Mental health problems and illnesses are complex; as a result, they require complex interventions that cut across sectors to include the broader social, cultural, economic, political and physical environments (Blair, 2021). A number of guidelines outline how best to develop partnerships, what good community engagement looks like, how to effectively engage community partners and what partnerships should involve. Engaging in a partnership with communities is done locally, therefore the process for determining the best method or best guideline to follow should also consider the local context, especially institutional expectations.
It is important to recognize that community engagement is a process, not a program (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health [CAMH], 2015; National Collaborating Centre for Determinants of Health [NCCDH], 2013). The participation of program developers and community members in assessing, planning, implementing and evaluating solutions affects the community itself (CAMH, 2015; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], 2016; Winnipeg Regional Health Authority [WRHA], 2017).
Take the time to build relationships, trust, commitment, leadership and capacity.
Support and promote sustainable community engagement by encouraging local communities to get involved in all stages of the project.
Ensure decision-making groups include community members who reflect the local immigrant or refugee population.
Provide local communities and agencies with feedback on the results of the engagement.
Develop collaborations and partnerships to meet local needs and priorities.
Support the development of alliances between community members to encourage local communities to participate in improving their health.
Use local knowledge and experience to identify and recruit people who can be involved in peer and lay roles to represent local needs and priorities.
Use a local approach to make community engagement an integral part of health initiatives.
Make it as easy as possible for people to get involved.
Realize that it may take time—things do not always run smoothly and timelines may need to reflect the realities of the community.
Why are we engaging? What are our goals and objectives?
Who are we going to engage with and why?
What is non-negotiable? (e.g., core mandate, funder requirement)
How long will this take?
How will we communicate information?
What resources do we need and how will we get them? (if required)
How will the process end?
How will we evaluate the process?
How can we ensure that we consistently apply an equity lens?
Where are the gaps?
Which voices or communities are underrepresented in the engagement and/or in the partnership?
How does this shape the process, strategy and outcomes?
Evaluations should be done with all partners and should be conducted throughout the life of the partnership, even after concluding the partnership. It is important to involve community members in the planning, design and implementation of an evaluation framework (NICE, 2016). Whether the evaluation is simple or complex, it should be proportionate to the engagement, meaning that a simple engagement should not require an elaborate evaluation and vice versa (CAMH, 2015).
Consider evaluating both the success of the partnership(s) and the success of the program/initiative being undertaken. The evaluation strategy should be based on the needs of the collaborative and use the most appropriate tool (either developed or obtained) for those needs (CAMH, 2015; NICE, 2016). While some useful tools for evaluating partnerships are available, it is important to develop a concept and process that is best suited to the needs of the community partners. Regardless of what is evaluated or how, it is important to share feedback with the community partners and the larger community regarding the successes and problems within the collaborative.
The following assessment tools can be used to initiate the conversation about an evaluation:
Partnership Self-assessment tool (Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health, 2002)
Impact-MPI Assessment Tool (Pehar & Taneja, 2016)