Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Active involved community partnerships: co-creating implementation infrastructure for getting to and sustaining social impact

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Active involved community partnerships (AICPs) are essential to co-create implementation infrastructure and translate evidence into real-world practice. Across varied forms, AICPs cultivate community and tribal members as agents of change, blending research and organizational knowledge with relationships, context, culture, and local wisdom. Unlike selective engagement, AICPs enable active involvement of partners in the ongoing process of implementation and sustainability. This includes defining the problem, developing solutions, detecting practice changes, aligning organizational supports, and nurturing shared responsibility, accountability, and ownership for implementation. This paper builds on previously established active implementation and scaling functions by outlining key AICP functions to close the research-practice gap. Part of a federal initiative, California Partners for Permanency (CAPP) integrated AICP functions for implementation and system change to reduce disproportionality and disparities in long-term foster care. This paper outlines their experience defining and embedding five AICP functions: (1) relationship-building; (2) addressing system barriers; (3) establishing culturally relevant supports and services; (4) meaningful involvement in implementation; and (5) ongoing communication and feedback for continuous improvement. Planning for social impact requires the integration of AICP with other active implementation and scaling functions. Through concrete examples, authors bring multilevel AICP roles to life and discuss implications for implementation research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Fig 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Balas, E. A., & Boren, S. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In J. Bemmel & A. T. McCray (Eds.), Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2000: Patient-Centered Systems (pp. 65–70). Stuttgart: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Green, L. W. (2008). Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where’s the practice-based evidence? Fam Pract, 25, 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rangachari, P., Rissing, P., & Rethemeyer, K. (2013). Awareness of evidence-based practices alone does not translate to implementation: insights from implementation research. Qual Manag Health Care, 22, 117–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Trochim, W., Kane, C., Graham, M. J., & Pincus, H. A. (2011). Evaluating translational research: a process marker model. Clin Transl Sci, 4, 153–162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F. 2005 Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network; .

  6. Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Except Child Win, 79, 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q, 82, 581–629.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Graham, P. W., Kim, M. M., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., et al. (2016). What is the role of culture, diversity, and community engagement in transdisciplinary translational science? Transl Behav Med, 6, 115–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Firesheets, E. K., Francis, M., Barnum, A., & Rolf, L. (2012). Community-based prevention support: using the interactive systems framework to facilitate grassroots evidenced-based substance abuse prevention. Am J Community Psychol, 50, 347–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gregory, H., Van Orden, O., Jordan, L., et al. (2012). New directions in capacity building: incorporating cultural competence into the interactive systems framework. Am J Community Psychol, 50, 321–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guerra, N. G., & Knox, L. (2008). How culture impacts the dissemination and implementation of innovation: a case study of the families and schools together program (fast) for prevention violence with immigrant Latino youth. Am J Community Psychol, 41, 304–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: a synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. Am J Community Psychol, 50, 462.480.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012). Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med, 43, 337–350.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Chambers, D. A., & Azrin, S. T. (2013). Research and services partnerships: partnership: a fundamental component of dissemination and implementation research. Psychiatr Serv, 64, 509–511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health, 38, 4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Glasgow, R. E., Cynthia Vinson, M., Chambers, D., Khoury, M. J., Kaplan, R. M., & Hunter, C. (2012). National institutes of health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. Am J Public Health, 102.

  17. Powell, B. J., McMillen, J. C., Proctor, E. K., et al. (2012). A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Med Care Res Rev, 69, 123–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fawcett, S. B., Boothroyd, R., Schultz, J. A., Francisco, V. T., Carson, V., & Bremby, R. (2003). Building capacity for participatory evaluation within community initiatives. J Prev Interv Community, 26, 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mendel, P., Meredith, L. S., Schoenbaum, M., Sherbourne, C. D., & Wells, K. B. (2008). Interventions in organizational and community context: a framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation in health services research. Adm Policy Ment Health, 35, 21–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Minkler, M., Vasquez, V. B., Tajik, M., & Petersen, D. (2008). Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: the role of community and partnership capacity. Health Educ Behav, 35, 119–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wallerstein, N., Minkler, M., Carter-Edwards, L., Avila, M., & Sanchez, V. (2015). Improving health through community engagement, community organization, and community building. Health Behav Theory Res Pract, 5.

  22. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health, 19, 173–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Towe, V. L., Leviton, L., Chandra, A., Sloan, J. C., Tait, M., & Orleans, T. (2016). Cross-sector collaborations and partnerships: essential ingredients to help shape health and well-being. Health Aff, 35, 1964–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. International Association for Public Participation. The iap2 public participation spectrum. 2014; Retrieved from https://www.iap2.org.au/resources/public-participation-spectrum. Accessed June 6, 2016.

  25. Liu, C. L., & Layland, J. W. (1973). Scheduling algorithms for multiprogramming in a hard real-time environment. J Assoc Comput Mach., 20, 46–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Barnes M, Schmitz P. 2016. Community engagement matters (now more than ever). Stanford Social Innovation Review: Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, Stanford University. 16.

