Table 1 Included studies of community granting programs
Study | Grant program, organization, location, grant size, framework | Focus area, eligible projects, eligible grant recipients | Granting program administration | Granting program components | Outcomes | Sustainability | Study design, quality rating |
Abildso, 2019 [45] | Program: The Growing Healthy Community (GHC) Collaborative Grant Program Organization: Claude Worthington Benedum Foundation and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources Location: West Virginia, USA Grant size: Max. $25 000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Health promotion Eligible projects: Projects that provide access to healthy food e.g., community gardens, indoor farmers market, and spaces for physical activity, e.g., walking program, downtown wellness kiosk, often according to The Community Guide to Preventive Services Creating or Improving Places for Physical Activity or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the United States Eligible recipients: Community organizations recognized by state economic development programs (Main Street West Virginia and West Virginia Organization, Training, Revitalization, and Capacity | Not described | Not described | 38 projects funded across 24 communities Limited time to spend funds was a barrier Centralized resources and technical assistance recommended Program led to social cohesion within community and increased activity at local businesses | Several project leaders secured additional funding to sustain projects | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: High |
Alexander, 2020 [46] | Program: Meharry-Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core mini grant program Organization: Meharry-Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core (CERC) Location: USA Grant size: Max. $10 000 USD Framework: Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Principles of Community Engagement | Focus area: Public health (general) Eligible projects: Projects that address community-identified needs; examples not provided Eligible recipients: Community-based organizations, in partnership with academic researchers and/or graduate students | Dissemination: Calls for applications circulated biannually to community-based organizations Application: Potential applicants submit a letter of intent, then attend an information session. Applications submitted via an online web application. Application required a statement of purpose, potential impact, partner roles, anticipated outcomes, timeline, budget justification and research and dissemination plan. Applications were reviewed by committee of faculty and community members Reporting: Awardees required to submit mid- and end-of-project reports, share results at a community meeting | Not described | 56 projects funded 2008–2018 In response to participant feedback: • Review committee expanded to include members of different races, • Application form standardized by adapting National Institutes of Health Research Grant Evaluation Rubric and review criteria, • Feedback was provided to applicants on applications that were not funded Program increased skills for awardees, such as evaluation, funding acquisition | Nearly 20 projects resulted in ongoing research partnerships. Preliminary data from granted programs strengthen subsequent applications for additional funds | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Allen, 2017 [47] | Program: Community Health Innovation Awards (CHIA) Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA Grant size: Max. $25 000 USD Framework: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework | Focus area: Public health (general) Eligible projects: Program conducted a survey of community members to identify a list of 12 neighbourhood concerns that could be addressed by proposed projects Eligible recipients: Neighborhood associations and non-profit organizations | Dissemination: Calls for application circulated through mail and organization’s affiliated websites Application: Applicants first submitted a draft proposal. Applicants with strong draft proposals invited to submit final proposal and deliver 10-min presentation to review committee. Committee scored applications using a customized rubric Reporting: Not described | Technical Assistance: Program mentors assigned to applicants guided application development Training: Awardees required to attend 3 workshops on innovative thinking, idea development, grant writing and application process | 78 proposals received, and 26 projects funded 2012–2017 Key lessons learned include: • Engage communities at outset of program development, • Foster inclusive and participatory environments | Not described | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Baril, 2011 [48] | Program: No formal name Organization: Boston Public Health Commission’s Center for Health Equity and Social Justice Location: Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, USA Grant size: $25–30 000 USD annually for 3 years Framework: Boston Public Health Commission’s health equity framework and theory of change | Focus area: Social determinants of health Eligible projects: Projects that address social determinants of health, e.g., improving food environments, employment opportunities in health for youth of colour Eligible recipients: community-based organizations, educational institutions, community health centres, hospitals, neighbourhood associations, faith-based organizations, public health departments | Dissemination: Not described Application: Required a comprehensive project plan. Applicants were assessed for history of working with communities of colour, commitment to reducing health inequities and capacity for systems-level change Reporting: After year 1, required to submit strategic work plan of goals, activities and outputs. During years 2 and 3, required to report progress on objectives and complete Partnership Assessment Tool | Technical Assistance: Regular teleconferences between awardees and expert advisors, and among awardees to share learning. Program staff issued bimonthly email updates. Faculty consultants available to support coalition building, strategic planning, and promotion of antiracist social change Training: During year 1, awardees provided training on health equity framework, data collection and analysis for health equity, anti-racism. Optional training provided on coalition building, community organizing, community needs and asset assessments, policy advocacy, logical models and evaluation, and framing and communicating racial equity | 15 projects funded 2008–2012 Outcomes not available at time of writing | Not described | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Bounds, 2011 [49] | Program: Community Cancer Control in Appalachia Forum Organization: National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program Location: Appalachian regions and Tennessee, USA