The Development of a Collaborative Self-Evaluation Process for Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships Using the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model and Other Adaptable Tools

Background: Established community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships need tools to assist with self-evaluation of the effectiveness and engagement with CBPR principles and to inform ongoing work. A growing part of the CBPR field is focused on the evaluation of partnering processes and outcomes. Objectives: The Rochester Healthy Community Partnership (RHCP), a partnership with more than a decade of engagement in health promotion research, performed a self-evaluation in collaboration with the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research (UNM-CPR). Methods: We collaboratively developed and implemented a facilitated self-evaluation using adaptations of existing tools and the CBPR conceptual model. Partners contributed through surveys and qualitative interviews. Initially, data were analyzed collaboratively by members of RHCP and UNM-CPR, but RHCP partners further processed and consolidated findings, leading to the development of key questions that guided a full partnership discussion of action steps. Results: Our process confirmed the adaptability of existing tools and the CBPR conceptual model for the purpose of partnership reflection and self-evaluation. We offer the key findings of our assessment of partnering practices and directions for the future, and share our approach to collaborative analysis and dissemination. Our discussion includes lessons learned, with applicability to other established partnerships. Conclusions: Our experience indicates that collective reflection is empowering for members of established partnerships, which can be facilitated by engagement in self-evaluation through the use of adapted, available tools. The incorporation of participatory processes adds complexity, but leads to a level of resonance and usefulness that would not have been obtained from a traditional evaluation. © 2019 Johns Hopkins University Press.