PreventionResearchCenter

Director’s Meeting

National Community Committee

Representative Meeting

March 20, 2006

1:00 p.m.

Members attending: Hector Rico (University of Illinois), Teresa Rudder (University of Colorado), Linda Forys (University of Texas), Gary Tang (Seattle PRC), Frank Morgan (New Mexico PRC), Marla Pardilla (University of New Mexico), Charmayne Little (University of New Mexico), Doris Bunte (Boston University), Imogene Wiggs (St. Louis University), Paul Gilmer (University of West Virginia), Sylvia Stevens-Edouard (Harvard), Ella Heard Tramell (Morehouse), David Collins (Morehouse), Ann Scott Poole (Morehouse), Chuck Conner (University of West Virginia), Josie Dhungana (ULCA Rand), Marisa Guptarak (Columbia), Katie Barnes (University of North Carolina), Eileen Michaels (Albany), Freda Motten (University of St. Louis), Sandy Good (University of Kentucky-Lexington), Jenny Oliphant (University of Minnesota), Rosemarie Rodriguez (University of Minnesota), Argin Hutchins (Johns Hopkins), Layne Humphrey (Johns Hopkins), Ida Tittlebaugh (University of Arizona), Kay Read (Emory), Charlene Acker (University of Michigan), Ella Greene-Moton (University of Michigan), E. Yvonne Lewis (University of Michigan).

CDC Staff Attending: Sharrice White

Opening remarks were given by Ella Greene-Moton.

Welcome was offered by Jo Ann Grunbam from the PRC Program Office.

Ella offered Ms. Grunbam gratitude from the members of the NCC for the welcome.

Brief NCC history

Ella gave a brief history of the process that was used to bring structure to the National Community Committee. She stated that we started out developing the bylaws, the vision and the mission statements. From there the sub committees were formed. Each member of the NCC is urged to join a sub committee of the NCC. If you are not a current member of a sub committee, we will be happy to answer any questions that you may have related to the purpose of the sub committees and the work that they are engaged in.

We talked about leveraging funding for this organization. SIP 13 is a result of the efforts of the University of St. Louis and the fundraising sub committee to obtain funding for NCC activities. Further detail of the SIP 13 will be given later in the meeting.

Communities Coming Together-Continuing conversation from Minnesota:

Ralph Fuccillo facilitated this discussion by asking NCC members, “What is the way that we can make the most of the next three days?”

Several members offered comments related to the question.

Ralph stated that during the Minnesota retreat NCC members shared who they are and what they do. Each member stated what PRC accomplishments they are most proud of.

Ralph reviewed the proud accomplishments and the challenges that the group discussed.

Now, we would like to know if there is a dynamic that is going on within the individuals PRCs and are there opportunities for celebration. Additionally, how do NCC members see their work in relation to their PRC’s?

In response, members talked about everything from responses to Hurricane Katrina to recognizing the NCC benefits of networking and using the opportunities for community organizing.

*** See footnote.

SIP 13 Overview

Yvonne and Freda reviewed the outcomes from the training. ** Information will be available on the Web board later this week. This should be the best site to display the information.

****Specific concerns and questions related to the presentation

Is there going to be an opportunity to get feedback to this presentation?

Who compiled this data? How was it compiled? Give the name of the person who compiled the statistics. How can you explain the difference? Was this put together in a format that we can explain? Is this a draft? Answer: The name of the evaluator will appear on the final draft.

Question: Define a “PRC Project”? If my non-profit applies and partners with PRC (i.e., principle investigator/evaluator) then the project would have no indirects? If it has to be a “PRC” project and the funds runs through the university, then there will be indirects?

What are deliverables? Are we accountable for the data? What is the deliverable from the SIP 13? Is there a one-pager that explains the whole SIP?

Answer:That is what the SIP is all about. How do you articulate the evidence so everyone can understand it?Answer: The categories need to be broken out.

What is the venue for getting this feedback on paper? Can we do this at our next conference call? Answer: Send information prior to the call and we can talk about them on the call.

Concern: The purpose of the training was not entirely clear; therefore some Centers did not participate. For instance, if the Center does not engage in physical activity research, they may not have participated in the training. Some other Centers could not attend the training because of scheduling conflicts. The P.P.O. workgroup will work on and address this.

Sip 13 Presentation continued

The National Community Committee has opportunities to look at ideas for RFA’s. Some of the ideas came from the community guide.

We have the opportunity to give priority to some of these issues.

Yvonne gave information on the preliminary data taken from the “cluster” exercise.

Yvonne reviewed this data. Some of the questions that we should be asking are:

Will we work with rural and urban centers and communities? How will we set evaluation guidelines for the RFA’s?

Process

Our goal is to use the time that we have, effectively. We don’t want to ask about more meetings,

We will ask for community groups to apply for the RFA.

Question:How will you show that the projects are successful? There is no money for evaluation when this is only $25,000 for five projects or $5,000.

Answer:Communicate with the applicants from the very beginning. We know that $5,000 will not do a whole project. You have to be creative.

Comment:Across all the projects there is a change you are looking for, so the evaluation instrument needs to be the same.

Concerns were articulated that the application and evaluation process not be too complicated. Members described lengthy processes that did not work for them. They would like to see a very simple process since the amount is relatively small.

Question:Will it be emailed? Some things will be on the list serve. The information that is shared will be distributed to all members of the NCC.

The leadership team, representing the NCC at large, is serving as the body that is working with St. LouisUniversity to develop the RFA. The NCC members are bringing the perspective of your PRC’s and your communities to the process.

Recommendation:If not enough people qualify for the RFA, we will increase the awards to the funded projects.

The project is viewed as a way to build capacity of the NCC and to ultimately increase the capacity of the PRC’s. It is a different paradigm for the academic settings. As we write this we need to try to reflect this process in the RFA

NCC Workgroup meetings.

Decatur Room A has been reserved for NCC workgroups on Tuesday, 21 at 7:00 a.m. There will be an available shuttle at the 6:30 at the Emory Inn. If your workgroup is meeting for dinner instead of the breakfast meeting, please get with your group to make that decision. Please join a group.

Vice Chair remarks

Argin gave remarks and talked about our style.

Handouts

EPBH training results

EBPH Phase II/ Concept Mapping

EBPH Next Steps

Ella offered closing remarks.

*** Due to confidentiality issues individual member comments will not be included in these minutes. However, the secretary does keep a complete set of minutes.

Notes from Communities Coming Together discussion 3/20/06

Dynamics

  • Reflecting on ourselves and sustainability
  • 10 yrs. Volunteers- celebrating
  • Survey- Human interactions
  • Trusting
  • Communication
  • Respect
  • Impacting communities
  • Connecting with newcomers
  • Building diversity
  • Acknowledging contributions
  • Constant change
  • Bringing community- increase belief in people
  • Evolution - making a difference
  • Mostly agencies
  • Representing all communities
  • CBPR 2 projects and growing
  • Enjoying process
  • Engaging youth in CBPR
  • Motivated members taking it back to their communities
  • Spreading to other communities
  • Reinvigorating C.A.B.
  • Challenge consolidating CAB
  • Re-identify community members as full partners

NCC Issues

  • Values
  • Binds us together
  • Opportunity/ Network (Map the process)
  • Leadership goals
  • Health disparities
  • Congressional education prog.
  • Involved community sharing with others.
  • Emphasize communities
  • How do we promote?
  • How do we describe ourselves?
  • Influence PRC structure
  • Is engaging health departments a problem across the country?
  • Shared best practices
  • NCC as resource ripple effect
  • How to develop core principles in our work
  • Examine NCC potential