Capacity-building initiatives share common strengths, barriers

The concept of capacity building refers to fostering skills, knowledge, resources, people power, structures, and systems so that communities and organizations can prosper. In the context of community-engaged research, capacity building is key to enabling research that is of mutual benefit to both community and academic partners. Although capacity building is a common objective, less is known about what makes these initiatives successful. For that reason, researchers from the Chicagoland CEAL Program set out to identify the key features of six capacity-building initiatives done through community-academic partnerships (CAPs). What made them work, and what challenges did they face?

“Our findings echo the literature on the importance of mutually beneficial relationships, clear goals, trust, initiative tailoring, and adaptability for achieving equitable implementation of capacity-building initiatives delivered through community–academic partnerships.” Translational Behavioral Medicine, June 2025

The team conducted focus groups involving researchers and community members. Each participant played a role in the design or the delivery of six distinct capacity-building initiatives. The focus groups were asked about the initiative’s background, why it was launched, how it was structured, what challenges and successes were encountered, and recommendations for future similar efforts. To guide its analysis of the groups’ input and determine findings, the team used a rigorous implementation science tool called the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment, or EPIS, framework.

The team found that although the six capacity-building initiatives took different forms, they shared commonalities. For example, all six initiatives found success by tailoring their efforts to the needs of the communities they served, adapting over time, and setting clear goals. All were established to be mutually beneficial among community-based and academic partners alike, anchored in a foundation of trust and open communication. Likewise, the groups also identified some common barriers. These included restrictive funding, local infrastructure issues, competing priorities, staffing concerns, and space availability.

The Chicagoland CEAL Program’s CAPs have already started incorporating these findings into planning for future research. The results can also benefit other CAPs aiming to implement capacity-building initiatives to address differences in health across their communities.