Translating the Birmingham Neighborhood Leaders Survey into Innovative Action through the Community Health Innovation Awards

Abstract

<p class="Pa7">The Carnegie Foundation for the Advance­ment of Teaching describes community engagement as the collaboration between higher education institutions and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership. This article describes the de­velopment, implementation and outcomes of a community-engaged grant-making program, the Community Health Innova­tion Awards (CHIA). The CHIA program was the by-product of a qualitative study jointly led by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and neighborhood leaders from the surrounding communi­ties in Birmingham, AL. The competitive program provided funding to area organiza­tions that proposed creative solutions to on-the-ground health challenges. Since its inception, CHIA has awarded $356,500 to 26 innovative projects between 2012 and 2017. These awards have supported novel programs that have connected academic and community partners in addressing health disparities and improving overall community well-being in the greater Bir­mingham area. <em></em></p><p class="Pa7"><em>Ethn Dis. </em>2017;27(Suppl 1):313-320; doi:10.18865/ed.27.S1.313.</p>

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

“…Applications were reviewed by committee of faculty and community members Reporting : Awardees required to submit mid- and end-of-project reports, share results at a community meeting Not described 56 projects funded 2008–2018 In response to participant feedback: • Review committee expanded to include members of different races, • Application form standardized by adapting National Institutes of Health Research Grant Evaluation Rubric and review criteria, • Feedback was provided to applicants on applications that were not funded Program increased skills for awardees, such as evaluation, funding acquisition Nearly 20 projects resulted in ongoing research partnerships. Preliminary data from granted programs strengthen subsequent applications for additional funds Study design : Descriptive Quality rating : Not appraised Allen, 2017 [ 47 ] Program : Community Health Innovation Awards (CHIA) Organization : University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Location : Birmingham, Alabama, USA Grant size : Max. $25 000 USD Framework : Community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework Focus area : Public health (general) Eligible projects : Program conducted a survey of community members to identify a list of 12 neighbourhood concerns that could be addressed by proposed projects Eligible recipients : Neighborhood associations and non-profit organizations Dissemination : Calls for application circulated through mail and organization’s affiliated websites Application : Applicants first submitted a draft proposal.…”

“…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 ].…”

“…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 ]. Of the 19 community granting programs that cited a framework or model, 12 reported positive health, community or social outcomes and 11 reported on outcomes related to sustainability, such as securing additional funds, strengthened applications for additional funds, and partnerships (Table 1 ).…”

“…Ten (29%) programs were developed in partnership with academic or research institutions, offering grant funding for community participatory research projects [ 46 , 47 , 53 , 60 , 61 , 64 , 65 , 72 , 73 , 76 ]. Community projects funded by these programs were similar to other community granting programs but required ethics review and additional evaluation for research outcomes.…”

“…Granting programs implemented this requirement in different ways, defining evidence as either data for community needs or research-based interventions. Two programs required proposals to address priority needs for their communities, based on community-level data [ 47 , 50 ]. The Community Health Innovation Awards used a community survey to identify priority concerns and accepted project proposals that addressed these concerns [ 47 ].…”