State Board, and others Academic colleagues Representatives of communities and community organizations nationwide, through the leadership of our CBO partners in the of the PRC’s National Community Committee and other nationwide groups advocating for and supporting the involvement of community organizations in research Participants directly or indirectly involved in our intervention projects (community members, representatives of community organizations and institutions, academics, youth) In some cases, projects involve training components explicitly designed for our funding agencies (e.g. Eval of Ruth Mott Foundation beautification initiative, cross-site evaluation for MDCH, Michigan Steps Up Youth Summit, Jackson Cty Community Survey?) Students: undergraduates through PhD students (more on students in next slide) 
  • Students, accurate through July 14, 2009) (all in handout in packet) PRC/MI provides opportunities for students: research assistantships during the academic year paid summer internships (at PRC/MI office in SPH and at our partners' organizations) to use data collected as part of PRC/MI activities/projects for masters & PhD dissertations bridge employment (after graduation and prior to commencement of next academic/work opportunity) experience working for a federally-funded Prevention Research Center including exposure to a broad range of: Center activities (administration, Community and State Boards, grant-writing, communications, etc.) Projects (2 core projects, plus approximately 33 other projects associated with the PRC/MI) Partners: community-based organizations, institutional, state, and academic Diverse research and intervention methods, including CBPR workshops; on-the-job training; academic and career mentoring; to participate as contributing authors on academic and community presentations and publications # students (total 89): 23 undergraduates SPH 49 masters levels HBHE 12 PhD HMP 5 post-doctoral students Schools/Departments derive from: SPH (HBHE, HMP, Epid, EHS) SW, Psych, Urban Planning, Nursing, Pre-med, Nutrition, GIS, Business, Anthropology, Education, Info Systems, Athletic training, Military Science, Communications, & Undecided undergrads     PRC/MI collaborates with existing student education/internship programs: Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program (UROP) MedSOAR Ruth Mott Health Scholars program UM-SPH Summer Enrichment Program Summer Research Opportunities Program (SROP) Center for Research on Ethnicity, Culture and Health (CRECH) UM-SPH Courses with Community Involvement components   Post-PRC/MI lives:   Continue to pursue education (finish undergrad work, start masters work, start PhD) Work in research and practice: fellowships-CDC, NIH, RWJF, ASPH faculty positions PH project managers in academia, non-profits, and other institutions Health Departments Hospitals Health Insurance Companies Peace Corp Policy work (in politics, advocacy groups, policy making orgs) at local, state, national, and international levels
  • Qualitative Research We have received a lot of inquires among our group and from others on how to carry out rigorous, informative qualitative research projects. We have provided workshop, TA and experiential opportunities for skill development in the following areas Project design Conducting focus group and in-depth interviews Interview guide development Qualitative software management Several approaches to qualitative data analysis, including codebook development, member checking, triangulation of data Reporting and dissemination Quantitative Research Geographic Information Systems (mapping)
  • Community Context: Genesee Cty and Flint, MI Share information about Genesee Cty and Flint with our students, colleagues, and other partners Presentations at the local Health Dept. on health profile of county and the Health Dept.’s activities Driving tours of Flint narrated by one of our community partners Middle Passage workshops, which try to convey experience of Africans being transported on slave ships and forced into slavery in the US, and the ramifications of this history on the current health of African Americans Undoing Racism workshops, also addressing more institutional aspects of racism and their affect on the current health of African Americans PIR activities
  • Experiential learning opportunities often work best Student research assistants are invaluable Expertise of PRC/MI faculty, staff & partners is diverse, highly valued, and sought out CBPR training is a priority for us
  • Experiential learning opportunities often work best Student research assistants are invaluable Expertise of PRC/MI faculty, staff & partners is diverse, highly valued, and sought out CBPR training is a priority for us
  • Experiential learning opportunities often work best Student research assistants are invaluable Expertise of PRC/MI faculty, staff & partners is diverse, highly valued, and sought out CBPR training is a priority for us
  • Experiential learning opportunities often work best Student research assistants are invaluable Expertise of PRC/MI faculty, staff & partners is diverse, highly valued, and sought out CBPR training is a priority for us
  • Over the years recognized that our partnerships, especially those with our community partners in Genesee Cty, were one of our most important assets and played a critical role in helping us to develop effective, culturally and contextually appropriate intervention research projects that were successful at engaging and mobilizing community members. More we collaborate together, more we recognize benefits of indigenous knowledge and intervention approaches. The persistence and pervasiveness of racial disparities, in particular, and the complexity of social determinants of health disparities highlight the need to develop ecologically specific, historically conscious, culturally sensitive interventions that may be less conventional than previously used and scientifically tested approaches, which often do not translate well into different settings, especially among African Americans The input and expertise of our CBO partners enables us to do this. They know their communities and community members in a way that our academic and institutional partners perhaps never can. By combining their community expertise with our research and evaluation experience, we can test, refine, and disseminate effective intervention research and fulfill one of our Center’s ultimate objectives of reducing racial health disparities. As began developing ‘04-’09 PRC renewal proposal, however, we realized that the differing capacity levels among our partners inhibited the PRC/MI from reaching its full potential. Our CBO partners, in particular, were limited in their capacity to contribute to the Center and our projects. (IMAGE: large & organized structure represents institutional partners; small and less stable = CBO partners).
  • Three prong approach: 1. Strengthening the CBOs, individually & collectively, to be more independent & viable; 2. Enhancing the CBOs’ capacity to reduce health disparities; 3. Increasing the CBOs' active & substantive involvement in the PRC/MI partnership & research projects.
  • Mrs. Deloney We often use the stool analogy to describe the inequities within our partnership. Only strong if all legs are of equal length and strength. If one leg is weak, the stool will be unstable and may fall over.
  • Our CBO partners tended to be small, grassroots service organizations that were created by Flint residents in order to address the their own and their neighbors’ unmet needs. Compared to the other institutional partners within the PRC/MI, our CBOs tended to have: Far less human resources & time to devote to the partnership less organizational stability & constant concerns about org sustainability less access to people with influence & resources less research skills, knowledge, & jargon less power and influence in the partnership (infrequently functioned as lead organization for projects, less able to contribute to research designs, not accustomed to more academic style of dissemination….) Periodic PRC/MI process evals discussed earlier captured this. Showed some progress over the years, but differential levels of involvement, power, and influence remained prominent. For first time, made an explicit effort to build the capacity of our partners so they could function as more equal partners in the PRC/MI and so the PRC/MI could more closely follow the CBPR tenets within our mission statement: Community Capacity Building to Reduce Health Disparities, one of two core projects for 04-09 funding period Realized it would be a challenge because of the diversity of CBOs—their missions, populations of focus, differential levels of current capacity, differing goals for project held among different partners, expectations and timelines of funder
  • Project involved members of all the constituency groups on the CB (UM AA and Flint, GCHD, Greater Flint Health Coalition, CBOs), including the leadership of all 6 CBO organization members on CB. From beginning, dedicated to being a cbpr project and following principals of CBPR UM-SPH and Commun co-chairs-joint leadership and responsibility for addressing admin aspects of project Org Empowerment Theory useful theoretical framework for examining and building the skills and resources to increase the capacity of CBOs to influence community residents' health status and social determinants of health. focuses attention on the structures and practices of organizations at 3 levels: internal structure and function of each organization--foundation for org to engage in behaviors necessary for community change. linkages and relations between organizations (in this case PRC/MI partnership)—necessary for accessing/sharing/mobilizing resources, skills, credibility, and networks influence on community, locally and nationally—when internal and interorganizational capacity contribute to community change promoting health (Griffith, Allen, Zimmerman, Morrel-Samuels, Reischl, Cohen, & Campbell, 2008;Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004)
  • Logic model (in packet of materials in case want to examine more closely) benefit project-direction, clarity-but also felt enhanced capacity to talk with researchers and show to funders what doing and make case for funding
  • Some formal workshops but more experiential training opportunities and TA Needs assessment at beginning of project (part of eval) to determine areas group collectively needed capacity building most and topics periodically on agenda so can be responsive to changing needs Workshops-grant writing, survey question development, using survey data for project planning or grant writing, logic models, making effective presentations, applying for grants TA-Developing and managing budgets; budget negotiation with funders; grant writing and management; project development & expansion; creating workplans; project evaluation; working with various types of data; increasing proficiency with theory; creating effective marketing campaigns; Experiential learning opportunities as collaborated together on this project & became a support group for each other in individual, joint & PRC research and intervention projects Grant planning, writing, and strategizing Project planning and management (Cap Bldg, other PRC projects, indiv orgs’ projects) Leadership, assertiveness, communication, making selves heard Problem/conflict and relationship negotiation, resolution, and enhancement (esp within PRC) Writing materials related to interventions, research, dissemination Carrying out a truly authentic CBPR project (both challenges and rewards), sharing experiences with partners and others Visibility: conference abstract writing, presentation prep, and giving presentations; collab on academic writing; participation in other PRC dissemination activities; involvement nationally in promoting CBO participation in research Collaboration between CBOs on projects, between CBOs and other partners, between CBOs and other academics connected to through networks of other partners cohesiveness of CBOs on CB; building of CBOP $-each participating CBO received each year to build their orgs’ infrastructure and finance training and administrative support. workplans & final reports annually to document Spent one yr collaborating with Community Survey Committee and doing some work independently to enhance CBO partners’ engagement, involvement, input, use of survey Eval project, next slide.
