Racial and Ethnic (In)equity in Development of Power Through Place-Based Initiatives.

Abstract

Background: Place-based initiatives (PBIs) invest in a geographic area and often build community power to improve well-being. However, there can be differences in results for different groups within a community. Methods: In six communities, we measured differences in "power to" by race/ethnicity at two points for the first phase of the PBI Healthy Places North Carolina (HPNC) using five indicators: (1) representation in network of actors collaborating to improve health, (2) leadership attributes, (3) perceived change in attributes due to HPNC, (4) network centrality, and (5) perceived change in network ties due to HPNC. Results: Latine populations were underrepresented. In four (majority White) communities, there were indications of White advantage. In one, White centrality was greater than non-White. In another, White actors consistently rated themselves higher for leadership attributes. In two, a gap in leadership attributes favoring White actors appeared at Wave 2. In two counties with African American majorities, non-White attributes ranked higher than White. Conclusions: Each indicator provided unique insight. Results provide new evidence of measurement validity and reliability. Results indicate that when PBIs designed to address the needs of low-resource communities do not proactively concern themselves with racial/ethnic equity and power (as HPNC would do in the years after this study), they may result in greater White benefit from PBI or failure to close existing gaps. Findings aligned with the "political reality" model of the correspondence between the size of African American population and their perceived self-efficacy. Changes over time and inter-county differences confirm need for early measurement of power differences and changes.