1. Communities Working in Partnership: Building Capacity for Policy Change
Sonya Grant-White, MSW
Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center
Kent Key, MPH
Flint Odyssey House Health Awareness Center
Chris Coombe, MPH PHD
Renee Bayer, MHSA
Community Health Scholars Program
Community Based Public Health Conference
Flint, MI April 3, 2012
With acknowledgement to The Skillman Foundation, the University of Michigan, PolicyLink, the Community Health Scholars Program, and our colleagues in the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center
SONYA
Welcome to Communities Working in Partnership: Building Capacity for Policy Change!
(introduce selves)
This workshop will describe the process and results from adapting a local policy advocacy training for use in other communities nationally. You will also have an opportunity to take part in one component of the training.
The purpose of CWP is to strengthen the capacity and increase the effectiveness of the academic and community partners involved in the Community Health Scholars Program to train community residents to engage in policy change efforts, and to carry out policy-related work.
A Planning Team comprised of teams of academic and community trainers involved with the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center (URC) and members of the four training sites from the Community Health Scholars Program (which we will say a little bit more about in a minute) wereinvolved in planning the curriculum and logistics for each training site’s Training-the-Trainers and subsequent workshops for community members.
Each of the four training sites participated in a two-day Train-the-Trainers workshop on the basic principles of the policy process and effective strategies for impacting policy change. There were a total of 3 trainings, one in North Carolina, one in Baltimore and one (which we will describe in detail) here in Flint, Michigan.

2. Agenda Why Build Community Capacity for Policy Change?
NWP to CWP: Adapting a local neighborhood training to other communities
Programs or Policies?
Putting it in Action in Flint & Genesee County
Q & A, Lessons Learned
SONYA
The agenda for today’s workshop… 2 2 2

3. Why Build Community Capacity for Policy Change?
Policy change can have widespread and lasting impact on health for those most impacted by inequities.
Community participation is essential!
Communities most affected-including youth-need opportunities to gain policy advocacy skills.
Most policy training is aimed at professionals, and focuses on “big P policies.”
Community-academic partnerships
can facilitate building community
capacity to engage in policy advocacy.
SONYA
While programs and interventions are important strategies for improving health in our communities, policy change has the potential for more widespread and sustained change, and for ultimately eliminating health inequities.
There has been increasing recognition that engaging community residents in policy change is essential!
However, many communities that are most affected—particularly low-income and communities of color--have limited opportunities to gain the skills and knowledge needed to successfully engage in the policy process.
Furthermore, most policy advocacy training that is available is largely aimed at professional audiences, and focuses on “big P policies, like how to pass legislation. Local communities may be overwhelmed at the idea of passing a state law, and need the capacity to bring about change in “little p” policies at the local level, such as enforcement, funding, and organizational change.
Community-based participatory research, with its focus on community strengths and equitable partnerships, can be effective at enhancing the capacity of community residents to engage in policy advocacy to address social determinants of health and eliminate health inequities. 3 3 3

4. Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center (URC)
Partner Organizations:
Community Health and Social Services Center, Inc., (CHASS)
Communities In Schools
Detroit Department of Health and Wellness Promotion
Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation
Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice
Friends of Parkside
Henry Ford Health System
Latino Family Services
Neighborhood Service Organization
Rebuilding Communities, Inc./Warren-Conner
Development Coalition
University of Michigan Schools of Public Health,
Nursing & Social Work
To this end, the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center (URC) committed to building capacity and partnerships for policy change toward eliminating health inequity, and then to extend that work to other communities through the Community Health Scholars Program.
First a little about us—Detroit URC was formed 17 years ago—we’re a community based participatory research partnership to improve the health and well-being of Detroit residents, with the aim of eliminating racial and economic inequities in health. Our partners, as listed on this slide, are community-based organizations, the local health department, an integrated care system and the University of Michigan.
The URC is committed to applying the findings from our research and interventions to bring about policy change to enhance health and quality of life within Detroit neighborhoods. Towards that end, we are committed to involving neighborhood residents in this policy change process. Hence, the URC, in conjunction with The Skillman Foundation, has developed a policy advocacy training program over the past 3 years to engage neighborhood residents active in Detroit in strengthening the skills needed to successfully bring about policy change. 4 4 4