Grant size: $2500 USD for roundtables or $5000 USD for forums Framework: Coalition theory | Focus area: Cancer prevention Eligible projects: Roundtables focused on local cancer risk, incidence, and death rates and introduction of state cancer plans or in-depth forums focused on cancer data, state cancer plans and successful cancer control programs in local communities Eligible recipients: Community organizations, state or regional cancer coalitions | Dissemination: Call for applications distributed through partner organizations Application: Description of the proposed event, including agenda, partners, plan to recruit speakers, budget justification, anticipated outcomes using a Give-Get Grid. Applications reviewed by program staff using guidelines approved by partner organizations Reporting: Final report required | Not described | 9 forums and 19 roundtables funded Short deadline for applications resulted in few applications. The deadline was extended Program facilitated identification of local partners for cancer coalitions | Some coalitions obtained additional funding to conduct further forums | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Camponeschi, 2017 [50] | Program: No formal name Organization: Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (EPHTN) Location: Wisconsin, USA Grant size: Max. $10 500 USD Framework: Social Ecological Model of Health | Focus area: Environmental health Eligible projects: Any environmental health community projects informed by data from the EPHTN’s data portal Eligible recipients: Local and tribal health departments | Dissemination: Funding opportunity announcement issued to local and tribal health departments Application: Multiple EPHTN staff members scored applications according to a rubric: identified environmental health issue for target jurisdiction, well-defined project, goals, timeline, work plan, appropriate partners, evaluation plan and budget Reporting: Mid-project and final reports documenting successes, results and lessons learned | Technical Assistance: Program staff were assigned to each funded project to act as program liaisons. Awardees were offered assistance with materials development, connections to experts, guidance for evaluation planning, and developing a journal manuscript data collection and interpretation Networking facilitation: Conference calls were held together for awardees with similar projects | 15 proposals received, and 8 projects funded in 9-month period. Staff provided estimated 10–15 h of technical assistance per project Awardees found technical assistance useful and had minimal suggestions for improving the program Awardees reported positive public health outcomes resulting from funded projects. Health department communication with communities was strengthened | Not described | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Caperchione, 2010 [51] | Program: Women's Active Living Kits (WALK) Community Grant Scheme Organization: Australian Office for Women, Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Location: Australian Capital Territory, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, Australia Grant size: Max. $1500 AUD Framework: Social Ecological Model of Health | Focus area: Health promotion (physical activity) Eligible projects: Establish a women’s walking group, support an existing women’s walking group, improve neighbourhood, group or workplace social environment to encourage women’s walking Eligible recipients: Community organizations, neighbourhood groups, with priority for women’s groups, such as women with young children, women with careers, culturally and linguistically diverse women, Indigenous women | Dissemination: Shared with women’s health networks, local and state community organizations, local and national health departments Application: A review committee evaluated applications. Committee members included representatives from the Office for Women, health promoters, health department members Reporting: Final report required, report components not described | Technical Assistance: A telephone support line was available to applicants and awardees Website: Provided details about program, “what’s new” page, application instructions, discussion board for applicants and awardees, project profiles Partnerships: Program facilitated partnerships with national stakeholders and a similar national health promotion program for physical activity (10,000 Steps) | Over 100 proposals received, and 48 projects funded in 2-year period Facilitators: • Collaboration with 10,000 Steps Program allowed sharing of contacts, cross-promotion, guidance from experienced program staff • Program-specific website facilitated applications, connection amongst awardees and between awardees and program organizers • Public agencies and organizations provided access to experts in women’s and multicultural health Barriers: • Payment processing delays Program facilitated contact with priority community groups, e.g., new English speakers | Not described | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Colchamiro, 2015 [52] | Program: The Breastfeeding Continuity-of-Care Team (BCCT) catalyst grant program Organization: The Massachusetts Department of Public Health Location: Massachusetts, USA Grant size: Not reported Framework: Social Ecological Model of Health | Focus area: Maternal and child health (breastfeeding) Eligible projects: Projects that support breastfeeding Eligible recipients: Municipalities with a higher percentage of low-income, underserved populations | Dissemination: Mailing lists to birthing hospitals, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) clinics, partner organizations Application: Description of their community and existing capabilities, partnerships with at least 2 community-based organizations, budget, evaluation plan, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis. Applications were reviewed by program team Reporting: Success indicators tracked monthly, including number of eligible births, number of mothers who received support | Technical Assistance: Provided by University faculty and community-based health professionals. Monthly meetings to help awardees review progress, troubleshoot challenges Site Visits: Members of the program team visited each site at least once Conferencing: Meetings to convene all awardees to share successes, best practices | 8 proposals received, and 6 projects funded in 10-month period Facilitators: • Technical assistance monthly calls and site visits were highly valuable • Conferencing opportunities with awardees fostered camaraderie and sharing of experiences • Media attention provided publicity through a grand opening, government representatives) Barriers: • Short timelines challenged project recruitment, organizational approval to apply Program staff learned about communities’ unique strengths and barriers | Collaborative relationships that were formed among the community