In COVID-19 Times: A Qualitative Inquiry of the Experiences of Community-Based Organizations Serving North and Central Brooklyn Communities

Highlights

Public health relevance—How does this work relate to a public health issue?

• COVID-19 intensified preexisting inequities in food security, vaccine and testing access, mental health, and digital connectivity in predominantly Black and Latino communities in North and Central Brooklyn.
• Community- and faith-based organizations served as trusted, essential partners by rapidly adapting to provide food, health information, virtual programming, mental health support, referrals, and advocacy.

Public health significance—Why is this work of significance to public health?

• The findings demonstrate that local community organizations are a critical component of public health emergency response infrastructure, particularly in communities historically underserved by governmental and healthcare systems.
• The study identifies how funding instability, staffing shortages, bureaucratic barriers, and inadequate coordination can limit equitable emergency response despite strong community knowledge and capacity.

Public health implications—What are the key implications or messages for practitioners, policy makers and/or researchers in public health?

• Public health agencies should establish sustained, bidirectional partnerships with community organizations before emergencies and meaningfully involve them in preparedness planning, priority setting, communication, and resource allocation.
• Recovery and preparedness strategies should streamline funding, strengthen culturally responsive mental health services, and invest in broadband access, technology, and digital literacy to advance health equity and community resilience.

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated longstanding social and health inequities in predominantly Black and Latino communities in North and Central Brooklyn, in the form of disproportionately high hospitalization and mortality rates. Community organizations served as critical sources of information and resources during this period. Methods: The Bureau of Brooklyn Neighborhood Health within the NYC Health Department, conducted semi-structured virtual interviews with 19 representatives from 15 organizations that had partnered with the Bureau within the past five years. Interviews were conducted between November 2021 and February 2022. Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid deductive–inductive approach incorporating constant comparative techniques. Results: Partners described worsening food insecurity, inequitable vaccine and testing access, digital divide challenges, funding instability, staffing shortages, and escalating mental health needs. Organizations pivoted from routine operations to provide emergency food distribution, virtual programming, mental health support, advocacy, and disseminating information as trusted messengers in the community. Conclusions: Findings underscore the essential role of local community organizations in crisis response and recovery. Future preparedness efforts must center community expertise, strengthen cross-sector collaboration, streamline funding processes, and investments in social and digital infrastructures to advance health equity and community resilience.

1. Introduction

The novel coronavirus pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) exacerbated existing social and health inequities in predominantly Black and Latino communities in North and Central Brooklyn, the South Bronx, and East and Central Harlem [1]. These communities have suffered historically from structural racism and discriminatory policies and practices, as well as a lack of investment in development that have resulted in social and health inequities among residents [1,2]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the New York State on PAUSE was executed, which was an executive order that mandated the closure of all non-essential businesses and encouraged practicing social distancing of at least six feet from others. People were encouraged to stay home, and schooling and non-emergency health care switched to virtual platforms [3]. Residents of the aforementioned communities were often employed in essential services and had no choice but to continue working, thus increasing their risk of exposure to COVID-19 [4]. The health inequities in these communities were reflected in the higher hospitalizations and deaths from COVID-19 compared to anywhere else in New York City. Between 29 February 2020 and 31 October 2021, the collective COVID-19 hospitalization rates in North and Central Brooklyn were 1352 per 100,000 population, approximately 22% higher than the citywide rate of 1105 per 100,000. The COVID-19 death rate was 387 per 100,000, approximately 43% higher than the citywide rate of 271 per 100,000. Similarly, in the South Bronx and East and Central Harlem, the hospitalization rates were 1712 and 1306 per 100,000 population, respectively, and the death rates were 444 and 325 per 100,000, respectively [5]. The HealthyNYC website includes data points and graphs highlighting life expectancy and other health outcome trends before, during, and after the peak of the pandemic. Specifically, overall and premature mortality rates which were decreasing from 2015 to 2019, sharply increased in 2020, and declined again from 2021 through 2024 [6]. To help advance health equity in the historically disinvested neighborhoods of North and Central Brooklyn, the South Bronx and East and Central Harlem, the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (the NYC Health Department) invested in place-based work focused on these neighborhoods. This work is done through the NYC Health Department’s Bureaus of Neighborhood Health (BNHs), physically located in these communities, that work to reduce the interrelated burdens of poverty, racism, and poor health outcomes.

In this paper, partner organizations refer to local community organizations that collaborate with the BNHs to advance shared public health and community health goals through programmatic activities and community-focused support. Many marginalized populations have experienced distrust of health and government institutions and choose to receive health information from interpersonal relationships, charitable groups, or religious organizations [7]. With decades of trust built with communities, Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) can reach populations that have been historically underserved by traditional healthcare and public health systems. They provide safety nets and mitigate financial insecurities by connecting families with resources to address their unmet basic needs [8]. Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs) help to improve the health of underserved communities by cultivating strong social networks that encourage health-promoting behaviors [9]. They are also effective partners in sharing health information and implementing health interventions given their history of cross-sector relationships with policymakers [9] and Black communities [10]. For this reason, the work of the BNHs is often done with partner organizations. The BNHs’ engagement with local community organizations such as cafes, barbershops, hair salons, and places of worship in health promotion activities has been instrumental in successful health promotion interventions, since these establishments are highly accessible and considered safe and trusted community places [11,12]. The partnerships formed with local community organizations are vital to the work of the BNHs in elevating and supporting the needs of the communities. For example, the Bureau of Brooklyn Neighborhood Health’s (BBkNH) breastfeeding initiative called the Brooklyn Breastfeeding Empowerment Zone (BFEZ) successfully mobilized over 120 frequented community establishments to become designated breastfeeding-friendly spaces, helping to change the social environment and improve health outcomes around breastfeeding [13]. Within historically disinvested communities, local community organizations are important for information-sharing, health promotion and behaviors, direct services, and connections to resources.

