Table 1
Responses to Key Survey Process Itemsa by Race.
| BLACK* (N = 47) | NOT BLACK* (N = 85) | TOTAL* (N = 132) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| How significant of an issue is African American Infant Mortality in [Your Community] | p = .018* | ||
| Not to Somewhat Significant | 5 (10.6 %) | 5 (5.9%) | 10 (7.6%) |
| Very Significant | 9 (19.1%) | 37 (43.5%) | 46 (34.8%) |
| Extremely Significant | 33 (70.2%) | 43 (50.6%) | 76 (57.6%) |
| How equitably, or meaningfully, involved have African Americans been…in LIHF leadership overall…? | p = .289* | ||
| Not to Somewhat Involved | 23 (56.1 %) | 26 (40.6%) | 49 (46.7%) |
| Very Involved | 13 (31.7%) | 26 (40.6%) | 39 (37.1%) |
| Extremely Involved | 5 (12.2%) | 12 (18.8%) | 17 (16.2%) |
| How equitably, or meaningfully, involved have African Americans been…in membership of the Collaborative in [Your Community]? | p = .095* | ||
| Not to Somewhat Involved | 19 (48.7 %) | 31 (47.0%) | 50 (47.6%) |
| Very Involved | 9 (23.1%) | 26 (39.4%) | 35 (33.3%) |
| Extremely Involved | 11 (28.2%) | 9 (13.6%) | 76 (57.6%) |
| How equitably, or meaningfully, involved have African Americans been…in leadership or decision making of the Collaborative in [Your Community]? | p = .032* | ||
| Not to Somewhat Involved | 23 (56.1 %) | 22 (33.8%) | 45 (42.5%) |
| Very Involved | 6 (14.6%) | 23 (35.4%) | 29 (27.4%) |
| Extremely Involved | 12 (29.3%) | 20 (30.8%) | 32 (30.2%) |
| How well has LIHF incorporated the assets and strengths of the African American community in [your community] into its strategies and/or actions? | p = .095* | ||
| Not at all to somewhat well | 25 (59.5%) | 55 (72.4%) | 80 (67.8%) |
| Very well | 12 (28.6%) | 19 (25.0%) | 31 (26.3%) |
| Extremely well | 5 (11.9%) | 2 (2.6%) | 7 (5.9%) |
[i] *Totals for some items may not sum to given numbers due to non-response for those items. P-values calculated using chi-square test for independence.
aSelected items shown in table. No significant difference in perceptions on items regarding African American involvement in developing community action plans, involvement in community project grants, planning collaborative work, and strengths of LIHF as a leader in efforts to improve African American infant mortality.
Table 2
Responses to Survey Itemsa Regarding Outcomes by Race.
| HOW MUCH HAS LIHF AFFECTED THEFOLLOWING HEALTH ISSUES IN [YOUR COMMUNITY] | BLACK* (N = 47) | NOT BLACK* (N = 85) | TOTAL* (N = 132) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reducing deaths of African American babies. | p = .154* | ||
| None | 8 (20.0%) | 10 (13.3%) | 18 (15.7%) |
| A little | 9 (22.5%) | 28 (37.3%) | 37 (32.2%) |
| Some | 11 (27.5%) | 25 (33.3%) | 36 (31.3%) |
| Quite a bit/A great deal | 12 (30.0%) | 12 (16,0%) | 24 (20.9%) |
| Improving the health of African American babies when and after they are born. | p = .732* | ||
| None | 3 (7.7%) | 6 (13.3%) | 9 (8.0%) |
| A little | 11 (28.2%) | 24 (37.3%) | 35 (31.0%) |
| Some | 14 (35.9%) | 30 (40.5%) | 44 (38.9%) |
| Quite a bit/A great deal | 11 (28.2%) | 14 (18.9%) | 25 (22.1%) |
| Improving the overall health of African American women | p = .469* | ||
| None | 4 (10.3%) | 8 (10.8%) | 12 (10.6%) |
| A little | 11 (28.2%) | 23 (31.1%) | 34 (30.1%) |
| Some | 15 (38.5%) | 30 (40.5%) | 45 (39.8%) |
| Quite a bit/A great deal | 13 (17.6%) | 13 (17.6%) | 22 (19.5%) |
| Reducing differences between African American and white babies health and their chance of dying. | p = .175* | ||
| None | 9 (23.1%) | 15 (20.0%) | 24 (21.1%) |
| A little | 10 (25.6%) | 29 (38.7%) | 39 (34.2%) |
| Some | 11 (28.2%) | 24 (32.0%) | 35 (30.7%) |
| Quite a bit/A great deal | 9 (23.1%) | 7 (9.3%) | 16 (14.0%) |
[i] *Totals for some items may not sum to given numbers due to non-response for those items. P-values calculated using chi-square test for independence.
aSelected items. There were no significant differences in perceptions on items regarding effectiveness of each element of Lu’s 12 point plan (Lu et al., 2010), nor on many items regarding functioning and success of the Collaboratives.