providers outlasted the grant implementation period. Program staff noted the need to apply for additional funding to maintain services | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Coombe, 2023 [53] | Program: Small Planning Grant program and the Community-Academic Research Partnerships Grant Program Organization: Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA Grant size: $2000–5000 USD, average $4200 USD Framework: Community Based Participatory Research Approach | Focus area: Health, public health and social issues (general) Eligible projects: Projects that support alleviation of poverty, through building equitable partner relationships, exploring collaborative research interests, conducting community assessments, and disseminating and translating research findings Eligible recipients: Community partners, in partnerships with academic researchers | Dissemination: Shared with community and research mailing lists, University and Community-Academic Research Network and community organization networks Application: Description of project goals, methods, relevance to poverty alleviation, partners, timeline, budget and letters of support. Applications were rated by committee of academic and community partners. Committee had opportunity to request additional information or suggest modifications prior to final decision Reporting: Mid-year report provided opportunity to share needs for assistance, and a final report | Technical Assistance: Provided on request by program staff Training: Workshops providing introduction to community based participatory research, program overview, partnership development and evaluation, and dissemination Conferencing: Introductory meetings to convene all awardees. Final meeting to share findings and next steps for sustaining efforts | 50 projects funded Facilitators: • Conferencing time valuable for partnership development, learning from experts, shared learning with other project teams • Ongoing technical assistance was helpful Keys to building inclusive, equitable partnerships include providing time and capacity building support to build relationships and power-sharing processes | At 1–3 years following program, nearly half of projects had secured additional funding and were planning additional projects. More than half had established a steering committee or partnership infrastructure | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Crespo, 2011 [54] | Program: Appalachian Coalition Organization: Appalachian Regional Commission Location: Appalachian counties, USA Grant size: $10 000 USD Framework: Rural Appalachian Model, adapted from Model for coalition development | Focus area: Diabetes prevention and management Eligible projects: Promoting healthy eating, physical activity, chronic disease self-management and awareness building Eligible recipients: Members of Appalachian communities | Dissemination: Not described Application: Description of diabetes issues in community. Applications ranked based on applicant group diversity and understanding of public health approach to diabetes Reporting: Quarterly reports of numbers of participants | Training: 2-day workshop to develop measurable objectives and action plan Conferencing: Awardees gather annually to present on their projects Site Visits: Program staff visited project sites | 66 projects funded Facilitators: • Non-traditional application process where objectives and plan are developed during a workshop increased reach to community partners • Awarding full amount upfront was helpful for awardees | 58 projects have been sustained past initial funding | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Dafilou, 2022 [55] | Program: Community Catalyst Grants Organization: Lindy Family Foundation through The Philadelphia Collaborative for Health Equity (P-CHE) Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Grant size: $50 000 USD Framework: World Health Organization Social Determinants of Health Framework | Focus area: Mental health and trauma, safety, housing, built environment Eligible projects: Engage community with at least one of mental health; trauma, safety, and violence, e.g., developing a community-centred trauma training curriculum; housing, e.g., forming a housing trust; and built environment, e.g., building a park Eligible recipients: Latino community of Philadelphia | Dissemination: Call for applications announced at community photovoice exhibition Application: Application requirements not described. Panel of unaffiliated grant reviewed ranked applications, prioritizing those which addressed findings at photovoice exhibition Reporting: Program evaluation not described | Technical assistance: Provided but not described Training: Policy and advocacy workshop conducted online over 2 weeks | 12 projects were funded Allowing community to determine focus of grant funding lead to community ownership of projects. Planning several steps ahead allowed for community involvement in decision-making at each step | Program staff worked with awardees to secure additional funding to sustain projects | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Goodman, 2018 [56] | Program: Step Up to Leadership Organization: Missouri Association of Community Action and University of Missouri Location: Missouri and Illinois, USA Grant size: Max. $500 USD Framework: Social Cognitive Theory | Focus area: Health and social issues (general) Eligible projects: Address community issues, e.g., health fairs, farmers markets, community gardens, car seats for low-income mothers Eligible recipients: non-profit organizations, business managers, local government officials, church leaders | Dissemination: Not described Application: Brief description of project and need, expected community impact, budget, list of community partners. Applications reviewed by program staff and board members Reporting: Summary of accomplishments, benefits to community, lessons learned, and plans to continue project | Training: 12-week leader development program for understanding and embracing diversity, serving on boards of directors, participating in community meetings, and applying for minigrants | 18 proposals received, 16 were funded Participants reported increased skills, e.g., leadership, grant writing, increased self-efficacy, and enhanced community involvement Support for applicants throughout grant process was critical in developing skills required to plan and lead projects | Participants noted their acquired grant writing skills were transferable to applying for additional grants | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Grossman, 2019 [57] | Program: No formal name Organization: State health departments, funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Location: California, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Oregon and Wisconsin, USA Grant size: $7700- 28 500 USD annually Framework: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) framework | Focus area: Environmental health (climate change preparedness) Eligible projects: Improving community resilience to climate change, extreme weather; response to health consequences of climate change Eligible recipients: Local health departments | Dissemination: Request for proposals shared with local health departments Application: Requirements not described. Selection based on capability to implement proposed projects Reporting: Quarterly and final reports of successes, challenges and recommendations for future programs | Technical Assistance: Guidance for accessing and summarizing data on health, social vulnerability and health Training: Webinars and in-person workshops were provided | 18 projects were funded Awardees reported that training increased knowledge and skill for partnership development, planning and vulnerability assessment Barriers: • Awardees found planning difficult due to uncertainty of continued funding | Awardees noted the 1-to 2-year grant duration was insufficient to demonstrate impact that would help secure additional funding | Study design: Cross-sectional Quality rating: Moderate |
Hickey, 2015 [58] | Program: Literacivic Organization: Youngballymun Location: Ballymun, Northern Dublin, Ireland Grant size: €200–4000 EUR, depending on project type Framework: None | Focus area: Youth wellbeing and learning Eligible projects: Capacity building for leadership, communications, advocacy; community celebrations or events Eligible recipients: Neighbourhood groups, services and organizations | Dissemination: Posters and brochures distributed locally Application: Written proposal, reviewed by an independent committee Reporting: Not described | Not described | 42 proposals received; 24 projects were funded Awardees reported that funding developed personal skills, community involvement and helped increase access to available services Barriers: • Funding likely inaccessible to some potential applicants • Lack of guidance for application | Not described | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Honeycutt, 2012 [59] | Program: Nutrition Programs that Work Organization: The Emory Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Location: Georgia, USA Grant size: $4000 USD Framework: RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) | Focus area: Health promotion (nutrition) Eligible projects: 1 of 2 programs, Body & Soul for churches and Treatwell 5-a-Day for workplaces Eligible recipients: Churches and workplaces | Dissemination: Distributed to eligible organizations locally Application: Requirements not described. Committee of Community Advisory Board members rated applications according to fidelity to the program, organizational capacity for implementation, and diversity of the organization Reporting: Not described | Technical Assistance: Bi-monthly teleconferences between program staff and awardees. Email and telephone support provided as requested Networking Facilitation: Partnerships with Community Advisory Board members | 17 proposals received; 7 projects were funded Facilitators: • Technical assistance was necessary and found helpful by awardees • Aligning projects to eligible organizations’ mission statements | All awardees reported intent to continue at least some activities. Several were interested in expanding Sustainability was associated with adaptability of projects, having project champions, alignment with organization’s mission, perceived benefits and stakeholder support | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: High |
Kegler, 2015 [60] | Program: Cancer Prevention and Control Research Networks (CPCRN) Mini-Grants Program Organization: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute Location: Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, USA Grant size: $1000–10 000 USD, average $6250 USD Framework: Interactive Systems Framework | Focus area: Cancer prevention Eligible projects: Adaptations of evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention listed on Research-Tested Intervention Programs database or from research literature Eligible recipients: Community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, worksites | Dissemination: Not described Application: Included organizational capacity to implement project, including leadership and experience. Proposals assessed according to fidelity of work plan to original evidence-based intervention, plans for adaptations, community needs and potential impact, budget justifications and evaluation plan Reporting: Final reports required but not described | Technical Assistance: Research fellows supported application development. Fellows convened with awardees monthly for guidance with administrative of budget challenges and implementing and adapting interventions Training: Workshops provided to potential applicants on finding, selecting, adapting evidence-based interventions. Workshops provided to awardees on implementing and sustaining projects | 105 proposals received; 44 projects were funded 2007–2014 Most proposals were based on selected interventions featured on the Research-Tested Intervention Programs database, rather than from other research literature None of the awardees conducted evaluations as described by selected interventions. This limited evaluation of effectiveness, especially when interventions were adapted to different contexts or populations | Awardees were most successful in sustaining projects when they were able to establish new partnerships. In several cases, partners continued projects after the grant period | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Main, 2012 [61] | Program: Community Engagement Pilot Grants Program Organization: University of Colorado Denver Location: Colorado, USA Grant size: $10 000 or $30 000 USD, depending on project type Framework: None | Focus area: Health (general) Eligible projects: Address priority health issues, e.g., childhood chronic conditions, social and emotional health, or cardiovascular disease prevention Eligible recipients: Community representatives, academic researchers | Dissemination: Through university partners and community partners identified by The Partnership of Academicians and Communities for Translation Council Application: Key sections included project focus, outcomes, partnerships, community engagement plan and budget. Dyad of community and academic representatives scored applications. Nonfunded applications were provided feedback and encouraged to reapply Reporting: 6-month and final report describing partnerships, community engagement, results, lessons learned and future plants. Awardees also regularly reported on their budget | Technical Assistance: Webinar for potential applicants on proposal requirements Training: Awardees attended 8-h workshop on community engagement | 36 projects were funded Initially, projects could address any health topic. Projects eligibility was revised to priority topics