  27. Hood, N. E., Brewer, T., Jackson, R., & Wewers, M. E. (2010). Survey of community engagement in NIH-funded research. Clin Transl Sci, 3, 19–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Woolf, S. H., Purnell, J. Q., Simon, S. M., et al. (2015). Translating evidence into population health improvement: strategies and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health, 36, 463–482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: a review and integrative framework. Am J Community Psychol, 29, 241–261.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health, 21, 369–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Aldridge II, W. A., Boothroyd, R. I., Fleming, W. O., et al. (2016). Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: embedding active implementation and scaling functions. Transl. Behav. Med., 6, 135–144.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Bodison, S. C., Sankaré, I., Anaya, H., et al. (2015). Engaging the community in the dissemination, implementation, and improvement of health-related research. Clin Transl Sci, 8, 814–819.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Chambers, D. A., Glasgow, R. E., & Stange, K. C. (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci, 8, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Willging, C. E., Green, A. E., Gunderson, L., Chaffin, M., & Aarons, G. A. (2015, 20). From a “perfect storm” to “smooth sailing”: policymaker perspectives on implementation and sustainment of an evidence-based practice in two states. Child Maltreat, 24–36.

  35. Saldana, L., & Chamberlain, P. (2012). Supporting implementation: the role of community development teams to build infrastructure. Am J Community Psychol, 50, 334–346.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Yamey, G. (2011). Scaling up global health interventions: a proposed framework for success. PLoS Med, 8, e1001049.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Metz, A., & Albers, B. (2014). What does it take? How federal initiatives can support the implementation of evidence-based programs to improve outcomes for adolescents. J Adolesc Health, 54, S92–S96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Walker, S. C., Whitener, R., Trupin, E. W., & Migliarini, N. (2013). American Indian perspectives on evidence-based practice implementation: results from a statewide tribal mental health gathering. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res, 42, 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. D’Angelo, G., Pullmann, M. D., & Lyon, A. R. (2015). Community engagement strategies for implementation of a policy supporting evidence-based practices: a case study of washington state. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res, 1–10.

  40. Deverka, P. A., Lavallee, D. C., Desai, P. J., et al. (2012). Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res, 1, 181–194.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lavallee, D. C., Williams, C. J., Tambor, E. S., & Deverka, P. A. (2012). Stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: how will we measure success? J Comp Eff Res, 1, 397–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lindamer, L. A., Lebowitz, B., Hough, R. L., et al. (2009). Establishing an implementation network: lessons learned from community-based participatory research. Implement Sci, 4, 17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith, S. A., Whitehead, M. S., Sheats, J. Q., Ansa, B. E., Coughlin, S. S., & Blumenthal, D. S. (2015). Community-based participatory research principles for the African American community. J Georgia Public Health Assoc, 5, 52.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hébert, J. R., Satariano, W. A., Friedman, D. B., et al. (2015). Fulfilling ethical responsibility: moving beyond the minimal standards of protecting human subjects from research harm. Prog Community Health Partnerships: Res Educ Action, 9, 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Simonds, V. W., Wallerstein, N., Duran, B., & Villegas, M. (2013). Community-based participatory research: its role in future cancer research and public health practice. Prev Chronic Dis, 10, E78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Braun, K. L., Nguyen, T. T., Tanjasiri, S. P., et al. (2011). Operationalization of community-based participatory research principles: assessment of the national cancer institute's community network programs. Am J Public Health, 102, 1195–1203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Burke, J. G., Hess, S., Hoffmann, K., et al. (2013). Translating community-based participatory research (cbpr) principles into practice: building a research agenda to reduce intimate partner violence. Prog Community Health Partnerships: Res Educ Action, 7, 115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hearld LR, Bleser WK, Alexander JA, Wolf LJ. 2015 A systematic review of the literature on the sustainability of community health collaboratives. Med Care Res. Rev. 1077558715607162.

  49. Leeman, J., Calancie, L., Kegler, M. C., et al. (2017). Developing theory to guide building practitioners’ capacity to implement evidence-based interventions. Health Educ Behav, 44, 59–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Arroyo-Johnson, C., Allen, M. L., Colditz, G. A., et al. (2015). A tale of two community networks program centers: Operationalizing and assessing CBPR principles and evaluating partnership outcomes. Prog Community Health Partnerships: Res Educ Action, 9, 61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Williams, R. L., Shelley, B. M., & Sussman, A. L. (2009). The marriage of community-based participatory research and practice-based research networks: can it work?—a research involving outpatient settings network (RIOS Net) study. J Am Board Fam Med, 22, 428–435.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Trickett, E. J. (2011). Community-based participatory research as worldview or instrumental strategy: is it lost in translation(al) research. Am J Public Health, 101, 1353–1355.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Katz, D. L., Green, L. W., Murimi, M., Gonzalez, A., & Njike, V. (2012). The multisite translational community trial and community-based participatory research: a failure to communicate. Am J Public Health, 102, 581–582.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Schmittdiel, J. A., Grumbach, K., & Selby, J. V. (2010). System-based participatory research in health care: an approach for sustainable translational research and quality improvement. Annals Fam Med, 8, 256–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hopkins, A. L., Moore-Monroy, M., Wilkinson-Lee, A. M., et al. (2016). It’s complicated: negotiating between traditional research and community-based participatory research in a translational study. Prog Community Health Partnerships: Res Educ Action, 10, 425–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Heslin, K., & Marr, J. A. (2008). Building organizational capacity for change. Health Manag Forum Winter, 21, 44–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hanson, R. F., Self-Brown, S., Rostad, W. L., & Jackson, M. C. (2016). The what, when, and why of implementation frameworks for evidence-based practices in child welfare and child mental health service systems. Child Abuse Negl, 53, 51–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Harris ME, Fallot RD. 2001 Using trauma theory to design service systems. Jossey-Bass.

  59. Hodas, G. R. (2006). Responding to childhood trauma: the promise and practice of trauma informed care. Pennsylvania Off Ment Health Subst Abus Serv, 1–77.

  60. Pynoos, R. S., Fairbank, J. A., Steinberg, A. M., et al. (2008). The national child traumatic stress network: collaborating to improve the standard of care. Prof Psychol: Res Pract, 39, 389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hummer, V. L., Dollard, N., Robst, J., & Armstrong, M. I. (2010). Innovations in implementation of trauma-informed care practices in youth residential treatment: a curriculum for organizational change. Child Welfare, 89, 79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Esaki, N., Benamati, J., Yanosy, S., et al. (2013). The sanctuary model: theoretical framework. Fam Soc: J Contemp Soc Serv, 94, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Metz, A., Bartley, L., Ball, H., Wilson, D., Naoom, S., & Redmond, P. (2015). Active implementation frameworks for successful service delivery: Catawba county child wellbeing project. Res Soc Work Pract, 25, 415–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

To Fresno County, Humboldt County, Los Angeles County (Pomona and Wateridge Offices), and Santa Clara County, the above California child welfare agencies and their community and tribal partners did the real work of developing, implementing, and supporting the Child and Family Practice Model. It is with that full knowledge the project, staff, and technical assistance partners recognize and acknowledge that none of the learnings, ideas, tools, and resources would have been possible without their expertise, dedication, effort, commitment, and passion. The stories, ideas, thoughts, perspectives, and experiences of system, community, and tribal partners contributed to all that is the heart and soul of the Child and Family Practice Model and its partnering and implementation journey. It is with thanks and appreciation that all of their meaningful contributions are acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box 8180, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-8180, USA

    Renée I. Boothroyd PhD, MA, MPH, CHES & William A. Aldridge II PhD

  2. Child and Family Policy Institute of California, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Aprille Y. Flint MSW & Karen Lofts Jarboe MSW, LCSW

  3. Social Services Agency, County of Santa Clara, San Jose, CA, USA

    A. Mark Lapiz MSW

  4. Department of Health and Human Services, County of Humboldt, Eureka, CA, USA

    Sheryl Lyons EdS, LMHC

Authors
  1. Renée I. Boothroyd PhD, MA, MPH, CHES
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aprille Y. Flint MSW
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Mark Lapiz MSW
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sheryl Lyons EdS, LMHC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Lofts Jarboe MSW, LCSW
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William A. Aldridge II PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renée I. Boothroyd PhD, MA, MPH, CHES.

Ethics declarations

Findings reported herein have not been previously published and the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere.

No data or analyses are reported in the manuscript, and none have been previously reported. The California Partners for Permanency (CAPP) project and federal evaluation partners have full control of all primary data and would allow review by the journal if requested.

The California Partners for Permanency project was funded by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, under grant number 90-CT-0153.

Implementation technical assistance from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, associated with the California Partners for Permanency project, was funded by the following: (1) Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services, under grant number HHSP23320095638WC/HHSP23337015T; subcontract to JBS International, Inc. and (2) Child and Family Policy Institute of California (CFPIC).

The project and authors subscribe to the basic ethical principles underlying the conduct of research involving human subjects as set forth in the “Belmont Report.”

No animals were involved in this project.

All project work was submitted to and approved by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Review Board and the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) of the Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services. Informed consent for evaluation activities was included in their review and approval processes.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Implications  Research: Implementation researchers should acknowledge a blending of research, practice, and policy worlds by building time and resources for community engagement into study protocols and measurement.

Practice: Service delivery systems should actively join with community and tribal members and co-create capacities that engage them to support, monitor, and improve implementation practice.

Policy: Funders and policymakers should commit resources for the structures and processes that ensure active involved community partnering in implementation research and practice.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boothroyd, R.I., Flint, A.Y., Lapiz, A. et al. Active involved community partnerships: co-creating implementation infrastructure for getting to and sustaining social impact. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 7, 467–477 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0503-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0503-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation