Building Capacity in Disadvantaged Communities: Development of the Community Advocacy and Leadership Program

Abstract

Background. Successful community groups have the capacity to mobilize community assets to address needs. Capacity building education is integral to building competent communities. Objectives. A community-university team developed and pilot tested an education program for community advocates from disadvantaged neighborhoods with high chronic disease burden. Methods. The Community Advocacy and Leadership Program (CALP) included eight monthly workshops, a mini-grant opportunity and technical assistance. A nominal group with community health practitioners, focus group with community advocates and a literature search comprised a triangulated educational needs assessment. A participating pretest with thirty-five community health practitioners guided curriculum refinement. Seven representatives from three community groups in a medically underserved South Carolina county participated in pilot implementation and evaluation. Qualitative and quantitative data informed the process and impact evaluation. Conclusions. The mean knowledge score at one month post-program was 77% (range=52% to 96%). The mean score on post-program self-assessment of skills improvement was 3.8 out of a possible 4.0 (range=3.6 to 4.0). Two groups submitted successful community mini-grant applications for playground improvements, and the third group successfully advocated for public funding of neighborhood park improvements. Participants reported favorable impressions and both personal and community benefits from participation. A community-university partnership successfully conducted a local educational needs assessment and developed and pilot-tested a capacity development program within a CBPR partnership. Successes, challenges and lessons learned will guide program refinement, replication and dissemination.

Measuring Community‐Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review

“…We identified 43 measures that evaluate the outcome or impact of engaged research or the intended effects of community engagement (see Figure 1). Although a number of measures ask open‐ended questions about the benefits and challenges of participating in engaged research, 20,44,73 others more formally assess the perceived benefits of engaged research through survey methods in order to elicit reported impacts and costs within each academic‐community partnership 51‐53,58 . Often, this involves asking stakeholders directly about their satisfaction with the partnership 52,53 …”

A systematic scoping review of asset-based approaches to promote health in communities: development of a framework

“…Eighteen interventions targeted people living in communities as a whole, with fewer interventions directed at specific populations within the communities. Although the majority of the interventions were explicitly underpinned by the ABCD model or the asset model (6,15), some papers made reference to other approaches as also informing the intervention design, including community-based participatory research (42,47,53); positive youth development (30,36,41); community engagement (33,44); participatory research approaches (22,45,57); peer support models (49); socio-ecological model (,36,42,44); or social capital theory (31) (Supplemental Table 1). In the majority of the interventions, the assets identified were individuals and their skills, or existing organisations, and only three included elements of the physical environment (44,54,58).…”

“…Approach A refers to programmes in which existing people and organisations recognise each other as assets and connect together to work or share resources. Examples included developing new partnerships (22,29,32,36,37,40,(43)(44)(45)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55).…”

The first line of prevention: A public health nursing advocacy video

“…Further, a distinct difference exists between the altruistic nature of advocacy, which is integral to nursing, and policy advocacy or “knowledge‐based action intended to improve health by influencing system‐level decisions” (Spenceley et al., 2006, p. 184). Essential to policy advocacy is educating, engaging with, and building the civic capacity of community members and stakeholders who are directly affected by an issue (Sharpe et al., 2015). Despite the importance of advocacy by nurses, nurses' expertise in health policy has been invisible across health media platforms.…”