to maximize potential impact Following challenges during the first funding cycle, the application period was extended and additional technical assistance was provided to applicants to facilitate the application process | The initial investment of $272 742 led to over $2.8mil in new funding to several awardees | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Mayberry, 2009 [62] | Program: Pfizer Foundation Southern HIV/AIDS Prevention Initiative Organization: Pfizer Foundation contracted with Morehouse School of Medicine Prevention Research Center Location: Southern USA Grant size: Not reported Framework: Empowerment Evaluation Framework | Focus area: HIV prevention Eligible projects: HIV education and prevention programs Eligible recipients: Community-based organizations in multicultural, urban and rural communities | Dissemination: Not described Application: Not described Reporting: Not described | Technical assistance: Phone calls and site visits from program staff helped guide awardees Training: Initial focus for training was on developing logic models and measurable objectives. Subsequent workshops focused on skills for planning, implementing and evaluating projects. Feedback was gathered from awardees to inform focus of workshop sessions | 69 projects were funded Facilitators: • Initial needs assessment and ongoing solicitation of feedback from awardees ensured technical assistance met each team’s needs • Regular communication allowed for targeted learning opportunities Regular interactions allowed integration of evaluation into activities | Increased capacity of awardees to implement and evaluate projects contributed to project sustainability | Study design: Single group pre-post Quality rating: High |
McCracken, 2013 [63] | Program: Community Health Intervention Program (CHIP) mini-grants initiative Organization: South Carolina Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (SC-CPCRN) Location: South Carolina, USA Grant size: $10 000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Cancer prevention Eligible projects: Adaptations of evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention listed on Research-Tested Intervention Programs database Eligible recipients: Community-based organizations | Dissemination: Not described Application: Requirements not described. Panel of faculty, staff and community partners rated applications according to how well the proposal, evaluation and timeline aligned with the original evidence-based intervention. Applicant interest and experience, support from leadership, community need and diversity were considered Reporting: Regular updates and reports to program liaisons. A mini-grant report template was developed to capture quantitative and qualitative information. Awardees presented findings at a program event | Technical assistance: In-person and virtual sessions for potential applicants. Program staff provided ongoing guidance and oversight | 12 proposals received; 3 projects were funded Facilitators: • Collaboration, communication and trust between program staff and awardees • Community engagement Barriers: • Competing priorities for community needs vs. research and evaluation processes | Not described | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Nieves, 2020 [64] | Program: Health in Action Project Organization: New York State Health Foundation and Mount Sinai Health System Location: East Harlem, New York, USA Grant size: $25 000 USD Framework: Health Department’s framework for community engagement | Focus area: Health, public health and social issues (general) Eligible projects: Designed to improve community health Eligible recipients: Non-profit and community organizations | Dissemination: Request for proposals shared with local non-profit and community organizations Application: Requirements not described. Panel of community members assessed proposals. Panel members required to describe interest in participation and thoughts on local health issues. Panel chose short list of proposals, which were presents to the public. Successful applicants selected by vote Reporting: Mid-year and final reports of project metrics, successes, challenges, lessons learned, partnerships | Training: Workshops on community advocacy, civic engagement. Quarterly capacity building activities Conferencing: Awardees convened quarterly to network, share successes and challenges | 20 proposals were received, 16 were selected for short list, 11 projects were funded Barriers: • Challenging to implement a process that was new for both program staff and community members • Time allotted for proposals and award selection, training, was insufficient • Health impact of funded projects was not evaluated Establishing new and strengthening existing partnerships facilitated connection to communities. Funding to support organizational capacity building expanded awardees’ reach within communities | Partnerships between awardees and other organizations expected to help sustain projects | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: High |
Paberzs, 2014 [65] | Program: Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Award Organization: Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) Community Engagement Program Location: Michigan, USA Grant size: Max. $25 000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Health (general) Eligible projects: Projects designed to improve health outcomes in at-risk populations Eligible recipients: Dyads of an academic teams and a community based organization | Dissemination: Not described Application: Research plan outlining objectives, study design, methods and potential significance, as well as description of partnership, dissemination plan and community need. Applications scored by Scientific Review Committee for significance, investigators, innovation, approach, environment and overall impact, and by Community Engagement Coordinating Council using 9-point National Institutes of Health scoring scale. Scores were averaged in final decision. Nonfunded applications were provided feedback and encouraged to reapply Reporting: Not described | Technical Assistance: Potential applications could receive consultations to support application development. Program staff available to awardees to guide partnership development and adherence to ethics board requirements, | 50 proposals received; 16 projects were funded Application review procedures were adjusted over time. Changes included assigning community members, in addition to faculty members, as lead reviewers. A formal process to report and manage conflicts of interest was established. Definitions of terms and criteria were clarified. Most reviewers agreed that piloting the review process would have been beneficial | A description of project sustainability was required for the application and scored by reviewers | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Pearson, 2020 [66] | Program: Shaheed DuBois