A Funding Initiative for Community-Based Participatory Research: Lessons from the Harvard Catalyst Seed Grants

Abstract

Background The National Institutes of Health–funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) have increasingly focused on community-engaged research and funded investigators for community-based participatory research (CBPR). However, because CBPR is a collaborative process focused on community-identified research topics, the Harvard CTSA and its Community Advisory Board (CERAB) funded community partners through a CBPR initiative. Objectives We describe lessons learned from this seed grants initiative designed to stimulate community–academic CBPR partnerships. Methods The CBPR program of the Harvard CTSA and the CERAB developed this initiative and each round incorporated participant and advisory feedback toward program improvement. Lessons Learned Although this initiative facilitated relevant and innovative research, challenges included variable community research readiness, insufficient project time, and difficulties identifying investigators for new partnerships. Conclusion Seed grants can foster innovative CBPR projects. Similar initiatives should consider preliminary assessments of community research readiness as well as strategies for meaningful academic researcher engagement.

Lessons Learned from Three Models that Use Small Grants for Building Academic-Community Partnerships for Research

“…Tendulkar et al used a similar model to fund CBOs through seed grants with a focus on initiating partnerships between an academic program and local communities. 29 Academic partners provided technical assistance, research capacity-building trainings that covered Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and research ethics among other topics, and consultation to CBOs. Community-based organizations offered a view of research from the community perspective and access to participants.…”

A Model for Strengthening Collaborative Research Capacity

“…Research partnerships initiate from the alignment of goals and objectives between academic and community partners (Jagosh et al 2011; Allen et al, 2010; Tendulkar et al, 2011). Academic partners rely on community-based organizations to inform them of the culture and practices from their experience in the community to increase the relevancy of their work.…”

“…CBOs’ attitudes toward collaboration can also affect partnership outcomes and depend greatly on historical experiences with research. Mistrust of research intentions, difficulty in scheduling meetings, and researcher's lack of CBPR knowledge and experience has led some CBOs to form negative attitudes toward research (Tendulkar et al, 2011; MacPhee, 2009; Pivik and Goelman, 2011; Dobransky-Fasiska et al, 2009). An infrastructure which supports the partnership through technical assistance and training for both partners can be helpful in creating equality and positive attitudes toward collaboration (Braun, Tsark, Santos, Aitaoto & Chong, 2006).…”

“…Baker et al (1999) acknowledges that building this type of relationship takes much more effort than that of conducting traditional research. Setting realistic time expectations before the collaborative research begins helps to build and maintain mutual respect (Tendulkar et al, 2011). …”

“…Although the initiative funded ten research projects that contributed to cancer prevention, the interviews suggested that there was limited support including funding, time, and skill-building resources for sustained partnerships. Tendulkar et al (2011) used a seed grant model to fund CBO's participation in community-academic partnerships to prepare CBOs for submission of a larger pilot grant. Technical assistance (TA) and training were offered to facilitate pilot proposal preparation.…”