Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 162–177 | Cite as

Involving Local Health Departments in Community Health Partnerships: Evaluation Results from the Partnership for the Public’s Health Initiative

  • Allen Cheadle
  • Clarissa Hsu
  • Pamela M. Schwartz
  • David Pearson
  • Howard P. Greenwald
  • William L. Beery
  • George Flores
  • Maria Campbell Casey
Article

Abstract

Improving community health “from the ground up” entails a comprehensive ecological approach, deep involvement of community-based entities, and addressing social determinants of population health status. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General, and other authorities have called for public health to be an “inter-sector” enterprise, few models have surfaced that feature local health departments as a key part of the collaborative model for effecting community-level change. This paper presents evaluation findings and lessons learned from the Partnership for the Public’s Health (PPH), a comprehensive community initiative that featured a central role for local health departments with their community partners. Funded by The California Endowment, PPH provided technical and financial resources to 39 community partnerships in 14 local health department jurisdictions in California to promote community and health department capacity building and community-level policy and systems change designed to produce long-term improvements in population health. The evaluation used multiple data sources to create progress ratings for each partnership in five goal areas related to capacity building, community health improvement programs, and policy and systems change. Overall results were generally positive; in particular, of the 37 partnerships funded continuously throughout the 5 years of the initiative, between 25% and 40% were able to make a high level of progress in each of the Initiative’s five goal areas. Factors associated with partnership success were also identified by local evaluators. These results showed that health departments able to work effectively with community groups had strong, committed leaders who used creative financing mechanisms, inclusive planning processes, organizational changes, and open communication to promote collaboration with the communities they served.

Keywords

Community health partnerships Local public health departments Community-based health promotion Resident involvement Collaboration Social determinants of health 

References

  1. 1.
    The National Community Care Network Demonstration Program, (CCN). Hospital Research and Educational Trust; April 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheadle A, Senter S, Procello A, et al. The California wellness foundation’s health improvement initiative: evaluation findings and lessons learned. Am J Health Prom. 2005;19(4):286–296.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    California Endowment. Work in Health Initiative. January 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Colorado Trust. Partnerships for Health Initiative; 2005–2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wallerstein N. Power between evaluator and community research relationships within New Mexico’s healthier communities. Soc Sci Med. 1999;00:1–15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enhancing Community Capacity. California Healthy Cities and Communities Annual Conference, Center for Civic Partnership, San Diego, California; April 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Askari G, Freestone J, Irizarry C, et al. The healthy neighborhoods project: a local health department’s role in catalyzing community development. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25(2):146–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson LM, Scrimshaw SC, Fullilove MT, Fielding JE, and the Task Force on Community Preventative Services. The community guide’s model for linking the social environment to health. Am J Prev Med. 2003;24(3S):12–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alter C, Hage J. Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Educ Res. 1993;8:315–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chavis DM. The paradoxes and promise of community coalitions. Am J Comm Psych. 2001;29(2):309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lasker RD, Committee on Medicine and Public Health. Medicine and Public Health: The Power of Collaboration. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The National Association of County and City Health Officials. The Community Public Health System Improvement Plan: A Blueprint for Transformation. The Turning Point Initiative, sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The National Association of County and City Health Officials. A Strategic Approach to Community Health Improvement: MAPP Field Guide. National Association of City and County Health Officials; 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    COMMIT Research Group. Community intervention trial for smoking cessation (COMMIT): I. Cohort results from a four-year community intervention. Am J Pub Health. 1995;85(2):183–192.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagner EH, Wickizer TM, Cheadle A, et al. The community health promotion grants program in the West II: Changes in attitudes, environments and behaviors. Health Serv Res. 2000;35(3):561–589.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shortell SM, Zukoski AP, Alexander JA, et al. Evaluating partnerships for community health improvement: tracking the footprints. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2002;27(1):49–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mitchell SM, Shortell SM. The governance and management of effective community health partnerships: a typology for research, policy, and practice. Milbank Quarterly. 2000;78(1):241–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roussos TS, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Ann Rev Pub Health. 2000;21:369–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Metzler MM, Higgins DL, Beeker CG, et al. Addressing urban health in Detroit, New York City, and Seattle through community-based participatory research partnerships. Am J Pub Health. 2003;93:803–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Green L, Daniel M, Novick L. Partnerships and coalitions for community-based research. Pub Health Rep. 2001;116(supplement):20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galea S, Factor SH, Foley M, et al. Collaboration among community members, local health service providers, and researchers in an urban research center in Harlem, New York. Public Health Reports. 2001;116:530–539.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lasker R, Weiss ES. Broadening participation in community problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. J Urban Health. 2003;80(1):14–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Lantz P. Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Eval Program Plann. 2003;26:249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen Cheadle
    • 1
  • Clarissa Hsu
    • 2
  • Pamela M. Schwartz
    • 3
  • David Pearson
    • 2
  • Howard P. Greenwald
    • 4
  • William L. Beery
    • 2
  • George Flores
    • 5
  • Maria Campbell Casey
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Health ServicesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Center for Community Health and EvaluationSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and HospitalsOaklandUSA
  4. 4.School of Policy, Planning, and DevelopmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.The California EndowmentSan FranciscoUSA
  6. 6.Partnership for the Public’s HealthOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations