226669 Enhancing community participation in policy change: A partnership approach to neighborhood advocacy training for health equity

Monday, November 8, 2010 : 4:30 PM - 4:43 PM

Chris M. Coombe, PhD, MPH , Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI
Barbara A. Israel, DrPH , Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI
Rebecca Flournoy, MPH , The PolicyLink Center for Health and Place, PolicyLink, Oakland, CA
Sherita Smith , Imagining Creative Opportunities Now, Detroit, MI
Conja Wright, MLIS, DM , Detroit Public Library, Detroit, MI
Michael Spencer, PhD , School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Robert McGranaghan, MPH , School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
Mamie Carlson, MPH , Medical Center, University Nebraska, Omaha, NE
Ebony Sandusky, MPH , Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI
There have been increasing calls for community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to enhance the capacity of communities to engage in policy change to reduce health inequities. However, most policy advocacy training is aimed at organizations and focuses on legislative campaigns, which may not enable community members to influence other types of local decision-making, such as enforcement, budget priorities, or organizational policies. Furthermore, advocacy training may be less effective if it is not adapted to the diverse residents and contexts of neighborhoods, including age, language, race/ethnicity, and historic inequities.

To address these concerns, the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center (URC) designed and implemented Neighborhoods Working in Partnership, a four-session policy advocacy training for community residents aimed at creating healthy neighborhoods. A total of 228 residents of seven Detroit neighborhoods participated in the training, nearly half of them youth. Interactive presentations and activities using local issues included: the difference between policies and programs; power mapping; choosing strategies; designing a policy advocacy campaign; talking with policymakers; communication strategies; and building connections across communities.

We will describe how CBPR and adult learning theory were integral to the development and content of NWP, including: training-of-trainers by PolicyLink; engaging diverse partners' expertise; use of academic and community trainer teams; adapting to neighborhood contexts; building on community strengths; providing separate space for youth voices; and using participant feedback to improve trainings. We discuss challenges, facilitating factors, and lessons learned for using CBPR to enhance residents' capacity for policy change aimed at creating more just and healthy communities.

Learning Areas:
Advocacy for health and health education
Diversity and culture
Public health or related laws, regulations, standards, or guidelines
Public health or related public policy
Public health or related research

Learning Objectives:
1. Describe the rationale for training residents in policy advocacy. 2. List components of the Neighborhoods Working in Partnership curriculum. 3. Identify ways in which CBPR influenced the NWP policy advocacy project. 4. Discuss lessons learned for enhancing community capacity for policy change to advance social justice.

Keywords: Community-Based Public Health, Advocacy

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I participated in the design, conduct, and evaluation of this project.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.