Transcript Presentation 1 - National Healthy Homes Conference

Community-Government-Academic
Partnerships for Improving
Healthy Homes Outcomes
John Bartlett, Metropolitan Tenants Organization
Deanna Durica, Cook County Dept of Public Health
Cynthia Gardner, Chicago Department of Public Health
David Treering, Loyola University Institute of Environmental Sustainability
Anita Weinberg, Loyola University School of Law
Who we Are:
• Metropolitan Tenants Organization
• Community-based organization
• Mission - educate, organize and empower tenants
• Served 15,000 individuals annually
• Chicago Department of Public Health
– CDPH is the state certified public health agency for Chicago
– Serves 2.7m residents
• Cook County Department of Public Health
– CCDPH is the state certified public health agency for suburban Cook
County, Illinois (excludes Chicago)
– One of the seven affiliates of the Cook County Health and Hospitals System
– Serves approximately 2.5 million residents
– 129 municipalities
• Loyola University Chicago
– Education and Service
– Centers of Excellence
Background
• Lead Safe Housing Task Force (1997)
– Housed, chaired, staffed by Loyola Civitas ChildLaw Center
– Mission: to develop and implement workable strategies to
eliminate childhood lead poisoning
• Advocate for policy reform
• Promote public awareness
• Foster collaborations to achieve mission
•
•
•
•
•
Strategic planning
Community activities
Raising awareness/education
Legislative advocacy
Research
Lessons Learned Working in Partnership
•
•
•
•
Take the time to establish trust
Build on strengths of partners
Patience – change takes time
Compromise – but carefully
Advancing Healthy Homes/Healthy
Communities Initiative
 Initial steps
– 2010: group of faculty researchers brainstormed and discussed the
impact of environmental toxins in our homes and communities.
– Affiliated faculty from CUERP, CURL, CHRC, and the Civitas
ChildLaw Center developed a Concept Paper
– 2011: received University Strategic Planning grant to develop an
interdisciplinary initiative to address these toxins and related issues
 Developed Intra-univ. Advisory Council to garner interest
– Representatives from University Centers, Schools of Medicine,
Nursing and Law, Departments of Political Science, Psychology
 Established External Advisory Group
– Including representatives from University, communities, City,
County, federal government
• Identified research agenda based on universitycommunity-government interests and needs
Flow Chart of Partnership Activities
University as Partner
Partnership benefits – to University as partner
• Applied research
– More effective in concert than each alone
• Experiential learning opportunities for students
• Community engagement
– Local knowledge
• Expertise and skills of partners
– Politics
Partnership benefits – of University as partner
• Collaborations
– Intra-university, cross discipline scholars and groups
– Faculty, staff and students
• Approach and Expertise
–
–
–
–
Interdisciplinary research
Using theory and framing problems
Adding an objective perspective to what partners know
Evidence based approach to data collection and analysis
• Resources
–
–
–
–
–
Physical space for convening group meetings
Software and expertise for analysis
Law school clinics
Communications and Marketing programs
Network of Contacts
Challenges – for University as partner
• Building partnerships
– Intra-university
• Research priorities, time, location
– Stakeholders external to university
• Building trusting relationships
• Priorities
– Competing with other important priorities
• Funding
– Research and outreach
– Interventions and solutions
• Messaging
– Terminology and a common language
– Relevance vis a vis competing priorities
– Overload of information
Community as Partner
Be clear on expectations about the partnership
Partnership benefits – to community partners
• Resources
– financial from partnership grants
– research and evaluation
• Relationships
– University can bring together diverse groups – government, other
stakeholders, opponents in nonpartisan manner
• Help with developing new programs
• Advocacy to get policies and laws passed
• Opportunity for community partners to raise awareness/tell their
stories/teach others about community and issues experienced
• Opportunity for community partners to engage younger
generation (students) on issues they care about
Community as Partner
Partnership benefits – of community partners
• Real life experiences of people impacted by issues
• With the experiences they also bring an analysis of
whether solutions/policies will work
• Bring relationships with other community based
organizations to partnership
• Bring credibility to public entities and University
• Help identify problems/issues raised needing to be
addressed and/or researched
Community as Partner (cont)
Challenges – for Community Partners
•
•
•
•
Watch the use of acronyms and other language
Experts can be intimidating for community people
Making sure all voices are heard
Setting goals and priorities that all parties can agree
to and then making sure that progress is made on the
issue
• Organize communication with community members
Public Entities as Partner
Partnership benefits - to public entity partners
• Leverage existing partnerships that
might not have been yours
– Builds relationships
– Builds credibility
– Builds evidence
Partnership Entities as Partners
Partnership benefits to public entity partners
• Increased capacity to get things done
– Limited resources and staff capacity are enhanced
when we’re all sharing pieces of the work
• Motivational force
– The bully pulpit
– External pressure =
• Support when aligned with agency priorities,
• A “kick in the pants” when priorities are lagging
behind
Public Entities as Partner
Partnership benefits - of public entity partners
• Provides in-roads to decision makers that
might not otherwise be available
– Builds relationships
– Builds credibility
• Increased capacity to get things done
– Access to data
– Access to people
– Access to “insider” information
• Policy enforcement
Challenges - for Public Entities as Partners
• Politics
– What can I say? When can I say it? Is the
president’s office on board?
• Buy-in
– Getting support of the leadership making funding
decisions
• Deliverables
– Not overpromising, not under-performing
• Value
One Partnership Initiative:
City/Countywide Working Summit, June 2014
• Invitational working conference on Healthy
Homes/Healthy Communities in coordination with
Chicago and Cook County Departments of Public Health
• Goal: Host a regional working conference to identify and
prioritize policy priorities for developing a city-countywide strategic plan to tackle the burden of unhealthy
housing
• Target Audiences
– Policy makers: City, County, State and Federal agency staff from
Housing, Environmental Protection, Public Health
– Academic peers: Chicagoland institutions
– Non-Profits and NGOs: Environmental sustainability and
Community health organizations
City/Countywide Working Summit, June 2014
• Working Group Topics
– Public health and social service interventions
– Raising awareness among decision makers
– Reviewing and evaluating existing regulations, laws
and policies around healthy homes; identifying
future approaches
– Sustainable solutions
Thank you!
John Bartlett, Metropolitan Tenants Organization
[email protected]
Deanna Durica, Cook County Dept of Public Health
[email protected]
Cynthia Gardner, Chicago Department of Public Health
[email protected]
David Treering, Loyola Inst of Environmental Sustainability
[email protected]
Anita Weinberg, Loyola School of Law
[email protected]