Name It and Claim It: Cross-Campus Collaborations for Community-Based Learning

This article describes the value of cross-campus collaborations for community-based learning. We argue that community-based learning both provides unique opportunities for breaking academic silos and invites campus partnerships to make ambitious projects possible. To illustrate, we describe a course Writing for Social Justice that involved created videos for our local YWCA\u27s Racial Justice Program. We begin by discussing the shared value of collaboration across writing studies and librarianship (our disciplinary orientations). We identify four forms of cross-campus collaboration, which engaged us in working with each other, with our community partner, and with other partners across campus. From there, we visualize a timeline, turning from the why of cross-campus collaborations to the how. Finally, we underscore the need to name and claim--to value and cultivate--cross-campus collaborations for community-based learning

CAP Chronicles: A Retrospective Look at the Violence Prevention Initiative's Community Action Programs

Summarizes an evaluation of an initiative that took a public health approach to youth violence, working with academics, residents, social service providers, and policy makers. Focuses on the impact and strategies of local Community Action Programs (CAP)

Building Capacity to Sustain Social Movements: Ten Lessons from the Communities for Public Education Reform Fund (CPER)

Most funders agree that effective grantmaking requires pursuing a range of complementary approaches.Direct grants are the lifeblood of organizations and the cornerstone of funder practice, but grantmakers also provide critical value when they help grantees develop organizational leadership and governance, strengthen strategic collaborations with peers, network with new allies, and expand field knowledge, among other things.This report explores how grantmakers can leverage their investments by coupling direct grants with strategically delivered capacity building supports. It focuses on building capacity for community organizing and advocacy groups, though many of its lessons are more broadly applicable

Taking Care of the New Home Front: Leveraging Greater Federal Resources to Expand Community Capacity for NYS Veterans and Families

This report from the Syracuse University Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF) looks at the progress of the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program, a first-of-its-kind initiative that assists veteran families at imminent risk of homelessness in maintaining safe, permanent housing.SSVF is also designed to meet the needs of veteran families that have become homeless by rapidly re-engaging with permanent housing and other support structures to achieve quick housing outcomes and community integration. SSVF ensures that every veteran household in New York State would have access to high-quality, outcome-oriented homelessness prevention services.The New York State Health Foundation (NYSHealth) and IVMF recognized this program as an opportunity to make a demonstrable impact in preventing veteran homelessness in New York State. With support from NYSHealth, the IVMF is working to grow the capacity for SSVF grantee applicants and will work with existing grantees to help increase their capacity to serve veterans. As result of NYSHealth's investment, New York State secured $26 million in federal resources through the SSVF program in 2013

Community Development and Family Support: Forging a Practical Nexus to Strengthen Families and Communities

Examines methods used by organizations to integrate elements of community development and family support in their conceptual frameworks and programmatic efforts. Provides recommendations for promoting these concepts and practices

Youth Civic Engagement Grantmaking: Strategic Review

Examines the impact, strengths, and weaknesses of RBF's strategy for building capacity among organizations that help train and empower low-income youth and youth of color working for social change. Recommends strategies for building shared infrastructure

Towards Convergence: How to Do Transdisciplinary Environmental Health Disparities Research.

Increasingly, funders (i.e., national, public funders, such as the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S.) and scholars agree that single disciplines are ill equipped to study the pressing social, health, and environmental problems we face alone, particularly environmental exposures, increasing health disparities, and climate change. To better understand these pressing social problems, funders and scholars have advocated for transdisciplinary approaches in order to harness the analytical power of diverse and multiple disciplines to tackle these problems and improve our understanding. However, few studies look into how to conduct such research. To this end, this article provides a review of transdisciplinary science, particularly as it relates to environmental research and public health. To further the field, this article provides in-depth information on how to conduct transdisciplinary research. Using the case of a transdisciplinary, community-based, participatory action, environmental health disparities study in California's Central Valley provides an in-depth look at how to do transdisciplinary research. Working with researchers from the fields of social sciences, public health, biological engineering, and land, air, and water resources, this study aims to answer community residents' questions related to the health disparities they face due to environmental exposure. Through this case study, I articulate not only the logistics of how to conduct transdisciplinary research but also the logics. The implications for transdisciplinary methodologies in health disparity research are further discussed, particularly in the context of team science and convergence science

Multidisciplinary integrated parent and child centres in Amsterdam: a qualitative study

Background: In several countries centres for the integrated delivery of services to the parent and child have been established. In the Netherlands family health care service centres, called Parent and Child Centres (PCCs) involve multidisciplinary teams. Here doctors, nurses, midwives, maternity help professionals and educationists are integrated into multidisciplinary teams in neighbourhood-based centres. To date there has been little research on the implementation of service delivery in these centres. Study Design: A SWOT analysis was performed by use of triangulation data; this took place by integrating all relevant published documents on the origin and organization of the PCCs and the results from interviews with PCC experts and with PCC professionals (N=91). Structured interviews were performed with PCC-professionals (health care professionals (N=67) and PCC managers N=12)) and PCC-experts (N=12) in Amsterdam and qualitatively analysed thematically. The interview themes were based on a pre-set list of codes, derived from a prior documentation study and a focus group with PCC experts. Results: Perceived advantages of PCCs were more continuity of care, shorter communication lines, low-threshold contact between professionals and promising future perspectives. Perceived challenges included the absence of uniform multidisciplinary guidelines, delays in communication with hospitals and midwives, inappropriate accommodation for effective professional integration, differing expectations regarding the PCC-manager role among PCC-partners and the danger of professionals' needs dominating clients' needs. Conclusions: Professionals perceive PCCs as a promising development in the integration of services. Remaining challenges involved improvements at the managerial and organizational level. Quantitative research into the improvements in quality of care and child health is recommended

Will Building ‘Good Fences’ Really Make ‘Good Neighbors’ in Science?

Problematic issues are raised by the expressed intention of the European Commission to promote greater awareness on the part of scientists in the “European Research Area” about intellectual property rights and their uses in the context of “Internet intensive research collaborations.” Promoting greater awareness and encouraging more systematic usage of IRP protections are logically distinct, but as policies for implementation – especially within the EC’s Fifth Framework Programme – the former can too readily shade into the latter. Building “good fences” does not make for “good (more productive) neighbors” in science. Balance needs to be maintained between the “open science” mode of research, and private proprietary R&D, because at the macro-system level the functions that each is well-suited to serve are complementary. Recent policy initiatives, particularly by the EC in relation to the legal protection of property rights in database, pose a serious threat to the utility of collaboratively consttructed digital information infrastructures that provide “information spaces” for voyages of scientific discovery. The case for alternative policy approaches is argued in this paper, and several specific proposals are set out for further discussion.