Methods for linking community views to measureable outcomes in a youth violence prevention program.

BACKGROUND: All parties in community-academic partnerships have a vested interest prevention program success. Markers of success that reflect community's experiences of programmatic prevention success are not always measurable, but critically speak to community-defined needs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this manuscript was to (1) describe our systematic process for linking locally relevant community views (community-defined indicators) to measurable outcomes in the context of a youth violence prevention program and (2) discuss lessons learned, next steps, and recommendations for others trying to replicate a similar process. METHODS: A research team composed of both academic and community researchers conducted a systematic process of matching community-defined indicators of youth violence prevention programmatic success to standardized youth survey items being administered in the course of a program evaluation. The research team of three community partners and five academic partners considered 43 community-defined indicators and 208 items from the youth surveys being utilized within the context of a community-based aggression prevention program. At the end of the matching process, 92 youth survey items were identified and agreed upon as potential matches to 11 of the community-defined indicators. CONCLUSIONS: We applied rigorous action steps to match community-defined indicators to survey data collected in the youth violence prevention intervention. We learned important lessons that inform recommendations for others interested in such endeavors. The process used to derive and assess community-defined indicators of success emphasized the principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and use of existing and available data to reduce participant burden.

Building community participatory research coalitions from the ground up: the Philadelphia area research community coalition.

BACKGROUND: A coalition of formal, large organizations and informal, grassroots organizations, recruited through an open process, contrasts with the usual practice of developing a community-based participatory research (CBPR) coalition with a small number of well-developed organizations. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the process, developmental challenges, and accomplishments of the Philadelphia Area Research Community Coalition (PARCC). METHODS: The University of Pennsylvania-Cheyney University of Pennsylvania EXPORT Center established the PARCC, an academic-community research partnership of twenty-two diverse organizations of variable size and with variable experience in health research. The EXPORT Center provided the infrastructure and staff support needed to engage in sustained, face-to-face community outreach and to nurture, coordinate, and facilitate the 2.5-year developmental process. The start-up process, governing principles, activities, challenges, and lessons learned are described. LESSONS LEARNED: Since its inception, PARCC established core work groups, a governance structure, operating principles, research training activities, community health education projects, and several PARCC-affiliated research projects. Organizations across the spectrum of developmental capacity were major contributors to PARCC. The success of PARCC was based on committed and trusted leadership, preexisting relationships, trust among members from the community and academia, research training, extensive time commitment of members to the coalition's work, and rapid development of work group activities. CONCLUSIONS: Building a CBPR coalition from the ground up involving organizations of diverse size and at various stages of development presents unique challenges that can be overcome with committed leadership, clear governance principles, and appropriate infrastructure. Engagement in community-based research during the early stages, while still developing trust, structure, and governance procedures can be accomplished as long as training of all partners is conducted and the trust building is not ignored.