5. Program Goals and Objectives:
Neighborhoods Working in Partnership: Building Capacity for Policy Change
Program Goals and Objectives:
To strengthen policy advocacy skills among neighborhood residents within Detroit
To extend voices within the policy-making arena
To have an impact on policies aimed at creating healthy neighborhoods
To address this issue, over 4 years ago the Detroit Urban Research Center established the Neighborhoods Working in Partnership: Building Capacity for Policy Change effort, funded largely by the Skillman Foundation as part of its Good Neighborhoods Initiative (GNI). This training was aimed at residents who were already engaged in the Good Neighborhoods Initiative, a 10 year, $10 million a year effort in 6 neighborhoods of Detroit to build neighborhoods that are safe and healthy for children.
The NWP program goals and objectives are:
To strengthen policy advocacy skills among neighborhood residents within Detroit.
To extend voices within the policy-making arena.
3. To have an impact on policies aimed at creating healthy neighborhoods.
This effort is described in more detail in an article in AJPH which is listed on the resource handout you will have today. 5 5 5

6. Neighborhoods Working in Partnership: for Detroit Residents
Train-the-Trainers:
Series of 3 Workshops
by PolicyLink
15 NWP Trainers
URC partners
Other community leaders
Training of
Neighborhood Residents:
Series of 4 Workshops
1-3 in each local neighborhood
4th citywide
228 participants
Youth and Adults
NWP involves a three step process.
We started by first strengthening the capacity of URC partners and other Detroit community leaders to train others in policy advocacy in a train-the-trainers model—PolicyLink conducted.
2nd, to build capacity of community residents, our 15 member trainer team (academic and community) developed and conducted a series of very participatory skills building trainings for neighborhood residents, drawing upon the PolicyLink training curriculum but adapting it to local needs, cultures, and issues.
3rd, we offered technical assistance and ongoing support to participants engaged in policy advocacy.
Participants receive a binder of all the materials, handouts and tips, and 2 resource guides including lists of both elected officials and other boards and decision makers, with contact information.
Since the beginning, we’ve trained and supported over 500 community residents.
Ongoing Support to Participants 6 6 6

7. Policy Training Components
Program or Policy?
Power Mapping
Choosing Strategies for Policy Change
Policy Advocacy Campaign
Talking with Policymakers
Communicating for Policy Change
The NWP workshop series is made up of a number of components, so that groups can use some or all:
What is Policy? Difference between Programs and Policies
Using our Power: Power Mapping
Choosing Strategies to Win Policy Change
Designing a Policy Advocacy Campaign
Using Our Voices: Talking with Policymakers
Communication Tools for Policy Change
BRIEFLY SAY 1 OR 2 WORDS ABOUT EACH, OR POSE AS QUESTION—”Making change is all about power, right? So we need to know who has the power to change our policy, and who are supporters and opponents so we can be strategic in building our coalition and planning our campaign. That’s why Power Mapping is one of the most valued tools of our workshops.”
In a minute you’re going to get a taste of one of those. 7 7 7

8. NWP Curriculum is effective because participants…
Address real and relevant issues
Gain knowledge and then apply it
Reflect on their experiences
Learn with and from each other
The NWP curriculum was guided by an experiential action learning model that assumes that learning is more meaningful and effective when participants:
--Actively address real-life issues that are relevant and important to them, and require solutions.
--participants Gain knowledge and then engage with others to apply that knowledge to a specific situation or problem to develop skills.
--Participants reflect on their experiences and what they are learning.
--Finally, participants learn with and from each other.
NWP group activities give participants the opportunity to practice the skills being taught in the training using examples that their neighborhoods have identified.
Workshops include a combination of interactive presentations and materials; role plays and group problem-solving activities (like powermapping); observation, practice, and feedback from others (such as developing talking points and practicing them with each other with policymakers); and small and large group discussions to reflection on what they’re learning. 8 8 8

