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 benchmarks?
• 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.