Community Based Participatory Research: ‘Real Life' Lessons Learned in Building Capacity with American Indian Communities

Introduction: Involving community partners, organizations and members with university researchers is the basis of Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) for which various models exist (Israel et al., 2006). Lessons learned are extremely noteworthy when they focus on targeted populations, such as the American Indian (AI) communities, which often per tribal government policy require use of CBPR for studies (Burhansstipanov, Christopher, & Schumacher, 2005). Such collaborative processes need to consider all of the elements of context and culture (Rog, Fizpatrick, & Conner, 2012).

Methods: This presentation focuses on the three year partnership of SIRC-ASU with the Urban Indian Coalition of Arizona, a statewide coalition of Arizona’s AI Centers in three urban areas. In 2010 they began implementing an existing evidence-based parent education curriculum that targeted AI families to increase awareness of the consequences of substance abuse and prevention strategies.  The parenting intervention was then adapted based on reflections and responses from AI participants, community facilitators, internal and external experts, and observations.

Results: While one goal of the project was to increase parents’ communication and substance abuse prevention skills for their children, the second goal was to build community capacity on multiple levels. The first level builds community awareness across the state so parents and, ultimately the whole community understands the needs and strengths in preventing AI youth substance use. The second level builds individual capacity of involved AI community members and project workers in the project implementation phases, and the research and evaluation processes. The third level strengthens the agencies’ capacity to be involved in CBPR by incorporating a new service into their organization and offering the parenting program. And last was building the capacity of a balanced research team of faculty and community partners.

Conclusions: The AI Centers worked together and with ASU at different levels; many people were involved and roles changed. The process to bring the parties together has been worthwhile, demanding and uncertain as unexpected issues arose. There were initial and ongoing differences in leadership styles and organizational structures (top down v. bottom up) that impacted operational decisions. The infrastructures, staff capacity and readiness at the Centers differed as did the ability to recruit community members and participants. The time and effort to build relationships far surpassed what was anticipated and continues to evolve as new arrangements and relationships develop. This work documents and shares the ‘real life’ journey and lessons learned by researchers and partners involved in CBPR.