9. NWP Curriculum Development Partnership Approach
CBPR Principles guided the process, including:
Build on community strengths and resources
Promote collaborative, equitable partnership
Foster co-learning and capacity building
Focus on multiple determinants of health
Promote long-term engagement
The process of designing, conducting, and evaluating NWP was a partnership approach guided by community-based participatory research principles. Many of you are familiar with CBPR, a partnership approach to research that equitably engages community members, practitioners, and academic researchers in all aspects of research to enhance understanding of issue, and integrate that knowledge with action to improve health in the communities involved.
CBPR principles listed here guided the process, for example:
--Community strengths and resources included URC, trainers, and neighborhood—and was adapted to local community
--Close partnership of diverse team of trainers and staff.
--Fostered co-learning and capacity building—through PolicyLink training and working together we built our own capacity and shared knowledge and skills
--Multiple determinants of health—issues and policy solutions addressed underlying causes
--Promote long-term engagement—building coalition for policy change and our own partnership brought together long-term partners as well as new, for example working with youth organizations, librarian. 9 9 9

10. NWP Participants
228 people participated in the initial workshop series
63% Female, 37% Male
Youth and Adults
48% Under 18 years old
52% 18 years or older
NWP has trained an additional 250 people from neighborhoods, organizations, schools
The workshops have been VERY well received:
A total of 228 people participated in the NWP workshop series.
2/3 were women about 1/3 men 37%.
Nearly half of participants were youth—48% were under 18 years old.
52% of the participants were adults ranging in age from 18 to over 65.
The participants across the neighborhood trainings reflect the general ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic composition of their respective neighborhoods, and each different neighborhood incorporated important cultural aspects and issues. The training was bilingual in the primarily Latino community.
Since the first series, NWP has trained an additional 250 people from neighborhoods, organizations, schools—public health professionals, students, academic researchers, neighborhood block clubs. It was designed COLLABORATIVELY, so it can be adapted for a range of levels, positions, purposes. 10

11. Evaluation Results 94% I found the training useful.
86% I will be able to use
what I learned to bring about
change in my neighborhood.
87% Because of what I learned, I plan to do more work to change policies.
All trainings are evaluated, and feedback is incorporated by the trainer teams as we go along.
Trainings are highly regarded—here are a few results from our first series (Agree or Strongly Agree):
94% said they found the training useful.
86% said they will be able to use what they learned to bring about change in their neighborhood.
87% said that because of what they learned in the training, they plan to do more work to change policies. 11

12. Sonya
To extend this work, with funding from the Kellogg Foundation, the URC and the Community Health Scholars Program National Program Office, decided to expand this curriculum into a training-of-trainers to strengthen capacity of academic and community partners nationally in each of the Community Health Scholars Program training sites to engage in policy advocacy to build healthier communities.
CHSP is a two year postdoctoral fellowship program to enhance skills of academic researchers to engage in CBPR.
The program as four training sites: North Carolina-University of North Carolina, Baltimore- TWO universities - Morgan State University and Johns HopkinsUniversity, and Michigan-University of Michigan.
The aim of the project, Communities Working in Partnership (CWP), is to strengthen capacity of CHSP academic and community partners to train residents in their local communities to engage in policy advocacy to build healthier communities.

13. Communities Working in Partnership: Training-of-Trainers
NWP
Curriculum & materials,
Trainers & Staff +
CHSP Cross-site Planning Committee =
Redesign into training-of-trainers
CWP
Training-of-Trainers:
At each of 3 sites
NWP Trainer - Staff Teams
CHSP Site Planning Committee
2 day intensive training
Adapted to each local community
88 participants
(2/3 community)
CWP used a collaborative planning process, with community and academic representative from each of the communities. Together, we took something relevant in Detroit, and used a process to adapt it to train activists in other very different communities—making it relevant to each by using each community’s unique issues and concerns. We worked to make the policy issues real and relevant for each individual community.
including: an overall Planning Team comprised of URC community and academic trainers and members of the four CHSP sites; site-specific teams of URC trainers and staff who collaborated with CHSP members to adapt curriculum to each site; a two-day intensive training-of-trainers workshop at each site; development of a “toolkit” of curriculum, materials, and evaluation instruments for participants to adapt to their own communities; and follow-up activities in each community conducted by new CWP trainers.
The CWP trainings included a local success story presented by community members, and used as a “case example” for exploring what worked, what challenges they faced, and strategies they used to overcome challenges and win their campaign.
Overall results were:
3 Train-the-Trainer workshops (4 CHSP sites)
88 participants trained (22 per CHSP site), 68% from the community and 32% from universities. 7 Kellogg Health Scholars attended.
$5,000 Mini-grant to each site for new trainers to adapt and conduct a training for local community members 13 13 13