  • Triangulation with a # of data sources for eval since challenging project to eval: 1) with potential to have outcomes at 3 levels of Organizational Empowerment individual org level, within the PRC partnership, and in the community and beyond 2) over course of project realized a lot of unanticipated outcomes. Organizational capacity assessment Baseline and follow-up (in August 09) tool examining each CBO’s capacity in the areas of: Leadership, Adaptability, Management, Operations, Involving the Community, their Boards, & Funders Track CBO involvement in PRC/MI Center and projects: Leadership roles in projects and on CB; CB attendance; Grants contributed to writing & carrying out Authorship on papers and presentations Track CBO partners’ own activities Changes in programs (size, direction, new development) Grants submitted and awarded Development of other written materials (e.g., annual reports) Leadership roles and recognition outside of PRC/MI Functioning and activities of CBOP PRC/MI Community Board process evaluations: used questions examining power, influence, growth, capacity to participate in Center activities, and attitudes about research and researchers to track change In-depth interviews at project mid-point to: capture accomplishments /challenges of first 3 years; identify what worked well and what could be improved; facilitate ongoing dialogue about future goals and objectives Conducted with CBOs leaders; other actively involved partners; and partners not directly involved but believed to have insight on the processes and outcomes of the project Review of archival documentation: Minutes reports to the CB Annual work plans/final reports on use of funding received as part of the project Changes in CBO annual budgets over time (size, diversity of funders)
  • 3 areas of Organizational Empowerment
  • Human Resources, Financial Status, and Infrastructure Enhanced Leadership skill development Staff training Board development More funding & more diversified funding sources Federal indirect rates Funding for administrative & infrastructure support Leadership/staff developed skills in: Work plans Logic models Use of statistics Evaluation Grant writing Access to more resources, expertise, referrals Outreach
  • Although building CBO partners’ capacity = focus of project, other institutional partners with capacity built as well: Expand experience, skills, and staff training in CBPR partnership development, skills in collaborating with community representatives better Effective dissemination of our research to community audiences Collaborative writing Faculty/staff/students benefit from some of workshops Capacity Building sponsored
  • CBO partners able to remain in the partnership providing meaningful contributions Increased engagement of community partners in all PRC/MI projects & activities Improved structures (handbook) for collaborating together effectively CBOs with more voice on Community Board CBO with more leadership positions—CBO as co-PI core Healthy Sexuality project, co-directors of different teams within next grant cycle CBOs better at saying “no,” articulating needs; prevent issues of overwork, unmet expectations Other partners better at recognizing CBO contributions and challenges Led to airing of dissatisfaction & discussions about trust & conflicts Cap Bldg meetings = Forum for honest discussion – conflicts revealed and dealt with Also improved relationships between some partners As result of more open discussions about these issues Improved communication about research (survey development; data collection models; evaluation; research jargon & concepts) More & better collaboration between partners Better products; enrich all our work PRC/MI able to do things could not without support & involvement of other partners
  • CBOs able to maintain/expand services Use PRC/MI data to understand needs within community and develop own programs Bridging the community - academia/funders gap to bring more research projects that are relevant and useful into community and accompanying dollars that provide support to local orgs and businesses Share experiences, expertise, and lessons learned locally and nationally with: opportunities to network and present at conferences as authors on academic publications Especially creating and disseminating a model for authentic CBPR projects AND the growth and maintenance of effective community-academic partnerships collaborating on prevention research Increase visibility, influence, and cohesiveness of CBOs collaborating with universities and other institutions through involvement & leadership in national orgs promoting CBO involvement in prevention research Share expertise and knowledge more broadly by getting involved in other research projects with UM and other U faculty using connections thru PRC, thus providing more community input and hopefully, help make research more culturally, contextually and appropriate and useful to the community ( e.g. Genomics) FACED in ACTS of Wellness REACH Next slide describe 2 examples of projects outcomes affecting the community in greater detail.
