Empowering Immigrant Youth in Chicago

Abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach that engages community residents with a goal of influencing change in community health systems, programs, or policies. As such, CBPR is particularly relevant to historically marginalized communities that often have not directly benefited from the knowledge research produces. This article analyzes a youth empowerment program, Chicago's Youth Health Service Corps, from a CBPR perspective. The purpose of this work was (1) to discuss Youth Health Service Corps as a health promotion program, (2) examine the use of CBPR within the immigrant community, and (3) discuss preliminary findings using a model on critical youth empowerment.

Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review

“…Level of CE achieved was moderate in 15 studies (63%), out of which eight studies used CBPR ( 3 , 24 , 60 – 62 , 67 , 70 , 71 ), two studies used the CHW model ( 59 , 63 ), and the remaining five studies used one of the following models: the FOCUS model ( 72 ), ANGELO model ( 73 ), the community empowerment model ( 66 ), the participatory action cycle ( 65 ), and CPPR ( 4 ). The level of CE achieved was good in six studies (25%), four of which used CBPR ( 18 , 68 , 69 , 74 ), one used CPPR ( 75 ), and one used the CDC model ( 64 ).Three studies (12%) that used the community action cycle ( 76 ), youth development model ( 77 ), and Well London model ( 78 ) showed poor levels of CE, where the community was only informed or consulted. The extent of involvement of engagees in the research project was good in 17 studies (71%), out of which 12 were CBPR studies ( 3 , 18 , 24 , 60 – 62 , 67 – 71 , 74 ), two were CPPR studies ( 4 , 75 ), and three studies used the community empowerment model ( 66 ), the CDC model ( 64 ), and the CHW model ( 59 ).…”

“…Twelve studies (50%) evaluated the CE-informed intervention, out of which eight studies conducted process evaluations ( 3 , 18 , 62 , 68 , 70 – 72 , 78 ); three studies conducted formative, process, and outcome evaluations ( 59 , 66 , 67 ); and one study conducted an outcome evaluation only ( 74 ). Areas of CE commonalities in terms of effectiveness include conducting the research within the context of health issues of high perceived severity ( 3 , 4 , 18 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 71 , 76 ) and conducting needs assessments to identify barriers specific to each community ( 3 , 4 , 18 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 71 , 76 ) ( Supplementary Table 2 ).…”

“…Areas of CE commonalities in terms of effectiveness include conducting the research within the context of health issues of high perceived severity ( 3 , 4 , 18 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 71 , 76 ) and conducting needs assessments to identify barriers specific to each community ( 3 , 4 , 18 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 69 , 71 , 76 ) ( Supplementary Table 2 ). Despite several studies using CE to enable the cultural adaptation of survey instruments and the cultural appropriateness of the programme ( 4 , 18 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 68 , 69 ), only one study clearly demonstrated the cultural validity of the adapted programme ( 59 ).…”

“…Further, only two studies were able to demonstrate the positive impact of long-standing CE partnerships on study outcomes ( 67 , 69 ). Regarding the sustainable impacts of CE, seven studies were able to show that CBPR led to empowerment as a result of the capacity of advisory councils and community voices being heard ( 3 , 18 , 24 , 62 , 69 , 71 , 75 ), whereas six studies reported policy change as a CBPR outcome ( 18 , 24 , 68 – 70 , 74 ).…”

“…The majority of the studies (62%) used CBPR and CPPR to develop and implement the intervention, enable participant recruitment, coordinate data collection strategies, assist in the interpretation of results, and facilitate dissemination of findings ( 3 , 24 , 59 – 61 , 69 – 71 , 74 , 75 ). Evaluation of the CE processes used in the included articles showed that the following were the most frequently identified elements of programme success: a) establishment of community advisory councils ( 3 , 24 , 60 , 65 , 68 , 71 , 73 , 74 ) and collaborative partnerships ( 4 , 18 , 24 , 62 , 66 , 68 – 70 , 77 ) involving accountability of stakeholders towards all project activities; b) real power-sharing between the community and research team including bidirectional learning ( 3 , 18 , 24 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 68 , 71 , 75 ); c) formative research for programme development and mobilisation of appropriate community resources ( 3 , 59 , 67 , 70 – 73 ); d) community involvement in research design and integration of culturally competent elements with the programme, including translations ( 3 , 18 , 24 , 59 , 62 , 64 , 73 ); e) training and ongoing support of bicultural CHWs ( 3 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 67 ); and f) incorporating the voice and agency of indigenous and ethnic communities in the research protocol (…”