Short-term grants fail rural <a href="https://healthylife7.com/health-departments-respond-to-bad-tick-year/” title=”Health departments respond to bad tick year”>health efforts | Opinion
Sarah Bobrow-Williams
Guest columnist
July 19, 2026, 5:45 a.m. CT
Across the rural South, Black women continue to be diagnosed with cervical cancer too late — not because solutions are unknown, but because systems fail to reach, inform and support them in time. Participatory research — engaging communities in investigating and challenging systemic failures — is helping to change that, creating an opportunity for philanthropy to nurture sustained, systemic change
Yet philanthropy often treats participatory research as a front-end exercise — valued for supporting community directed problem solving but without a full understanding of the time required for systemic change
In practice, participatory research remains underfunded precisely because it is time-intensive by design, requiring relationship-building, trust, coordination and sustained dialogue — work that does not align with short grant cycles or quick-turn deliverables. While many funders have invested in participatory approaches, there is a need to recognize that this work unfolds over years, not months. Too often, funding supports engagement without sustaining the conditions necessary for impact
This disconnect is well documented by community-based participatory research practitioners and scholars. Excavating issues is only the first step; trust-building and confronting power dynamics are foundational to shared decision-making and equitable, long term partnerships and sustained community engagement. And yet, funding too often stops just as that return begins to take shape
Participatory research generates more than findings. It generates conversation, awareness and collective clarity
As individuals come together to name their experiences and connect them to broader systems, disconnect gives way to shared understanding. Assumptions are challenged. Dialogue expands. Action becomes possible
This process is not incidental — it is impact
Through this work, community-based researchers surface not only visible barriers to health access — transportation, lack of insurance, provider shortages — but also the deeper, systemic conditions shaping outcomes
In the Southern Rural Black Women’s Initiative for Economic and Social Justice (SRBWI)’s participatory research on cervical cancer across the Black Belt South and Mississippi Delta, findings were consistent across states:
Many women did not know screening mattered. Some had never received clear information about HPV’s connection to cancer. Others encountered myths that actively discouraged preventive care
These findings point to structural racism and discrimination — not as abstract concepts, but as lived realities embedded in systems of care. They also reflect obstructive dynamics — dismissive treatment, inconsistent communication and fragmented follow-up — that undermine trust and continuity of care
These are not issues that can be resolved through one-time interventions. They are systemic conditions, reinforced through institutional practices and everyday interactions. Addressing them requires sustained engagement, accountability and community-led strategies
Participatory research surfaced these realities — but it also built durable civic capacity
Community members were trained to conduct interviews and analyze patterns. Youth ambassadors are developing public service announcements to counter misinformation. Advocates, ambassadors and researchers now lead peer-to-peer education, facilitate community conversations and drive outreach grounded in lived experience. Community representatives sit at HPV and cervical cancer roundtables alongside cancer agency personnel and physicians, ensuring that rural Black women’s perspectives inform implementation decisions.
This is not simply research. It is health governance infrastructure. Value compounds over time: Trust networks strengthen, data improves, policy conversations become more grounded, community leaders gain technical fluency, and systems become more accountable
This is where philanthropy can lead
Within SRBWI’s approach, community-based researchers identify and document barriers and carry that knowledge forward, translating research into practice-building trust, expanding awareness and advancing advocacy in ways institutions alone cannot achieve
When communities are centered — not as subjects, but as leaders in problem-solving — they surface issues that would otherwise remain invisible. They ensure interventions are not only designed with communities but sustained by them
But this only happens when engagement is continuous. Philanthropy does not need to start over, but needs to be followed through
The ask is straightforward: fund participatory research as a long-term commitment, not a short-term engagement
Support the full arc — from research to implementation to sustained community leadership. Invest in the people and processes that carry knowledge into action. If philanthropy is serious about equity and impact, communities must remain the center — not briefly, but continuously
The question is no longer whether participatory research works. The question is how philanthropy can build on what it has already invested to ensure that this work reaches its full potential
Sarah Bobrow-Williams is program director for Participatory Research and Community Access at the Southern Rural Black Women’s Initiative
(Editor’s note: The views expressed in this column are those of the writer and not necessarily those of The Oklahoman.)