  • YOUR Blessed Health While many interventions originate from evidence-based literature and academic researchers, YBH is an intervention that originated from YOUR Center, a CBO partner in the Capacity Building project. The goal of YBH is to increase the capacity of faith-based institutions and faith leaders to more effectively address HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted infections in youth, and change the norms of churches related to sexual health. YOUR Center has secured pilot and expansion funding to carry out this project, which has been recognized locally and nationally for its efforts. Although YOUR Blessed Health likely would have occurred regardless of the YOUR Center's participation in the PRC/MI Capacity Building Project, the intervention was enhanced by the project: the input and collaboration of the Capacity Building partners enhanced YOUR Center's ability to bring the project idea to fruition Collaborated with 2 CBOs and GCHD, all involved in Capacity Building project, on carrying out components of intervention UM-SPH partners provided/providing technical assistance and consultation on where to seek funding, evaluation design, data analysis, and proposal and report writing, strategic planning for future of YBH. UM-SPH partners also were able to help the YOUR Center successfully argue why it required the level of funding requested for the expanded project (6x pilot budget), despite the foundation staff’s recommendations for a much smaller budget while expecting the YOUR Center to fulfill the activities and outcomes of the original expansion grant proposal. In addition to pilot and expansion funding for YBH, YOUR Center has increased its annual budget significantly over the past few years through other grants/significant roles in collaborative grants (community-PI positions), which suggests internal capacity built to compete for and carry out additional intervention and research projects. Also lots of opportunities to share successes with project nationally and lots of interest, potential to provide TA and training to other orgs interested in carrying out similar interventions elsewhere in the country Community Survey Collective and collaborative work of Capacity Building and Community Survey Committees led to: value among CBO partners improved dramatically compared to earlier iteration of survey improved quality of survey; Included more questions CBO partners recognized as relevant to community that perhaps institutional partners unaware of (e.g., incarceration and faith&health questions) increased use among community partners…project and grant development, modification of current services, and raise awareness in community more widely disseminated in community
  • PRC/MI Reverse Site Visit

    1. 1. 2005-2009 maturing relationships, expanding partnerships Prevention Research Center of Michigan
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations and Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Communications and Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Education </li></ul><ul><li>Core Research </li></ul>
    3. 3. Agenda <ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations and Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Communications and Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Education </li></ul><ul><li>Core Research </li></ul>
    4. 4. Agenda <ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations and Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Communications and Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Education </li></ul><ul><li>Core Research </li></ul>
    5. 5. Agenda <ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations and Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Communications and Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Education </li></ul><ul><li>Core Research </li></ul>
    6. 6. Agenda <ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations and Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Communications and Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Education </li></ul><ul><li>Core Research </li></ul>
    7. 7. Agenda <ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations and Partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Communications and Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Training and Education </li></ul><ul><li>Core Research </li></ul>
    8. 8. growth maturation expansion
    9. 9. Infrastructure
    10. 10. School of Public Health University of Michigan
    11. 11. School of Public Health Health Behavior and Health Education
    12. 12. Prevention Research Center Health Behavior and Health Education
    13. 13. Institutional Partnerships Prevention Research Center
    14. 14. UM Flint
    15. 15. PRC/MI faculty, staff and students PRC/MI staff in Flint
    16. 16. Lessons Learned
    17. 17. <ul><li>Dedicated positions </li></ul><ul><li>Physical home </li></ul><ul><li>Local presence </li></ul><ul><li>Interdisciplinary collaboration </li></ul>
    18. 18. <ul><li>Dedicated positions </li></ul><ul><li>Physical home </li></ul><ul><li>Local presence </li></ul><ul><li>Interdisciplinary collaboration </li></ul>
    19. 19. <ul><li>Dedicated positions </li></ul><ul><li>Physical home </li></ul><ul><li>Local presence </li></ul><ul><li>Interdisciplinary collaboration </li></ul>
    20. 20. <ul><li>Dedicated positions </li></ul><ul><li>Physical home </li></ul><ul><li>Local presence </li></ul><ul><li>Interdisciplinary collaboration </li></ul>
    21. 21. Collaborations & Partnerships
    22. 22. History of Community Partnership
    23. 23. Dort-Oak Park Neighborhood House Flint Odyssey Awareness Center Faith Access to Community Economic Development Flint/Genesee County Neighborhood Roundtable Genesee County Health Department Genesee County Community Action Resource Center YOUR Center Greater Flint Health Coalition University of Michigan School of Public Health University of Michigan - Flint Community Board Partners
    24. 25. mission <ul><li>to create and foster knowledge resulting in more effective public health programs and policies . The Center conducts community-based prevention research to improve health and prevent disease, especially focused on populations with a disproportionate share of poor health outcomes . </li></ul>
    25. 26. National Community Committee
    26. 27. Health Department Partnership
    27. 28. <ul><li>Uniquely positioned </li></ul><ul><li>Bench expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Of/by/for the community </li></ul>
    28. 29. Increased capacity <ul><li>Monitoring health status </li></ul><ul><li>Inform educate </li></ul><ul><li>Mobilize community </li></ul><ul><li>Develop policies </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul>
    29. 30. New Community Health Analyst position
    30. 31. New relationships
    31. 32. Recognition of value <ul><li>Among CBOs </li></ul><ul><li>University </li></ul><ul><li>Other communities and health departments </li></ul>
    32. 33. State Partnerships
    33. 34. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Michigan Association of Health Plans Michigan Association of Local Health Michigan Council for Maternal Child Health Michigan League for Human Services Michigan Public Health Association Michigan State Medical Society Registered Nurses Association of Michigan United Auto Workers University of Michigan – School of Public Health State Board Partners Michigan Osteopathic Association Michigan Primary Care Association Michigan Public Health Institute
    34. 38. Significant Accomplishments
    35. 39. Projects
    36. 40. Improved local economy
    37. 41. Data
    38. 42. National involvement
    39. 43. Lessons Learned
    40. 44. <ul><li>Sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Clear transparent continuous communication </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional policies </li></ul>
    41. 45. <ul><li>Sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Clear transparent continuous communication </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional policies </li></ul>
    42. 46. <ul><li>Sustainability </li></ul><ul><li>Clear transparent continuous communication </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional policies </li></ul>
    43. 47. Questions?
    44. 48. Evaluation
    45. 49. <ul><li>Internal Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Services </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Training </li></ul>
    46. 50. <ul><li>Internal Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Interviews and surveys </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion and Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Logic Models </li></ul>
    47. 51. <ul><li>Conceptual Framework for PRC / MI (2004) </li></ul>OUTCOMES INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS <ul><li>Activity Products </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention documents </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination documents </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum documents </li></ul><ul><li>Policy & assurance projects </li></ul><ul><li>New initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>New proposals </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention Research </li></ul><ul><li>Community capacity building to reduce health disparities (proposed) </li></ul><ul><li>Fathers & Sons intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Youth Violence Prevention Center </li></ul><ul><li>REACH 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Healthy lifestyles </li></ul><ul><li>Affiliated projects </li></ul>National, Regional, or Local Funding and Health Priorities <ul><li>PRC Infrastructure & Capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Core expertise, diversity, sensitivity </li></ul><ul><li>Facilities & information technology </li></ul><ul><li>Communication capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Management capacity </li></ul><ul><li>Social Capital </li></ul><ul><li>Relationships among: </li></ul><ul><li>Community-based organizations </li></ul><ul><li>State/local health departments, coalitions, professional assoc. </li></ul><ul><li>University faculty, staff, students </li></ul><ul><li>Affiliated research & training centers </li></ul><ul><li>Other PRCs, CDC </li></ul>Conditions for Developing and Maintaining Relationships (shared history, trust, respect, formal agreements) State Board Community Board <ul><li>Dissemination & Training </li></ul><ul><li>Fathers & Sons dissemination (proposed) </li></ul><ul><li>Ruth Mott health careers </li></ul><ul><li>Public health interns & fellows </li></ul><ul><li>Michigan Public Health Training Center </li></ul>Engage PRC Partners & Establish Research Agenda <ul><li>Policy & Assurance </li></ul><ul><li>State policy liaison (proposed) </li></ul><ul><li>Photovoice </li></ul><ul><li>Friendly access </li></ul><ul><li>Safety net services