Using principles of community-based participatory research for institutional practices Ashley Bachelder, MPH, MPS 1 and Neil Sealy 2 (1) Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, (2) Arkansas Community Organizations, Little Rock, AR Purpose This poster focuses on the initial site selection process for the Little Rock Technology Park– a biomedical research park sponsored by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Three possible sites were identified by a private out-of-state consultant with no public input and would require the displacement of 1 of 3 residential neighborhoods, causing a groundswell of objection and public outrage. The two-year site selection process demonstrates the need for community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles and considerations in institutional practices. History of Technology Park Site Selection Context Conclusion References The case demonstrates how institutional top-down behaviors and focus on an outcome (e.g. Technology Park) overshadowed the process, which ultimately generated enough opposition to require the Authority Board to start over. Application of CBPR principles on the frontend could have minimized conflict and ensured equitable, beneficial outcomes for all parties. “It came across very clear to me in the Q and A period. I said– ‘Wow,’ … [It’s like] the white guys come in to take over the neighborhood and kick us out. [Their reaction is] justifiable [since] we all live out in West Little Rock.” – Authority Board Member since acknowledging community damage Bachelder, A and Sealy, N The Whole City is Watching. Shelterforce, Retrieved from Contact: Ashley Bachelder | 4301 W. Markham St., #820, Little Rock AR | | : Biotechnology Taskforce formed by Regional Chamber of Commerce. 2007: Legislation grants power of eminent domain for technology park : Feasibility research shows university technology park suitable for Little Rock, Arkansas. Three residential sites proposed. 2011, September: Sales tax increase passes including $22 million for Technology Park. Universities appoint representatives to Little Rock Technology Park Authority Board to develop the Park. 2011, December: Residential sites publicly revealed to community : Community members organize to fight neighborhood displacement. 2013, October: Alternative nonresidential site selected. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The information presented is based on data collected and observed during Ashley Bachelder’s capstone work as a Master of Public Health and Master of Public Service candidate. Special thanks extend to Dr. Kate Stewart for advising the student research, many community partners including Arkansas Community Organizations and New Millennium Church, and all our neighbors from the Forest Hills, Oak Forest, and Fair Park neighborhoods. Process Community mistrust No communication with community on relocation. No information on compensation for takings. Meeting schedule and format limited public participation. Board members did not disclose financial interests. Site selection did not consider residential impacts. No benefits for community offered. “We just see this as an unnecessary taking over, destroying people’s lives basically… This is supposed to be a democratic society and we don’t have a say.” – Community Resident Structural power imbalance maintained between community and Technology Park Authority Board. Figure 3: Site selection process engendered great mistrust. Principles Recognize community as unit of identity. Build on strengths and resources within the community. Facilitate collaborative partnerships in all phases of research. Integrate knowledge and action for mutual benefit of all partners. Promote a co-learning and empowering process that attends to social inequalities. The Authority Board could have mitigated much of the negative fallout had it followed principles of CBPR. Feasible Applications Invite site proposals from greater community. Initiate conversations with residents prior to public announcements about sites. Identify community gatekeepers. Recognize assets, relationships, and resources in the neighborhoods. Elicit community perspective on the development. Learn about community wishes for Park’s use. Establish formal process for acknowledging and responding to public comments. Provide community representation and voting power on Authority Board. Figure 1: Map of proposed sites. Application of CBPR Principles Technology Park Authority Board Independent agency Complete power over process and final decisions Community No representation on Board Limited minority representation No community voting powers No legal support Site Selection Process Area 1 Population: 881 % Minority: 55% Median Income: $38,382 Area 2 Population: 698 % Minority: 73% Median Income: $38,365 Area 3 Population: 504 % Minority: 81% Median Income: $45,313 Figure 2: Community members protesting outside city hall against use of eminent domain.