Community Grant Program Organization: HERCULES Exposome Research Center Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA Grant size: $2500 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Environmental health Eligible projects: Any environmental health-focused project, e.g., pollution, social stressors, built environment, healthy food access, water pollution, and waste disposal or illegal dumping Eligible recipients: Smaller, neighbourhood-level grassroots organizations | Dissemination: Not described Application: Statement of community need, description of project and how it meets community need, project timeline, budget, leadership support and resources available. Scored according to a rubric by one community and one academic representative Reporting: Quarterly, then revised to biannual standard report forms documenting activities, outcomes, successes, challenges and needed support. Awardees present accomplishments and next steps at annual program event | Technical assistance: Support provided during application process and project implementation, both through regularly scheduled calls and site visits and as requested. A sample invoice was provided to guide awardees through invoicing Networking facilitation: Program staff connected awardees to available partners and experts Training: Workshops for program implementations, evaluation, budgets and invoicing | 13 projects were funded Awardees valued technical assistance provided. Some awardees noted they were unaware of types of support technical assistance could provide Awardees valued opportunities to meet other awardees | All awardees planned to continue or expand their projects. Several had secured additional funding and established partnerships to support sustaining projects | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Ramanathan, 2018 [44] Tamminen, 2014 [67] | Program: Teen Challenge Program Organization: ParticipACTION, supported by Coca-Cola Location: Canada Grant size: Max. $500 CAD Framework: None | Focus area: Health promotion (physical activity) Eligible projects: Physical activity programs for adolescents, e.g., costs associated with facilities, equipment, instruction, uniforms, prizes or promotional materials Eligible recipients: Community organizations | Dissemination: Online ads; shared with provincial and territorial program coordinators, and schools Application: Demonstrate capacity to promote or support physical activity for adolescents. Reviewed by provincial and territorial program coordinators Reporting: Annual survey of provincial and territorial program coordinators, annual survey and database of awardees | Website: Provided tools and resources, e.g., physical activity statistics, guidance for engaging adolescents, infographics and promotional posters for download | Approximately 75% of proposals were funding. In total, 3128 projects were funded Facilitators: • Flexibility of funding allocation • Funded status increased perceived credibility and facilitated partnerships Barriers: • Applicants found the online registration process difficult | For many funded projects, the purchase of equipment will allow projects to continue | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Schmidt, 2009 [68] | Program: No formal name Organization: The Hague Municipal Health Services Location: The Hague, Netherlands Grant size: €500–3500 EUR Framework: None | Focus area: Health promotion (physical activity, nutrition) Eligible projects: Innovative projects related to physical activity or nutrition Eligible recipients: Community organizations, resident groups | Dissemination: Not described. Most awardees were members of the program panel Application: Requirements not described. Reviewed by neighbourhood panels consisting of health services staff and community workers, e.g., librarians, dietitians, community centre staff, youth health care nurses, etc Reporting: Standardized report describing the project, its progress and outcomes | Conferencing: Most awardees were members of program panels that met regularly | 61 projects were funded Facilitators: • Neighbourhood panels facilitated access to “hard-to-reach” community members • Experienced moderators chaired panel discussions Barriers: • Application review guidelines were vague and review panels applied criteria inconsistently, e.g., sustainability ratings were based on neighbourhood empowerment for some applications and financial stability for others Public participation in projects was limited | At least 26 projects were sustained, most through participation fees | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Sharpe, 2015 [69] | Program: Community Advocacy and Leadership Program Organization: Prevention Research Center Location: South Carolina, USA Grant size: $5000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Built environment Eligible projects: Changes to build environment to support physical activity, e.g., building walking track or playground Eligible recipients: Community organizations in priority areas | Dissemination: Call for proposals shared with community organizations in priority areas Application: Letters of intent approved prior to full application. Application included project description, team experience and plans to involve the community. Additional $1250 in funding required. Program leadership reviewed and ranked applications, interviewed applicants Reporting: Documentation of spending and final report that included photos | Technical assistance: Program staff met with awardees monthly to problem solve, identify resources or referrals Training: 8 workshops for applicants and awardees. Topics included grant writing, leadership, advocacy sustainability, strategic planning Networking facilitation: Awardees were connected with community organizations | 2 projects were funded Workshops provided networking opportunities for applicants and awardees Applicants and awardees had limited writing and computer skills Facilitators: • Accommodated limitations in discreet manner | Not described | Study design: Mixed methods Quality rating: Low |