study </li></ul><ul><li>Surveillance Research </li></ul><ul><li>Speak to Your Health! community survey & qualitative assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Alcohol & crash study </li></ul>Evaluation of PRC Processes and Outcomes Improved Community and Population Health and Elimination of Health Disparities Enhanced State & Community Capacity for Prevention Widespread Use of Effective Programs and Policies Skilled Public Health Professionals Engagement & Planning Events, Documents & Partnerships Training Events & Trained Individuals <ul><li>Research Products </li></ul><ul><li>Publications </li></ul><ul><li>Presentations </li></ul><ul><li>Reports </li></ul><ul><li>Media reports </li></ul>Enhanced Knowledge of Effective Practice & Policy Increased Recognition of and Expanded Resources for PRC Activities Feedback Feedback Contextual Conditions (e.g., health services and service gaps, socioeconomic conditions, racism) PRC Resources
    48. 52. <ul><li>Community Board Process Evaluation </li></ul>
    49. 53. <ul><li>Logic Model for PRC / MI (2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Public Health Practice Products </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention documents </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination documents </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum documents </li></ul><ul><li>Policy documents </li></ul><ul><li>Media reports </li></ul><ul><li>New initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>New proposals </li></ul>National, Regional, or Local Funding and Health Priorities <ul><li>PRC/MI Resources & Capacities </li></ul><ul><li>Core expertise, diversity, sensitivity </li></ul><ul><li>Facilities & information technology </li></ul><ul><li>Communication & management capacity </li></ul><ul><li>CBPR & PH practice experience </li></ul><ul><li>Social Capital </li></ul><ul><li>Relationships among: </li></ul><ul><li>Community-based organizations </li></ul><ul><li>State/local health departments, coalitions, professional assoc. </li></ul><ul><li>University faculty, staff, students </li></ul><ul><li>Affiliated research & training centers </li></ul><ul><li>Other PRCs, CDC </li></ul>Conditions for Developing and Maintaining Relationships (history, trust, respect, formal agreements) State Board MDCH MALPH Med. Assns. Policy Orgs. Payer Orgs. Community Board CBOs Health Dept. GFHC <ul><li>Communications & Dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Peer reviewed publications </li></ul><ul><li>Technical reports </li></ul><ul><li>Community reports & health briefs </li></ul><ul><li>Policy development & implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive websites </li></ul><ul><li>Training & Technical Assistance </li></ul><ul><li>Public health interns & fellows </li></ul><ul><li>Public health practice trainings </li></ul><ul><li>Community education events </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation training & TA </li></ul>OUTCOMES Improved Community and Population Health and Elimination of Health Disparities Enhanced Skill & Capacity for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS Engagement & Planning Events, Documents & Partnerships Training Events & Trained Individuals <ul><li>Research Products </li></ul><ul><li>Publications </li></ul><ul><li>Presentations </li></ul><ul><li>Reports </li></ul>Translation of Research to Practice & Policy Increased Recognition & Support for Prevention Research Feedback Feedback Contextual Conditions (e.g., health services and service gaps, socioeconomic conditions, racism) UM SPH HBHE Biostatistics Epidemiology UM SI UM Flint SHPS CDC PRC Program Office Support Widespread Use of Evidence-Based Programs & Policies Expanded Resources for Prevention Research & Practice <ul><li>Prevention Research </li></ul><ul><li>Core Research: Healthy Sexuality Study </li></ul><ul><li>Healthy adolescent studies </li></ul><ul><li>Infant mortality studies </li></ul><ul><li>Community development studies </li></ul>Engage PRC Partners & Establish Research Agenda <ul><li>Evaluation & Surveillance </li></ul><ul><li>Process evaluation studies </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome evaluation studies </li></ul><ul><li>Community survey studies </li></ul><ul><li>Community health indicator studies </li></ul>
    50. 54. <ul><li>REACH 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Your Blessed Health </li></ul><ul><li>Motherly Intercession </li></ul>Evaluation Services
    51. 55. Evaluation Training <ul><li>Workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Consultations </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborations </li></ul>
    52. 56. Lessons Learned
    53. 57. <ul><li>Power </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Utility </li></ul>
    54. 58. <ul><li>Power </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Utility </li></ul>
    55. 59. <ul><li>Power </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Utility </li></ul>
    56. 60. <ul><li>Power </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Utility </li></ul>
    57. 61. <ul><li>Power </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Utility </li></ul>
    58. 62. <ul><li>Power </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Utility </li></ul>
    59. 63. <ul><li>Power </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Deliberation </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul><ul><li>Utility </li></ul>
    60. 64. Questions?
