Actualising power sharing in community-led initiatives: Insights from community-based organisation leaders in Chicago, USA.

There is an increasing call for a governmental organisations such as local health departments and federal health and human service agencies to partner with community based organisations (CBOs) for health promotion. There is a large body of literature suggesting that CBOs need capacity building or empowerment to do this work, but less literature about the necessary culture shift at governmental organisations who fund public health work. This study aimed to examine the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of CBO leadership who do not want to partner with state funders, and understand which structures and practices demonstrate power-sharing in a community-led approach. We conducted six interviews with community-based organisation leaders and conducted a thematic analysis and a secondary, inductive discourse analysis of the transcripts to analyse why organisations chose not to apply for a government funded initiative and how they talked about power-sharing for community-led public health. Themes about the decision for CBOs to apply to the public health funding initiative: how it related to the CBO's scope of work, meeting the needs of the community, having the technical capacity, and cross-cutting themes of putting the community first and having a long-term positive impact. Organisations rejected the opportunity for this funding due to poor fit, even if they could fulfil the scope of work. A community-led approach was described as one that includes the government giving up control, creating spaces for meaningful participation and power-sharing, and systems demonstrating trust in CBOs. These findings reiterate that in order for public health to be community-led, there needs to be system-wide transformation and intentional investment that supports an infrastructure for community-led public health. State funders can learn from practices in trust-based philanthropy, such as flexible funding and reporting requirements. The results of this study can support the wider participation of CBOs in collaboration with state actors, maximising the transformative potential of collaboration, ultimately transforming power structures and advancing health equity.

Leveraging Key Informant Interviews to Inform Intervention Development: The Greater Lawndale Healthy Work Project.

BACKGROUND: The Greater Lawndale Healthy Work project is a sequential mixed methods community based participatory research project that examines work as a structural determinant of health and builds community capacity for healthy work in a predominantly Black and Latinx community in Chicago known as Greater Lawndale (GL). OBJECTIVES: We interviewed community leaders in GL as key informants to understand the barriers to healthy work and inform intervention development. METHODS: We conducted a directed content analysis of transcripts from 20 key informants and coded the social ecology and type of intervention. RESULTS: Every key informant mentioned at least one asset in GL, showing an opportunity to employ a capacity-oriented approach to intervention development. Key informants suggested a variety of interventions to address precarious work across levels of the social ecology, with individual and community level interventions being the most salient. CONCLUSION: Through this approach, we were able to navigate tensions and challenges in conducting research for community-wide change. Key informant stakeholder interviews can be leveraged to meaningfully inform intervention development and support the development of multi-level, sustainable, and culturally acceptable interventions that advance health equity.

Patterns of Cross-Sector Collaboration in Local Health Departments: A Cluster Analysis.

Local health departments (LHDs) are positioned to act as the community health strategist for their catchment area, which requires cross-sector collaboration. However, little research exists to understand how much and what types of cross-sector collaboration occur and its impact on LHD practice. Data from 490 LHDs who participated in the 2016 National Profile of Local Health Departments survey were analyzed to identify patterns of cross-sector collaboration among LHDs. In the survey, LHDs reported the presence of collaborative activities for each of 22 categories of organizations. Factor analysis was used to identify patterns in the types of organizations with which LHDs collaborate. Then, cluster analysis was conducted to identify patterns in the types of cross-sector collaboration, and cross-sectional analyses examined which LHD characteristics were associated with cluster assignment. LHDs collaborated most with traditional health care-oriented organizations, but less often with organizations focused on upstream determinants of health such as housing. Three distinct clusters represented collaboration patterns in LHDs: coordinators, networkers, and low-collaborators. LHDs who were low-collaborators were more likely to serve smaller populations, be unaccredited, have a smaller workforce, have a White top executive, and have a top executive without a graduate degree. These findings imply that public health practitioners should prioritize building bridges to a variety of organizations and engage in collaboration beyond information sharing. Furthermore, LHDs should prioritize accreditation and workforce development activities for supporting cross-sector collaboration. With these investments, the public health system can better address the social and structural determinants of health and promote health equity.

Work as a social determinant of health; a landscape assessment of employers in two historically disinvested urban communities.

BACKGROUND: Work is considered a structural determinant of health, yet specific determinants that could be targeted at the community level have not been elaborated. The aim of this research is to develop a methodology for incorporating employers and employment into community health assessment. METHODS: As part of a community based participatory research (CBPR) collaboration, we inventoried and characterized businesses in two neighborhoods using multiple data sources and walk-around surveys. Community and academic researchers planned, executed, discussed, and debated the methodology, the findings, and the potential for incorporating "work" in community health considerations. RESULTS: In two contiguous communities with a total population of roughly 100,000, we identified 1,127 employers: 85% were small employers; almost 70% of businesses were in retail, service, financial/business services, and food/accommodations sectors. Cash economy, hidden employment, and phantom businesses were uncovered. CONCLUSION: We developed a CBPR approach to incorporating local businesses and employment sectors into community health assessment in economically and socially disadvantaged communities. Knowing about "work" in a community will form the basis for including business owners into CBPR partnerships and incorporating work-related health and economic factors into community health improvement and quality of life plans.