14. CWP Results 99% I found the training useful.
99% Working with others I can change policies that affect my community
89% I intend to work with others for policy change.
We evaluated the project process, outcomes, and impact. Here are a few of the results:
3 questions asked at the end of each training session to assess participants’ satisfaction with the training. Responses were quite positive
99% said they found the training useful.
99% said that working with others they can change policies that affect my community
89% said that because of what they learned in the training, they plan to do more work to change policies. 14

15. CWP: Moving to Local Action
CWP trainers conducted workshops in their own community.
Training components incorporated into initiatives, campaigns, conferences, planning meetings.
Adapted into a youth advocacy program by a Kellogg Health Scholar.
Local Community Follow-up and Sustainability
Mini-grant for workshop conducted by local CWP trainers
Every community has used it for other policy change activities (policy panel, powermapping)
We’re going to hear from Kent how it is being used in Flint and Genesee County. 15

16. Going from Community Issues to Policy Solutions
What is Policy?
Going from Community Issues to Policy Solutions
Sonya
Now we’re going to give you a sample of an activity that you can use in your organization or community. We have used this with state and local health department staffs, neighborhood groups, and graduate students—among others.
Every day our community is being affected by decisions—decisions that affect the health and safety of our neighborhoods, our children’s education, …. etc.
There are many ways to address issues in your community—focusing on policies is one strategy. But how do you know what’s a policy?

17. What do we mean by “Policy?”
What do we mean by “policy?” Ask group to call it out.
Then give examples:
In family: taking your shoes off when you come in the house. Not playing your radio too loud at night.
Organization: how decisions are made about finances, miss 2 meetings and you’re off the board.
Nation: Electing the president, healthcare policy, education policy.

18. Programs
Policies
Programs and policies are two different approaches to solving community problems.
Now you all are probably familiar with the difference between a policy and a program. But what we’ve found working in different communities is that people have a lot of experience doing programs. They have after school programs and violence prevention programs and neighborhoods clean-ups. But what we want to start thinking about are the differences between policies and programs, and the types of solutions a program offers versus the solutions a policy offers.
To understand the difference between a program and a policy, let’s look at something we can all relate to—
How many of you have ever tried to get rid of dandelions from the yard?
What do you do?
You can mow them, poison them. But what happens in a few weeks?
Or dig them out by the roots…so the problem doesn’t return.
That’s one way we can think about the difference between programs and policies. 18

19. Policy
A policy is a plan or a course of action that helps guide decisions
Policies are the guidelines that our governments, organizations, institutions use to respond to issues and situations
Policies can take different forms:
Rules, procedures, regulations, codes
Written or unwritten
Official or unofficial
National, state, city, organization, family
A policy is a defined course of action that helps guide decisions.
Policies are the rules, procedures, codes, guidelines, and regulations of our government, but also of institutions such as hospitals and schools, even families and individuals. We use policies to guide our response to specific issues and situations.
Policies can take different forms, depending upon whose policies they are, and what they refer to. They may be public or private, official or unofficial, expressed or unexpressed.
Policy can be the ABSENCE of a policy.
Just about every organization, governing body, and other group has a set of policies—the official and unofficial rules by which the organization relates to the world.

