This study explores organizational and contextual factors impacting coalition functioning across 15 community-researcher coalitions. A mixed methods approach was administered across three time points to assess factors associated with coalition development.. Results indicate benefits and barriers to members’ participation; importance of a clear vision, mission and goals; clear member roles; and impact of historical collaborative efforts. Current findings specified factors in three primary areas that influenced coalition development and sustainability: relationships, infrastructure and processes, and context/environment.

Purpose Hispanic/Latino adolescents and young adults are disproportionately impacted by the HIV/AIDS epidemic; yet, little is known about the best strategies to increase HIV testing in this group. Network-based approaches are feasible and acceptable means for screening at-risk adults for HIV infection, but it is unknown whether these approaches are appropriate for at-risk young Hispanics/Latinos. Thus, we compared an alternative venue-based testing (AVT) strategy with a social and sexual network referral (SSNIT) strategy. Methods All participants were Hispanics/Latinos, aged 13–24 years with self-reported HIV risk; they were recruited from 11 cities in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, and completed an audio computer-assisted self-interview and underwent HIV screening. Results 1,596 participants (94.5% of those approached) were enrolled: 784 (49.1%) through AVT and 812 (50.9%) through SSNIT. HIV infection was identified in three SSNIT (0.37%) and four AVT (0.51%) participants (p=0.7213). Conclusions Despite high levels of HIV risk, a low prevalence of HIV infection was identified with no differences by recruitment strategy. We found overwhelming support for the acceptability and feasibility of AVT and SSNIT for engaging and screening at-risk young Hispanics/Latinos. Further research is needed to better understand how to strategically implement such strategies to improve identification of undiagnosed HIV infection.

Coalitions provide the potential for merging the power, influence, and resources of fragmented individuals and institutions into one collective group that can more effectively focus its efforts on a specific community health issue. Connect to Protect® coalitions devote resources to address the HIV epidemic at a structural level. This research examines differential challenges in coalition processes that may facilitate/hinder coalition building to achieve HIV prevention through structural change. Qualitative interviews conducted with community partners participating across 10 coalitions were analyzed to compare responses of those individuals working on HIV prevention coalitions targeting adolescent and young adult gay and bisexual men versus those targeting adolescent and young adult heterosexual women. Community partner responses revealed differences across several key areas including: a) acceptability and goals in discussing sexual issues with adolescents, b) goals of sexual health promotion activities, and c) competition among collaborating agencies. Themes highlighted in this research can complement existing community intervention literature by helping community mobilizers, interventionists, and researchers understand how cultural norms affect youth-specific coalition work.

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goals in this project were two-fold:. Develop metrics that assessed community engagement support the center provides, and. Systematically document the fluid and time-intensive nature of providing community engaged research support, as well as key outcomes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CCH utilized REDCap software in combination with Excel, to create and implement a data collection system to monitor and report on the full spectrum of engagement activities offered by the center. Center staff collaborated in identifying relevant metrics, developing the data collection instruments, and beta-testing instruments with real examples. This facilitated the integration of contextual factors (defined as factors such as the history, size, and diversity of the community, the organizational mission, the structure and size of the CE team, the number of years a university has been supporting community-engaged research work, etc.). Taking a collaborative approach in developing the center’s evaluation plan offered the added benefit of facilitating staff/faculty buy-in, building staff capacity, and engaging the team in understanding concepts related to performance measurement versus management. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Key benefits of these engagement tracking systems include: consolidating data into a central location, standardizing tracking processes and critical definitions, and supporting more automated reporting systems (e.g., dashboards) that facilitate quality improvement and highlight success stories. Data were compiled and reported via on-line dashboard (REDCap and Tableau) to help center leadership and staff analyze:. Quality improvement issues (How quickly are we responding to a request for support? Are we providing resources that meet the needs of community partners? Academics? Community-academic partnerships?);. Qualitative process analysis (In what research phase are we typically receiving requests for support (e.g. proposal development phase, implementation phase, etc.)? What types of projects are applying for seed grants? After the seed grant ends, are the community-academic partnerships continuing to partner on research activities?);. Outcomes (Are new partnerships stemming from our support? Are supported research projects leading to new policies, practices, programs?). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: There is a gap in the literature regarding meaningful, actionable, and feasible community engaged metrics that capture critical processes and outcomes. This project identified many more relevant metrics and demonstrates that it is worthwhile to take a collaborative, inclusive approach to identifying, tracking, and reporting on key process and outcome metrics in order to convey a more comprehensive picture of community engagement activities and to inform continuous improvement efforts. Community engagement centers across CTSIs offer a similar range of programs and services. At the same time, much of the community-engaged research literature describes metrics related to community-acad...

No abstract