MAPP Network

An online forum for MAPP communities

Boston Alliance for Community Health (BACH)


Boston Alliance for Community Health (BACH)

BACH unites public, private, and       non-profit partners in neighborhood-based, data-driven health planning and improvement to influence policymaking, program development, service delivery, and resource allocations.

Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Members: 7
Latest Activity: Nov 21, 2015

How and Why we chose MAPP as our planning model

The Health Planning and Improvement Committee (HPICom) first met in February, 2011. The activities of the HPICom have been documented in monthly reports distributed to all Steering Committee members

The HPI Committee examined six health planning models. Each was presented to the full committee by a committee member or an RCHC staff member with references for further examination.


Mobilizing Action through Planning and Partnership (MAPP)

Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF)

Communities that Care (CTC)

Healthy People 2020 Mobilize, Assess, Plan, Implement, Track) MAP-IT

Tool for Health and Resistance in Vulnerable Environments (THRIVE)

Rapid Assessment and Response (RAR)

Healthy Cities


The Committee established criteria with which to evaluate the models:

  • Not too complicated, able to “translate” to residents
  • Move us towards our vision and fulfillment of our mission and goals
  • A proven process that is feasible (money and people) and efficient
  • Aligned with and builds on other local health planning processes (not duplicative)
  • Helps to reduce racial, ethnic, gender, and other health disparities/ inequities
  • Gives room for lots of voices and sectors to be heard from
  • Looks at assets as opposed to deficits
  • Measurable and leads to visible health improvement outcomes


In a first round of evaluation, we narrowed the choices of models to three: Healthy Cities, Mobilizing for Action through Partnerships and Planning (MAPP), and the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF).

Members of the Committee and with RCHC staff assistance, conducted 11 Interviews to learn more about “on the ground” experience using the three remaining Health Planning Models

Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) – John Riordan, David Aronstein, Kara Showers (RCHC)

  • Jamar Wills, Milwaukee Boys and Girls Clubs
  • Jeff Harness, Holyoke, MA, Food and Fitness Initiative
  • Kay Walsh, South Boston CAN

Healthy Cities – Pam Jones, Linda Monteiro, Aleya Martin (RCHC)

  • Healthy City Fall River Initiative
  • Trevor Hancock and Marilou McPhedran, formerly with the Toronto Public Health Dept
  • Judith Kurland, former Commissioner Health & Hospitals, City of Boston
  • Margaret Noce, JP Tree of Life/Arbol del Vida

Mobilizing Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP) – Beth Rosenshein, Jennifer Opp, Tracy Desovich (RCHC)

  • Melody Sparrow:             Three Rivers District Health Department, Northern Kentucky
    • 502-484-3412x 122
    • Erica Salem                         Chicago, Illinois
    • Sueellen Bennet              Columbus, Ohio  

The full HPICom discussed the findings at its June 15th meeting.

Brief Presentation and report of pros and cons for 3 remaining models by groups that were tasked to research them further:

MAPP Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnership– Tracy, Beth, Jennifer



Inclusive planning process

Funding: need dedicated support to facilitate coalitions to reach consensus

Strategic planning process is within the entire community vs, one organization such as the public health department (collective action)

Took Northern Kentucky one year before moving to action but they had no coalitions already in place

Backed by CDC (aligned with potential funding sources

People do not understand what the “public health system” is

Identification and engagement of all community partners (health and safety)


Other cities and counties have implemented and serve as resources


“Simplistic process, yet you can make it more leaborate iof you want,” (melody Sparrow, Kentucky)


Stresses meaningful partnerships and understanding of community resources


Possible to apply MAPP to City-wide planning AND neighborhood planning


Boston has already completed pieces of the 4 assessments


Can use MAPP to resolve health issues AND underlying issues affecting health


Helps make “public health” visible


Not overly prescriptive model AND provides step by step guide for assistance


No formal training in health planning needed


Tool-box available via NACCHO and includes case-studies


Allows local coalitions to continue the work they are already doing and it “fits” into this model


Non-professional residents involved


Gives you “proof” of why you need funds. You will need to prove this in the future



SPF –Strategic Prevention Framework  -  David A., John Reardon, Kara Showers

PROS                                                                                                                     CONS

Can be adapted for different issues

Was designed for substance abuse so it will take work to adapt for other issues

Is fairly simple and straightforward and some of our coalitions are familiar with the model

Was not designed for and does not force a comprehensive look at the larger public health system, socio-economic and political landscape

Big emphasis on capacity building - skill development and getting the right people to the table for collective vision which helps assure sustainability over time

Its efficacy beyond substance abuse has not been evaluated


Healthy Cities – Pam, Linda M., Aleya Martin

PROS                                                                                                                     CONS

Able to leverage resources

Hard to implement in a city as big as Boston with little or no dedicated staff

Sustainable in some neighborhoods

Focused on improving servicers and service coordination – Health Boston did not focus on health outcomes

Got many sectors to the table

Required significant dollars, at least as implemented in Boston – and that pot of money does not exist today

Significant dollars invested in neighborhoods

Challenges with implementing program with different linguistic groups


Assumes/needs a significant commitment from local government – dollars and staff and that is not there now.

Great opportunity to bring all types of groups together to contribute time and in-kind resources and meet common goals


Starts from assets – what does it take to create a healthy/healthier community vs. what are the problems



We eliminated Health Cities and then discussed SPF and MAPP further as there was a fairly even split between MAPP and SPF:





4-5 BACH groups have experience using SPF


Too prescribed

Successfully used to address sy\ubstance abuse and healthy eating

Assumes you have picked what issue to work on

Not direct service program based





4 assessments is broad and guides us

May be too “health care” oriented rather than health oriented

CDC and other Federal agencies endorse this

Seems complicated at first look

Can incorporate SPF tools


Helps a coalition broaden its scope beyond substance abuse or a single issue




We discussed creating a hybrid model but a number of people reminded us that you need to use one model to keep the integrity of the model. However, there is wide latitude on the tools that you choose to use. The important point is that there must be consistency of tools and model across the city and coalitions so that comparisons and data are comparable.

In the end we decided to recommend the MAPP model framework, making sure that the following are included and given prominence:

  • Cultural competency
  • Racial and ethnic health inequities
  • Coalition development
  • Using social determinants of health as an important part of the measurable outcomes


Discussion Forum

This group does not have any discussions yet.

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Boston Alliance for Community Health (BACH) to add comments!


Members (4)


© 2019   Created by MAPP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service