20. Approaches to Solving Community Issues
Programs, Activities
Addresses small piece of problem
Day-to-day issues
Meets an immediate need
Changes individuals
Short term change
Policy Solutions
Addresses entire problem
Big picture issues
Moves us toward broader goals
Changes institutions and communities
Lasting change
We need both approaches to solving problems our community is facing—both programs, activities, events AND policies. Here’s why we need both—and it’s a way you can tell the difference between a program and a policy.
Go through slide briefly. The handout of this slide was given out to participants. They’ll use it during the activity.
Programs are on the left side, policies more to the right.
We need both to deal with the issues facing our schools and communities.
However, most of us are very good at the left side—it’s what we do in our lives every day—but this training is going to build our skills for understanding how to work on the right side…the POLICY side…
--to turn issues that are important to us into policy solutions, and
--to organize campaigns to advocate for policy change

21. Communities Taking Action! Programs or Policies?
Small Group Activity
SONYA
Purpose of this activity is to help us understand the difference between programs/activities and policy solutions, and what are some “policy” solutions to the issues you all are facing in your community.
First go to next slide, then walk them through each chart.

22. Action Areas:
Community Development & Transformation – Our community provides a safe and healthy environment that ensures the economic and social well-being of all its residents and their families.
Youth Advancement - All youth have opportunities to engage in positive school, work, and recreational experiences that promote their future success.
SONYA
Around the room you’ll see a Chart with an Action Area and a VISION for each: (read from slide)
In a few minutes, we’ll be dividing into groups.
Each group will have
-- a deck of cards with different “possible solutions” to reach that goal/vision.
Some are programs or activities, some are policies. Your job is to figure out which is which.
--a blue handout (from the slide shown earlier) —Use it like a checklist to help you tell the difference between program and policy solutions.
Hold stack of cards and demonstrate:
Have one person “deal the deck” so everyone has a hand of cards.
Taking turns, go around the circle one at a time and have each person read one of their cards out loud.
As a group, decide where to post it on the big “solutions” chart, continuing until all are posted (using handout for guidance).
-- Use the handout titled “What’s the difference between program solutions &
policy goals” --bring it with you to your small group. You can
use it like a checklist to help you tell the difference between program and policy solution.
We’ll walk around to groups in case there are questions.
You’ll only have 10 minutes in your groups! We’ll tell you when time is almost up…
Divide up into 4 groups—go to the chart nearest you.
NOTE: After 5 min., trainers circulate in groups and help them get on track, if necessary. Give 5 min. notice:
When your group is finished, talk about what you learned and whether there were any you couldn’t
decide on? Also, go look at what other groups have done, then we’ll all get back together again in the
large group.

23. What did you find out?
Kent
Process with entire group—one by one, ask each group to call out:
What is ONE thing you found out in your group?
Interactive, we want them to come up with some of these main points in discussion:
It isn’t always clear cut.
Some words that help us—Policy (require, allocate, fund, enforce, pass), Program (provide, organize, develop)
TYPES OF POLICIES
There is “policy with a big P” such as legislation and ballot initiatives, but also “policy with a little p” such as institutional policies at schools, hospitals, or how money is divvied up and whether laws are enforced.
Next slide has Types of Policies as a summary of what they came up with.
[STAFF} Pass out second blue handout with the “answers” to the activity.
Explain that these are not absolute “right” or “wrong” answers but reflect our assessment of these.

24. Types of Policies Regulations Laws Codes Zoning Ballot Initiatives
Recalls
Administrative Rules
Resolutions
Budgets
Executive orders
Taxation
Enforcement
Eligibility Standards
Court Decisions & Court Orders
KENT
VERY BRIEF, don’t go through everything.
Policies are not just laws, but how government institutions and public services function, such as schools, fire and police departments. For example--
--whose emergency calls get answered
--different quality of schools in different neighborhoods
--location of environmental hazards like waste dumps
Sometimes we want to STOP policies that aren’t fair, for example by going to court to overturn an unjust law.
Here are some types of policies.

25. Policy Change is One Step on the Road to Improved Communities
KENT
Changing policy is a step on the road to changing social conditions and bringing about real community change.
Next, I’m going to tell you about how one of the CHSP sites -- my community Flint-Genesee County – moved CWP into action to bring about policy change in our community.

