MPH 509 Week 2 Community Partner Analysis Example

Community Partner Analysis: Four Organizations That Could Co-Lead a Study of Drinking Water at Cedar Grove, Judged as Co-Investigators Rather Than Routes to Participants

Student Name

Chamberlain University

MPH 509: Community-Based Participatory Research

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Community Partner Analysis: Four Organizations That Could Co-Lead a Study of Drinking Water at Cedar Grove, Judged as Co-Investigators Rather Than Routes to Participants

Purpose

This analysis assesses organizations that could serve as co-investigators in a participatory study of drinking water at Cedar Grove, the park introduced in the week 1 post. The park's two wells and pipes are owned and run by the park's owner as a small community water system, and its record over the last two years includes repeated orders to boil water and a failed bacteria test. Small systems like this are common in manufactured home communities and are more likely to have health-related violations than larger systems (Pierce & Gonzalez, 2017). The question for each candidate is not how many residents it can reach, but what it would contribute as a partner in deciding and doing the research, what it would want in return and whether it has the capacity to hold a project accountable.

The Candidates

Four organizations were considered: the Cedar Grove Residents' Association, born out of the rent fight; Iglesia Fuente de Vida, a Spanish-speaking congregation that meets in a converted home at the park's entrance and whose pastor lives in the park; Delmar Legal Aid, which represented residents in the rent dispute; and the regional water utility, whose mains run along the county road about 800 meters from the park.

Residents' Association: Contribution, Not Access

The association brings what no outside organization can: standing among residents, knowledge of where problems occur and when, and the authority to speak for households. Its seven-member board includes two residents who kept a handwritten log of every outage and boil notice since 2023, which is better exposure data than any public record. It would want results it can use in negotiations with the owner and the county, a say in the research question and recognition of members' time. Its capacity is limited: it has no budget, no staff and a board that meets monthly in a member's carport. It has no prior research experience and some suspicion of the county, which issued the boil notices but did not, in residents' view, make the owner fix anything.

Iglesia Fuente de Vida

The congregation brings trust among the roughly 40% of households that speak Spanish at home, a meeting space and a pastor who has been asked to translate notices. It would want residents protected from retaliation and information in Spanish. Its capacity for research is small, and the pastor is cautious about anything that might draw attention from immigration authorities. It is better placed as an advisor and meeting host than as a co-investigator holding decisions.

Delmar Legal Aid

Legal aid brings expertise in residents' rights under the state's manufactured housing law and experience in the rent dispute, which built trust. It would want findings that support residents' claims. That interest is also a risk: a research partnership that looks like case-building for litigation could undermine the study's credibility with the owner and regulators, and could expose residents' data to discovery. Legal aid's capacity is strong, but its role should be to advise the partnership on residents' rights and protection, not to co-own the data.

The Regional Water Utility

The utility could become part of the solution: connecting the park to its mains, a step known as consolidation, has ended chronic problems at other small systems. It brings engineering knowledge and data on what connection would cost. It would want to know whether connection is feasible and who would pay. But it is not a community organization and has interests that may differ from residents', such as recovering connection costs. It belongs on the study's list of stakeholders to inform, not in its governance.

Table 1

Prospective Partners Assessed as Co-Investigators

Note. Note. Composite organizations constructed for this course.

Recommendation: One Co-Investigator, Supported

The residents' association should be the co-investigator, with the congregation as advisor and host and legal aid as advisor on protecting residents. Minkler (2005) cautions that partnerships often falter on unequal power and resources, and that academic or agency partners must contribute resources and share control rather than expect volunteer labor. The association's limited capacity is therefore not a reason to choose a stronger partner but a reason to fund the partnership properly: paying two association members as part-time research staff, covering meeting costs and providing training in data collection. Cargo and Mercer (2008) note that participatory research asks partners to build each other's capacity, which in this case runs mostly from the county and university toward the association, but also back, since residents know the system's history better than any record.

Risks in This Choice

Choosing the association carries three risks. Its board is new and could split, as boards formed in disputes sometimes do once the dispute ends. Residents who lead the study may face retaliation from the owner, since most rent their lots on month-to-month terms. And the association may want to pursue the owner publicly before the study is complete. Each risk is a matter for the partnership agreement, which will be drafted next week, rather than a reason to choose another partner.

How the Choice Was Tested

Before settling the recommendation, the writer asked each candidate the same three questions in person: what would you want this study to answer, what would you need from us to take part, and what would make you walk away. The association's answers were the most specific. It wanted to know what residents were spending on water and whether connection to the utility's mains was possible, it needed paid time for the two members who kept the outage log, and it would walk away if any data reached the owner. The congregation's pastor wanted residents protected and asked not to hold decisions. Legal aid offered advice but agreed that holding data would create a conflict. The utility wanted a cost estimate before saying anything about connection. These answers confirmed the roles proposed above and gave the partnership agreement its first three clauses.

References

Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The value and challenges of participatory research: Strengthening its practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 325-350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health, 82(2 Suppl. 2), ii3-ii12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti034

Pierce, G., & Gonzalez, S. R. (2017). Public drinking water system coverage and its discontents: The prevalence and severity of water access problems in California's mobile home parks. Environmental Justice, 10(5), 168-173. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2017.0006