Smallwood, 2015 [70] | Program: Community Empowerment Center Funded Mini Grant Project Organization: Community Empowerment Center Location: Columbia, South Carolina, USA Grant size: Max. $12 000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Social issues Eligible projects: Any projects that address community social issues Eligible recipients: Local public health units, residents | Dissemination: Not described Application: Letters of intent approved prior to full application. Application included plans to sustain project beyond funded period. Graduate students reviewed applications and convened a panel to select successful applications Reporting: Weekly progress updates, monthly reflection on successes and barriers, monthly financial report, and final report | Technical assistance: Two sessions for applicants to receive help developing application Training: Workshops on implementation of community change interventions. Additional “power up” skill-building sessions on specific topics Conferencing: Program staff met monthly with awardees to discuss strategies for community engagement Website: Mentioned as tool to establish community presence, but not described further | 10 letters of intent received, 6 full proposals received, 3 projects were funded It was valuable for awardees to meet monthly and learn from others’ successes and challenges. Awardees with later start dates benefitted from learning from awardees who were further along with projects Additional training for project management and evaluation needed | 1 project continued past the funding period, although at a reduced capacity. Awardees reported difficulty sustaining project when funding ended | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Soares, 2014 [71] | Program: Community Access to Child Health (CATCH) Program Organization: American Association of Pediatrics Division of Community-based Initiatives Location: USA Grant size: Average $10 213 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Health (general) Eligible projects: Planning or implementation of projects to improve child health at community level Eligible recipients: Pediatricians | Dissemination: Not described Application: Description of community and proposed intervention. Applications scored by 3 program staff Reporting: Routine progress updates and follow-up to assess sustainment at 2-years post-award | Technical Assistance: Guidance provided on to conducting a needs assessment, community asset mapping, developing resources, community coalition building, and project evaluation Website: Web-based application facilitated application process and ongoing data collection. A public-facing site provides information about the granting program and previous projects | 731 proposals received; 201 projects were funded 87% of awardees obtained technical assistance. Most (63% received grant writing support or obtained information/materials (44%) | Many partnerships were sustained 2 years after funding period, and many new partnerships had been formed | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Tendulkar, 2011 [72] | Program: Harvard Catalyst Community Based Participatory Research Partnership Program Organization: Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Awards Location: Massachusetts, USA Grant size: Max. $50 000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Public health and health (general) Eligible projects: Any projects related to health, such as nutrition, cancer screening, youth sex education, air quality, etc Eligible recipients: Community organizations | Dissemination: Request for proposals shared with networks of community partners Application: Written proposal required. Reviewed by researcher and community partner Reporting: Not described | Technical Assistance: Information session provided to applicants to review proposals and provide feedback Training: Workshops on negotiating equitable community-research partnerships, research ethics | 10 proposals received; 4 projects were funded Lessons learned included allowing sufficient time to develop partnerships and proposals, and to solicit and respond to feedback from awardees | Not described | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Thompson, 2010 [73] | Program: No formal name Organization: Hispanic Community Network to Reduce Health Disparities Location: Lower Yakima Valley, Washington, USA Grant size: $2500–3500 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Cancer prevention Eligible projects: Any projects related to cancer prevention Eligible recipients: Community groups or organizations | Dissemination: Request for proposals shared with community organizations Application: Statement of work, contribution of project to program goals, applicant qualifications, evaluation plan, and budget. Panel of community advisory board scored applications according to scientific merit, applicant capability, project contributions, adequacy of evaluation, and suitability of budget Reporting: Not described | Technical Assistance: 4-h session to assist with application process | 12 proposals received; 10 projects were funded The application process was challenging for most applicants due to language and education barriers | Sustainability was a challenge for many projects | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: Moderate |
Tompkins, 2022 [74] | Program: No formal name Organization: West Virginia state health department Location: West Virginia, USA Grant size: $196 369 USD was dispersed to 65 organization Framework: Social Ecological Model and the Health Impact Pyramid | Focus area: Health promotion (physical activity, nutrition) Eligible projects: Interventions that address policy, systems, and environmental changes Eligible recipients: Non-profit and private organizations, schools, local health departments | Dissemination: Not described Application: Description of change strategies, how they will address inequities, partnership with Health Connection organization, planning for sustainability. Application review process not described Reporting: Not described | Technical Assistance: Assistance and resources provided but not described Website: Contained request for proposals and resources for applicants and awardees | 65 projects were funded Evaluation of project outcomes was challenging due to heterogeneity of settings, activities, timelines and project foci Structural capacity of organizations varied, many awardees were not trained in public health or related fields Early and ongoing communication with awardees was valuable | Sustainability addressed by most awardees. Many applied for additional funding. Some integrated project activities into existing practices | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Vanderpool, 2011 [75] | Program: Appalachia Community Cancer Network (ACCN) grant program Organization: National Cancer Institute (NCI) Location: Appalachian region, USA Grant size: $3500 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Cancer education Eligible projects: Evidence-based cancer prevention intervention Eligible recipients: Community organizations, local coalitions, faith-based organizations, social service agencies, health clinics | Dissemination: Not described Application: Narrative statement of need, work plan, evaluation plan, budget with justification. Formal review of applications not described Reporting: Final report required | Technical Assistance: Support for proposal development and program implementation Training: Workshops based on NCI’s curriculum, Using What Works: Adapting Evidence-Based Programs to Fit Your Needs, to help awardees identify, adapt and implement evidence-based interventions Website: Web portal provided links to sources of research-tested interventions, guidance on program development | 13 proposals received; all 13 projects were funded Most applications used Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. website to identify evidence-based interventions Awardees found technical assistance and training helpful Some awardees felt that evidence-based interventions did not fit their local needs or found the process overwhelming Interventions adapted by adjusting timelines, tailoring materials, planning additional activities, combining multiple programs, and modifying evaluation plans | Projects were not sustained in their entirety, but 4 awardees continued to use materials for other health-related activities | Study design: Qualitative Quality rating: High |
