Sustainability of Collaborative Capacity in Community Health Partnerships

Abstract

Sustainability is a key requirement for partnership success and a major challenge for such organizations. Despite the critical importance of sustainability to the success of community health partnerships and the many threats to sustainability, there is little evidence that would provide partnerships with clear guidance on long-term viability. This article attempts to (1) develop a conceptual model of sustainability in community health partnerships and (2) identify potential determinants of sustainability using comparative qualitative data from four partnerships from the Community Care Network (CCN) Demonstration Program. Based on a grounded theory examination of qualitative data from the CCN evaluation, the authors hypothesize that there are five primary attributes/ activities of partnerships leading to consequential value and eventually to sustainability of collaborative capacity. They include outcomes-based advocacy, vision-focus balance, systems orientation, infrastructure development, and community linkages. The context in which the partnership operates provides the conditions for determining the appropriateness and relative impact of each of the factors related to creating consequential value in the partnership.

Challenges and Facilitating Factors in Sustaining Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships: Lessons Learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centers

“…Sustainability has been discussed in the public health literature in terms of both partnerships, 30,32,33 and specific health programs or interventions. [34][35][36][37][38] Sustainability depends on numerous factors that impact the formation and maintenance of CBPR partnerships for which a considerable literature exists.…”

“…Numerous terms are used in referring to program continuation, for example, Binstitutionalization,[ Bsustainability,^Bincorporation,^Broutinization,^Bcommunity ownership,^and Bcapacity building.^3 8 Several conceptual models or approaches describe theoretical perspectives, partnership attributes, and contextual factors that contribute to sustainability. 30,38 For example, Shediac-Rizkallah and Bone 38 discuss three different perspectives regarding program sustainability: (1) maintaining the health benefits of a program over time; (2) institutionalizing a program or its components within an organization; and (3) building the capacity of the community involved. In an examination of the sustainability of community health partnerships, Alexander and colleagues 30 differentiate between sustaining a partnership as an organization, and sustaining the partnership_s values or its initiatives.…”

“…More often than not, this requires some level of funding and staff. 30,33,35,36,38 While the Detroit and New York Centers have sustained their partnerships as Centers, all three Centers have been able to sustain specific programs, relationships and capacity to conduct CBPR, and to a lesser extent policy changes. Each of the Centers has obtained subsequent funding for CBPR projects that built upon other projects sponsored by the URCs.…”

“…14,[16][17][18][19]21,22,[25][26][27][28][29] In contrast, issues related to the long-term sustainability of partnerships and activities have received limited attention. [30][31][32] The purpose of this article is to examine the experiences and lessons learned from three Urban Research Centers (URCs) in Detroit, New York City, and Seattle, which were initially established in 1995 with core support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The experience of these Centers after core funding ceased in 2003 provides a case study to identify the challenges and facilitating factors for sustaining partnerships and their activities.…”

Analyzing vulnerability and resilience of Turkey to climate change

“…The influence of self-awareness on the actions of leaders enables the leader to control his/her emotions in order to think and take actions based on facts rather than one driven by emotions, although sometimes the appropriate use of emotions could further make his followers to trust, believe in his mission and go all the way to achieve the leaders' vision (Ioannidou and Konstantikati, 2008). Above all, leadership approaches that are in tandem with systems thinking (Mumford et al, 2000), and engages all formal and informal stakeholders including staff and communities have been reported to create joint ownership and increase accountability (Alexander et al, 2001(Alexander et al, , 2003.…”