Accelerating community engagement opportunities for individuals with disabilities: building the case for community micro-grants

Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: a rapid systematic review

“…Pairs of community representatives and researchers scored applications. Score, project type, geographic region and potential impact considered in choosing awardees Reporting : 6-month progress report and 12-month final reports required Technical Assistance : Start-up meetings upon awardee selection, to address issues raised by review committee, orient funding processes, and potential collaboration with other awardees Training : Session to orient applicants to the Community Grants Program model and application review process Conferencing : Monthly calls between awardees and program staff Networking facilitation : Program staff connected awardees with similar projects 36 proposals received; 15 projects were funded Lessons learned: • Power imbalance between academic researchers and community organizations managed by giving organizations ability to choose projects and strategies, more information on academic finances Approaches to partnerships must be tailored to diverse needs to community organizations 3 projects were funded again through re-application for a grant Study design : Descriptive Quality rating : Not appraised Washington, 2022 [ 77 ] Program : No formal name Organization : National Center on Health Physical Activity and Disability Location : Birmingham, Alabama, USA Grant size : Max. $20 000 USD Framework : None Focus area : Health promotion (general) Eligible projects : Inclusive neighbourhood programs for people with disabilities and broader community Eligible recipients : Neighbourhood groups Dissemination : Promoted through organization’s website and social media, asked partners to promote to their networks Application : Description of planned program, plans to include people with disabilities, partnerships supporting implementation.…”

“…Most of the 35 programs were based in the USA ( n = 31, 89%), while the remaining programs were based in Canada [ 44 ], Australia [ 51 ], Ireland [ 58 ], and the Netherlands [ 68 ]. In terms of scope, two programs were available to community groups nationally, [ 44 , 71 ], while two-thirds of programs, n = 23 (66%) were offered across one or several states [ 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 54 – 57 , 59 – 63 , 65 , 69 , 72 , 74 – 76 , 78 , 79 ], and ten (29%) were available within local communities [ 47 , 50 , 53 , 58 , 64 , 66 , 68 , 70 , 73 , 77 ].…”

“…Community granting programs were designed to address broad or narrow scopes of community health priorities. Approximately two-thirds of programs ( n = 24, 69%) focused on a specific public health topic area, including physical activity and nutrition [ 44 , 45 , 51 , 59 , 68 , 74 , 77 ], cancer prevention [ 49 , 60 , 63 , 73 , 75 , 76 , 78 ], environmental health [ 50 , 57 , 66 , 70 ], HIV prevention [ 62 , 79 ], breastfeeding [ 52 ], diabetes education and prevention [ 54 ], mental health, trauma, safety and violence [ 55 ] and the built environment [ 69 ]. The remaining 11 (31%) programs were broader in their focus, and accepted proposals for any aspect of community health.…”

“…Technical assistance was provided to interested applicants to support application development by 14 (40%) programs. This includes seven programs that held virtual or in-person information sessions [ 61 , 63 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 78 ] and seven programs that made program staff available to provide support on an ad hoc basis [ 47 , 51 , 60 , 65 , 66 , 75 , 77 ]. For awardees, technical assistance supported all stages of project planning, implementation, and evaluation.…”

“…Studies noted that workshops often provided opportunities for program staff and awardees to connect, and for awardees to network and share learning. Workshops focused on topics to support application development and project implementation, including project planning [ 54 , 62 , 69 ], implementation [ 60 , 62 , 66 , 70 ], evaluation [ 48 , 53 , 54 , 62 , 66 ], dissemination [ 53 ], partnership development [ 53 , 72 ], community engagement [ 61 , 77 ], and budget development [ 66 ]. Two programs that required proposals based on research evidence provided workshops on finding, selecting and adapting evidence-based interventions [ 60 , 75 ], including a workshop based on the National Cancer Institute’s “Using what works” curriculum [ 75 ].…”