Summary of Review Comments
Most frequent concerns and
comments on those nominations that did not receive the Community-Campus
Partnerships for Health Award
The Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH)
Award recognizes community-campus partnerships that others can aspire
to - a partnership that embodies the CCPH principles, uses multiple partnership
strategies, involves a full range of partners and achieves significant
outcomes that go beyond a process or a single event. Submissions go through
a thorough internal and external objective review process and selection
was based on the intent, eligibility, and selection criteria described
in Call for Nominations. Submissions are also reviewed for adherence to
guidelines, page limits, and formatting instructions.
Most frequent concerns and comments
- Not enough detail on governance structures and/or
power balance among partners - some submissions indicated the existence
of a partnership governance structure and power sharing but did not
give sufficient detail to determine how decisions are made and how power
is balanced. Although reviewers understand that nominees are limited
in space, partnership structures and issues of power between academia
and communities are key topics related to the selection criteria and
the CCPH Principles of Partnership. In addition, some submissions seemed
too focused on and driven by academic partners with community members
relegated to more of an advisory role.
- Lack of results or outcomes - some submissions
failed to provide enough detail on the indicators of progress/success
and the outcomes of their partnership activities. Some submissions described
outcomes for students and faculty while failing to describe significant
outcomes of partnership activities for the community. The documentation
of results presented by some submissions too heavily emphasized anecdotes
and stories over other forms of evidence.
- Not enough reflection - some submissions included
very strong descriptions of goals but failed to include information
about how the partnership was assessing and reflecting on their progress
towards these goals. For example, how is the partnership working to
continually improve their partnership and their outcomes? What are the
- Restricted scope of partnership activities/strategies
- some submissions described partnerships that reviewers felt could
have been strengthened by pursuing additional opportunities; for example,
are there additional community-campus partnership strategies, such as
engaging in community-based participatory research or building a more
broad-based partnership, that could support a partnership that began
as a strong service-learning program?
- Narrow definition of "partnership" when
compared to selection criteria and other submissions - some submissions
described excellent community-based activities such as outreach programs
and experiential clinical rotations, but failed to demonstrate the existence
of a community-campus partnership that reflects the intent and criteria
of the CCPH Award.
- Not enough involvement of a full range of partners
- some submissions described very strong partnerships with institutions
such as health departments, hospitals, and professional associations
but did not include information about how community members, community-based
organizations, and/or students contributed or participated in the partnership's
structure and activities.
- Not enough detail on the "community"
side of the community-campus partnership - some submissions either
chose not to include community representatives as part of their list
of partnership representatives and/or did not include information about
how community representatives contributed to or participated in the
partnership's structure and activities.
- Description of programs instead of answering essay
questions - some submissions gave an extensive overview of their
programs but failed to directly answer the essay questions. After reading
several submissions and comparing submissions against each other, reviewers
can find it frustrating and confusing to "dig" for the answers
to the essay questions.
In summary, the final decisions
are based on a variety of factors, and reasonable people could disagree
regarding the choices. The majority of submissions describe important,
meaningful, and deserving work. We thank all nominees for taking the time
to create and submit the nomination package and for allowing us to consider
their partnership for the CCPH Award.