Health in Action: Evaluation of a Participatory Grant-Making Project in East Harlem

Abstract

Decision-making processes that include resident input have been shown to be effective in addressing community needs. However, few examples discuss the role of a local health department in leading a participatory decision-making process. In 2016, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene implemented a participatory grant-making process to allocate grant funds to community organizations in East Harlem. Findings from the evaluation suggest that a participatory grant-making process can be an effective way to include community member as decision makers. It can also build capacity among organizations and foster meaningful community engagement with a local health department.

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

“…Awardees presented findings at a program event Technical assistance : In-person and virtual sessions for potential applicants. Program staff provided ongoing guidance and oversight 12 proposals received; 3 projects were funded Facilitators : • Collaboration, communication and trust between program staff and awardees • Community engagement Barriers : • Competing priorities for community needs vs. research and evaluation processes Not described Study design : Descriptive Quality rating : Not appraised Nieves, 2020 [ 64 ] Program : Health in Action Project Organization : New York State Health Foundation and Mount Sinai Health System Location : East Harlem, New York, USA Grant size : $25 000 USD Framework : Health Department’s framework for community engagement Focus area : Health, public health and social issues (general) Eligible projects : Designed to improve community health Eligible recipients : Non-profit and community organizations Dissemination : Request for proposals shared with local non-profit and community organizations Application : Requirements not described. Panel of community members assessed proposals.…”

“…Approximately one-third of included studies were qualitative in design, ( n = 13, 37%), and explored program implementation from the perspectives of program staff and/or awardees through interviews or open-ended survey questions [ 44 , 45 , 53 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 64 , 66 , 68 , 69 , 71 , 73 , 75 ]. Qualitative analyses of responses identified facilitators, barriers and lessons learned in program implementation.…”

“…One article used a mixed methods design [ 69 ]; however, only the quantitative portion of the study was not relevant to this review and therefore the study was analysed and appraised as a qualitative study. Of the qualitative studies, four were rated as high quality [ 45 , 59 , 64 , 75 ], eight as moderate quality [ 44 , 53 , 56 , 58 , 66 , 68 , 71 , 73 ], and one as low quality [ 69 ]. Quality assessments are included in Supplemental Table A 2 c.…”

“…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 ].…”

“…There was little consistency, with 15 different frameworks cited across 19 programs. Three programs developed original frameworks or adapted frameworks to their contexts [ 48 , 54 , 64 ]. The Socioecological Model [ 80 ] was cited by four programs [ 50 – 52 , 74 ] and the Community-Based Participatory Research model [ 81 ] was cited twice [ 47 , 53 ].…”