26. KENT
Partners in Flint and Genesee County agreed to join in the national CWP project because of a common recognition that to improve the health of the community, to eliminate health disparities and promote health equity, we in the public health field have to address Social Determinants of Health such as education, access to health care, and race/racism. Otherwise we will not have a lasting impact on health outcomes.
We have also come to the conclusion that we must impact Social Determinants of Health through policy change, for example addressing underlying social issues to reduce violence and crime. The CWP training gives organizations more tools to take on policies that affect quality of life issues for neighborhoods and youth.
Communities Working in Partnership: Taking action locally to impact Social Determinants of Health in Flint and Genesee County  

27. CWP Flint/Genesee Co. Training Partners
Community-Based Organization Partners (CBOP)
Lead partners: Flint Neighborhood Roundtable, Flint Odyssey House Inc., Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, Mid Michigan District Women’s Missionary Society
Genesee County Health Department
University of Michigan School of Public Health:
Community Health Scholars Program,
Michigan Prevention Research Center,
Office of Public Health Practice
Planning Team members from Flint/Genesee County was comprised of a team of trainers from community-based organizations, the health department, and the university who have been community academic partners since The partners are:
Community-Based Organization Partners (CBOP) is an alliance of community-based organizations who come together to identify issues and refine collaborations with agencies and
universities. The lead organizational partners for CWP are Flint Neighborhood Roundtable, Flint Odyssey House Inc., Genesee County Community Action Resource Department, Mid Michigan District Women’s Missionary Society
Genesee County Health Department is the lead practice partner and
The University of Michigan School of Public Health: Community Health Scholars Program, Michigan Prevention Research Center, and Office of Public Health Practice

28. Flint/Genesee Co. CWP Train-the-trainers
Two-day train-the-trainers conducted in May 2010.
22 community-academic leaders completed the train-the-trainers.
A case study presented by the SMART Coalition to illustrate a successful local example of policy change
Flint-Genesee County planning partners participated in planning a two-day training that would be relevant for leaders in Flint. They identified trainers from their organizations and the local community.
The 22 attendees came from community-based organizations, agencies, and universities.
The planners organized a local case study for the second day of the training. A panel presentation by representatives of the SMART coalition provided an illustration of a local advocacy campaign to impact tobacco policy.

29. Policy Advocacy Workshop
Adapted the training to a 1- day workshop
Invited a broad representation from local groups/coalitions
24 participants completed workshop
Subset of topics from the original training:
policy vs. program,
power-mapping and
advocacy strategies.
CWP materials were adapted for local relevance.
Following the two-day train-the-trainers workshop, a one-day workshop was developed by Flint/Genesee Co. trainers. This gave us the opportunity to put our training into practice right away.
A broad representation from local groups was invited to attend. The group included adult and youth activists.
The one-day workshop focused on a subset of topics from the original training including policy vs. programs (the exercise you just had a taste of), power-mapping, advocacy strategies, and designing an advocacy campaign.
All of the CWP materials were adapted to make them our own by incorporating pictures, examples, and exercises relating to Flint.
24 participants completed the workshop.
At the end of the workshop, participants completed an evaluation which showed very positive results. We offered to come to their sites to provide similar workshops and technical assistance. Following the workshop, s invited the group to attend subsequent community-wide policy advocacy activities.

30. Follow-up activities :
A policy panel of local officials – 50 attendees
A Powermapping training at the invitation of the Neighborhood Roundtable – 40 attendees
Both activities were taped and shown on community access TV
Several follow up activities have taken place in Flint and Genesee County.
The first activity was a policy panel. Local politicians discussed issues with focus on proposed legislative changes to cash assistance, pensions and university funding. Following the panel, CWP trainers described the CWP training and offered to bring policy/advocacy workshops to organizations.
Subsequently, CWP was invited and conducted the power mapping exercise at a meeting of the Flint Neighborhood Roundtable.
Both activities were taped and aired on public access TV providing broader community exposure.