    61. 65. Communications and Dissemination
    62. 67. Internal Communications <ul><li>Board meetings </li></ul><ul><li>Teleconferencing </li></ul><ul><li>Electronic Communications </li></ul><ul><li>New media </li></ul>
    63. 68. External Communications
    64. 69. <ul><li>Press releases </li></ul><ul><li>Media spots </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For the Community </li></ul></ul>
    65. 70. <ul><li>Community Presentations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For the Community </li></ul></ul>
    66. 71. <ul><li>Findings Magazine </li></ul><ul><li>Health Briefs </li></ul><ul><li>PRC Annual Reports </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For the Community </li></ul></ul>
    67. 72. <ul><li>Publications </li></ul><ul><li>Presentations </li></ul><ul><li>Book chapters </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Reports </li></ul>For Academic Researchers
    68. 74. Lessons Learned
    69. 75. <ul><li>Designated staff </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple methods </li></ul><ul><li>Involvement of partners </li></ul>
    70. 76. <ul><li>Designated staff </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple methods </li></ul><ul><li>Involvement of partners </li></ul>
    71. 77. <ul><li>Designated staff </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple methods </li></ul><ul><li>Involvement of partners </li></ul>
    72. 78. Training and Education
    73. 79. Types of Training <ul><li>Workshops and courses </li></ul><ul><li>Experiential learning </li></ul><ul><li>Technical assistance </li></ul><ul><li>Mentoring </li></ul>
    74. 80. Participants <ul><li>PRC/MI staff and faculty </li></ul><ul><li>Community partners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>locally and nationally </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Institutional partners </li></ul><ul><li>Academic colleagues </li></ul><ul><li>Project participants </li></ul><ul><li>Grant sponsors </li></ul><ul><li>Students </li></ul>
    75. 81. Students
    76. 82. Research Methods Training
    77. 83. Community Awareness
    78. 84. Partners in research
    79. 85. Lessons Learned
    80. 86. <ul><li>Experiential learning </li></ul><ul><li>Student engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Foundations of CBPR </li></ul>
    81. 87. <ul><li>Experiential learning </li></ul><ul><li>Student engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Foundations of CBPR </li></ul>
    82. 88. <ul><li>Experiential learning </li></ul><ul><li>Student engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Foundations of CBPR </li></ul>
    83. 89. <ul><li>Experiential learning </li></ul><ul><li>Student engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Foundations of CBPR </li></ul>
    84. 90. Questions
    85. 91. Core Research
    86. 92. CBO Capacity Building to Reduce Health Disparities
    87. 93. <ul><ul><li>To determine if building the capacity of PRC/MI CBO partners could be an effective strategy for enhancing collaborative research to reduce racial health disparities among PRC/MI partners. </li></ul></ul>
    88. 95. Health System & Providers Health Department & Other Institutions Community-Based Organizations Academia
    89. 96. <ul><li>All partner groups participated </li></ul><ul><li>CBPR </li></ul><ul><li>UM-SPH & community co-chairs </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational Empowerment Theory </li></ul>Foundation
    90. 98. CBO Needs Assessment Workshops Technical Assistance Experiential Learning Network & Collaborate Financial Support Addressing Partnership Issues Evaluation Increasing CBOs’ Visibility Community Survey Model of CBPR Activities
    91. 99. Evaluation
    92. 100. Outcomes
    93. 101. Outcomes
    94. 102. Outcomes Other Partners
    95. 103. Outcomes
    96. 104. Outcomes
    97. 105. Outcomes Community Survey YOUR Blessed Health
    98. 106. Questions?

    ×