Beyond Incentives for Involvement to Compensation for Consultants: Increasing Equity in CBPR Approaches

Metadata sources used for this reference

OpenAlex Crossref OpenCitations
Learn more about the sources used

Black, K. Z., Hardy, C., Marco, M. D., Ammerman, A. S., Corbie‐Smith, G., Council, B., Ellis, D., Eng, E., Harris, B., Jackson, M. R., Jean-Baptiste, J., Kearney, W., Legerton, M., Parker, D., Wynn, M., & Lightfoot, A. F. (2013). Beyond Incentives for Involvement to Compensation for Consultants: Increasing Equity in CBPR Approaches. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 7(3), 263-270. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2013.0040

Publication date: 1 Sep 2013 Added to AutiHub: 18 Jul 2026 Type: Article Article language: English
OpenAlex source Publisher source (DOI) Full text

This publication is integrated into AutiHub through:

Authors

Publication authors
16
Publication authors identified as autistic
0 / 16 (0.0%)
  1. Kristin Z. Black
  2. Christina Hardy
  3. Molly De Marco
  4. Alice S. Ammerman
  5. Giselle Corbie‐Smith
  6. Barbara Council
  1. Danny Ellis
  2. Eugenia Eng
  3. Barbara Harris
  4. M. R. Jackson
  5. Jimmy Jean-Baptiste
  6. William Kearney
  1. Mac Legerton
  2. Donald Parker
  3. Mysha Wynn
  4. Alexandra F. Lightfoot

Abstract

Background: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) strives for equitable collaboration among community and academic partners throughout the research process. To build the capacity of academia to function as effective research partners with communities, the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS), home of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH)’s Clinical and Translational Sciences Award (CTSA), developed a community engagement consulting model. This new model harnesses the expertise of community partners with CBPR experience and compensates them equitably to provide technical assistance to community–academic research partnerships. Objectives: This paper describes approaches to valuing community expertise, the importance of equitable compensation for community partners, the impact on the community partners, opportunities for institutional change, and the constraints faced in model implementation. Methods: Community Experts (CEs) are independent contractor consultants. CEs were interviewed to evaluate their satisfaction with their engagement and compensation for their work. Lessons Learned: (1) CEs have knowledge, power, and credibility to push for systems change. (2) Changes were needed within the university to facilitate successful consultation to community–academic partnerships. (3) Sustaining the CE role requires staff support, continued compensation, increased opportunities for engagement, and careful consideration of position demands. (4) The role provides benefits beyond financial compensation. (5) Opportunities to gather deepened relationships within the partnership and built collective knowledge that strengthened the project. Conclusions: Leveraging CE expertise and compensating them for their role benefits both university and community. Creating a place for community expertise within academia is an important step toward equitably including the community in research.

Bibliography cited by this reference

Cited references are imported from external metadata sources when they are available. The list may be partial.

  1. Barbara A. Israel , Edith A. Parker , Zachary Rowe , Alicia Salvatore , Meredith Minkler , Jesús López et al. (2005). Community-Based Participatory Research: Lessons Learned from the Centers for Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research . Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(10), 1463-1471. American Chemical Society (ACS).
    Type: Article DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7675 OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W1968759223
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  2. Barbara A. Israel , Amy J. Schulz , Edith A. Parker , Adam B. Becker (1998). REVIEW OF COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH: Assessing Partnership Approaches to Improve Public Health . Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173-202. Annual Reviews.
    Type: Article DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173 OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W2137460360
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  3. Shobha Srinivasan , Gwen W. Collman (2005). Evolving Partnerships in Community . Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(12), 1814-1816. American Chemical Society (ACS).
    Type: Article DOI: 10.1289/ehp.7911 OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W1979588559
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  4. Barbara A. Israel , Amy J. Schulz , Edith A. Parker , Adam B. Becker (2001). Community-based Participatory Research: Policy Recommendations for Promoting a Partnership Approach in Health Research . Education for Health: Change in Learning & Practice, 14(2), 182-197. The Network: Towards Unity for Health.
    Type: Article DOI: 10.1080/13576280110051055 OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W2123511849
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  5. Yolanda Suarez-Balcazar , Gary W. Harper , Rhonda Lewis (2005). An Interactive and Contextual Model of Community-University Collaborations for Research and Action . Health Education & Behavior, 32(1), 84-101. SAGE Publications.
    Type: Article DOI: 10.1177/1090198104269512 OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W2152062924
    OpenAlex OpenCitations
  6. Loretta Jones , Barbara Meade , Nell Forge , Moraya Moini , Felica Jones , Chrystene Terry et al. (2009). Begin your partnership: the process of engagement. PubMed, 19(4 Suppl 6), S6-8.
    Type: Article OpenAlex: https://openalex.org/W2410710332
    OpenAlex