31. Flint/Genesee Co. CWP Lessons Learned
Flint/Genesee Co. CWP contributes to on-going work and new policy efforts.
increased efficacy to create policy change;
broad participation in subsequent policy activities; and
catalyzed policy change in education (e.g. electing a CBOP member to the Flint school board and changing nutrition/physical activity policies in Clio schools).
In Flint/Genesee Co., we have learned several lessons through our participation in CWP:
CWP contributes to on-going work and new policy efforts.
The training creates a climate that brings people together to make change. People want to participate and get involved. CWP builds people’s skills and relationships. Following the workshop, participants reported feeling more confidence in their abilities to make change in their community.
The training helped us learn how to focus our efforts more effectively where we could have some impact. There has been broader participation in subsequent policy activities.
The training has catalyzed policy change in education (for example, electing a CBOP member, Ella Greene-Moton, to the Flint school board. Also, a coalition in Clio Schools focused on “healthy kids learn best” have impacted nutrition/physical activity policies in middle schools by eliminated sugar beverages, treats and changing PE curriculum and policies.

32. Next steps to conduct additional workshops by invitation and
collective advocacy for changes in social determinants of health
Over this coming year, we plan to conduct additional workshops for organizations by invitation.
We are applying for funding to continue our collective advocacy for changes in the school system and other social determinants of health.

33. Summary
SONYA

34. Facilitating Factors
Curriculum adaptable to multiple audiences and communities
“Iterative”—evolving
Diverse trainers with diverse expertise
Widespread enthusiasm and desire for this training!!
Across all three CWP training sites, including Flint/Genesee County, we found:
The NWP curriculum is adaptable to multiple audiences and communities. This was facilitated by identifying planners with strong ties with the local communities. Different trainers brought knowledge and strengths to the team – was invaluable during the development and implementation of the training.
Curriculum is iterative and evolving. This is facilitated in a Participatory approach in all we do.
Finally, widespread enthusiasm for this and more training. Each community is making CWP their own and it has contributed to existing and new policy advocacy activities.

35. CWP: Lessons Learned
Having a strong partnership in place, and a diverse set of partners is invaluable.
Both academic and community partners benefit from policy advocacy training.
Evaluate and make changes as you go along.
TEXT BELOW—NEEDS EDITED. SONYA/KENT CAN DECIDE
Challenges, Lessons Learned, Opportunities to Engage Community Partners
Effective process to engage people across different communities to adapt a local curriculum to local needs/concerns (travel challenges, cost of initial meeting)—value of face-to-face.
Tailored to the local training site and framed to assist community and academic partners in providing subsequent policy advocacy training within their local communities—requires knowledge of local issues, norms, language—example illegal dumping, hog farms
Accompanied by materials that participants can use in subsequent trainings they may conduct—used in ongoing activities, i.e., powermapping for planning meeting
Each local site has a cadre of community and academic partners with the necessary knowledge, skills, curriculum design, materials, and evaluation instruments to successfully train community members to extend their voices to achieve policy change.
--the importance of identifying/engaging trainers who have the necessary knowledge, skills as trainers and are well-connected in the community – since this was not a training on how to do training.]
Community members are taking the initiative to move it forward—importance of funding for continued support of community – academic collaboration for policy change.
--the importance of the participants/trainers to be in a position to carry out the training and provide ongoing technical assistance/support in turn to community level people who participate in subsequent trainings.
-- the value of the approach we took of actually taking the participants/trainers through the actual training and then using a “stop action” technique to reflect on and process how it would be for them as trainers.

36. Resources Detroit URC www.detroiturc.org
For more information about workshops and activities in Flint/Genesee County:
Suzanne Cupal, Genesee County Health Department, (810) ,
Arlene Sparks, Genesee County Community Action and Resource Department,
PolicyLink
We have provided a handout with this information on NWP and CWP.

37. Questions, Comments?
KENT & SONYA

38. Communities Working in Partnership for Policy Change!
“[The most important thing about the training is] knowing that I have power that will positively impact my neighborhood and that now I know how to use it.”
Thank you for coming! 38