Vines, 2011 [76] | Program: Carolina Community Network (CCN) Organization: Community Network Program (CNP) Location: North Carolina, USA Grant size: Max. $10 000 USD Framework: Community Grants Program (CGP) model | Focus area: Cancer prevention Eligible projects: Cancer education or evidence-based intervention for cancer prevention Eligible recipients: Community organizations, faith-based organizations, health care agencies | Dissemination: E-mail distribution lists, information sessions in community Application: Description of project and evaluation plan. Pairs of community representatives and researchers scored applications. Score, project type, geographic region and potential impact considered in choosing awardees Reporting: 6-month progress report and 12-month final reports required | Technical Assistance: Start-up meetings upon awardee selection, to address issues raised by review committee, orient funding processes, and potential collaboration with other awardees Training: Session to orient applicants to the Community Grants Program model and application review process Conferencing: Monthly calls between awardees and program staff Networking facilitation: Program staff connected awardees with similar projects | 36 proposals received; 15 projects were funded Lessons learned: • Power imbalance between academic researchers and community organizations managed by giving organizations ability to choose projects and strategies, more information on academic finances Approaches to partnerships must be tailored to diverse needs to community organizations | 3 projects were funded again through re-application for a grant | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Washington, 2022 [77] | Program: No formal name Organization: National Center on Health Physical Activity and Disability Location: Birmingham, Alabama, USA Grant size: Max. $20 000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Health promotion (general) Eligible projects: Inclusive neighbourhood programs for people with disabilities and broader community Eligible recipients: Neighbourhood groups | Dissemination: Promoted through organization’s website and social media, asked partners to promote to their networks Application: Description of planned program, plans to include people with disabilities, partnerships supporting implementation. Scored by graduate students according to statement of need, program description, experience, partnerships, organizational capacity, evaluation plan. Scores were averages across reviewers Reporting: Not described | Technical assistance: Interested communities were provided with virtual sessions to discuss granting program Training: Mandatory 1.5-h community engagement workshop focused on innovative community engagement strategies, community strategies, engaging people with disabilities. Training was recorded and made available to awardees Website: Information about the program posted on the funding organization’s website | 5 projects were selected but 2 awardees declined their awards due to funding requirements. 3 projects received funding Awardees shared expertise and experiences in working with people with disabilities | Partnerships were seen as the sustainable component of the program | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Wingfield, 2012 [78] | Program: SUCCEED Legacy Grant Program Organization: Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) Location: Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, USA Grant size: $20 000 USD Framework: None | Focus area: Cancer prevention Eligible projects: Evidence-based breast and cervical cancer interventions with focus on reducing health inequities for Black women Eligible recipients: Community organizations, faith-based organizations | Dissemination: Not described Application: Written proposals scored by review committee according to overview of community needs, organizational capacity, program description, partnerships, evaluation plan, budget and justification. Nonfunded applications were provided feedback and encouraged to reapply Reporting: Semi-annual and year-end reports on progress toward objectives, technical assistance received, recommendations for the granting program | Technical Assistance: Annual webinars share information about the grant program and application process. Ongoing support provided to awardees for evaluation planning, implementing work plans, and developing reports Training: Workshops provided but not described Networking facilitation: Program staff connected awardees with relevant community organizations | 9 projects were funded Awardees found that program staff provided critical support in identifying resources and opportunities On-going training with awardees was required as projects progressed Face-to-face interactions between awardees and program staff facilitated trust Proposed timelines were difficult for many awardees to follow | Awardees were supported in applying for additional funding to sustain projects | Study design: Descriptive Quality rating: Not appraised |
Wyatt, 2011 [79] | Program: Somos Fuertes: Strong Women Making Healthy Choices Organization: Not described Location: Southwestern USA Grant size: $600 USD Framework: Social Learning Theory, Role Theory, and Diffusion of Innovations | Focus area: HIV prevention Eligible projects: HIV education events Eligible recipients: Registered university student organizations | Dissemination: Applications distributed to student organization mailboxes and e-mail addresses. Ad posted in student newsletter Application: Proposed activities, signed agreements to fulfill grant requirements, answers to questions about HIV knowledge and education on campus. Applications reviewed by program directors Reporting: Results of survey of project participants’ pre- and post-activity HIV knowledge | Training: Train-the-trainer workshop on effective HIV education, HIV characteristics Materials: Evidence-based fact sheets and hand-outs on HIV statistics, condom effectiveness and usage | 5 proposals were selected, 4 completed requirements to receive full funding amount Some positive increases in participants’ HIV knowledge and planned safe behaviours | Not described | Study design: Single group pre-post Quality rating: Low |