Indeed, local community organizations have proven to be important entities with linkages to communities and often serve as gateways to their respective populations. During the COVID pandemic, many of these organizations served as lifelines to communities while other services were unavailable due to the mandated lock-down [14]. Other studies have shared the impact of COVID-19 on CBOs serving different communities in the United States, such as those that served the homeless population in Indiana [8], the HIV population in NYC [15], and at-risk youth in NYC and Amsterdam [16]. This paper will focus on one of the hardest hit communities in NYC, specifically the North and Central Brooklyn communities served by the BBkNH. It explores the impact of COVID-19 through the lens of our partner organizations that supported these communities during the pandemic, highlighting best practices, lessons learned, and recovery needs to inform efforts to improve neighborhood health and advance racial equity.

2. Materials and Methods

This study used a qualitative descriptive design to explore the experiences and perspectives of partner organizations serving North and Central Brooklyn during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 representatives of 15 partner organizations between November 2021 and February 2022. These organizations were selected from the NYC Public Health Partners Connect database, a Salesforce-based partner management system used by the NYC Health Department. This database was designed to identify, manage, and visualize partner relationships and activities, serving as a critical tool for public health collaboration. As of December 2025, it contained information on over 35,000 partner organizations and more than 138,000 individual contacts, making it a comprehensive resource for engaging with a wide range of stakeholders. Organizations were selected based on their previous collaboration with BBkNH over the prior five years (2016–2021), as documented in the database. We identified 281 such organizations serving different population groups across the neighborhoods of Bushwick, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brownsville, and East New York. These neighborhoods were chosen due to their demographic diversity and the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on their communities. From this eligible pool, organizations were purposively selected for recruitment to capture variation across geographic areas, including zip codes and Neighborhood Tabulation Areas (NTAs), community reach, populations served, and level of engagement with BBkNH. Email invitations were sent to 50 representatives from clinical providers, faith-based organizations, and other local community organizations whose work addressed various social determinants of health. Priority was given to organizations with more recent collaboration with BBkNH, as they were considered more likely to respond to the study invitation. Follow-up telephone calls were made to non-respondents within two weeks of the initial email to maximize participation. We wanted to achieve a sample size of between 9–17 participating organizations, the recommended sample size to achieve saturation with data from in-depth interviews [17].

Participants who responded favorably to the invitation were scheduled for interviews at a mutually convenient time. Interviews were conducted virtually using Microsoft Teams, which were done to accommodate COVID-19 safety protocols and ensure accessibility for participants. The interviews were conducted by the Principal Investigator (JP) and either one of the other co-investigators (SD or SB) to ensure consistency in data collection. Most interviews were attended by at least one stakeholder who could provide appropriate representation of their organization’s experiences during the pandemic. This included chairpersons from local community board groups, co-founders, individuals from organizational leadership teams (e.g., Vice Presidents, Directors, Administrators), a nutritionist, a health educator, and religious leaders. However, in three instances, two or more representatives from the same organization participated in the interview to provide a more comprehensive account of their organization’s experiences and perspectives, and on one occasion, one individual spoke on behalf of two organizations. Interviews lasted between 38 and 60 min and were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent to ensure accurate data capture.

The interview guide was developed collaboratively by the research team and included open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed responses. Questions focused on three key areas:

• Impact of COVID-19: Participants were asked about the challenges experienced by their organizations and the communities they serve during the pandemic.
• Community strengths and best practices: Participants shared examples of successful service delivery strategies, lessons learned and observed community strengths during the pandemic.
• Future needs and preparedness: Participants provided insights into what their organizations and communities require to recover from the pandemic and prepare for future public health emergencies.

Data were coded using ATLAS.ti version 7.5.2 and analyzed using a hybrid deductive–inductive approach incorporating constant comparative techniques [18]. Through constant comparison, codes and emerging patterns identified in each transcript were compared with those identified in previously analyzed transcripts to assess similarities, differences, and new concepts. These comparisons informed the iterative refinement of the coding structure and the development of themes and subthemes. This process continued until analysis of additional transcripts yielded no substantively new information, indicating thematic saturation [19]. The analysis process began with a deductive coding approach, where the research team applied codes based on the predefined domains in the interview guide. As the analysis progressed, inductive codes were added to capture new concepts and patterns that emerged from the data [20]. These codes were then organized into overarching themes and subthemes, which provided a structured framework for interpreting the findings. The research team collaboratively reviewed and refined the themes to ensure they accurately reflected the data and captured the nuances of participants’ responses.

After the analyses were completed, the research team shared the findings with participants during a follow-up meeting. This meeting provided an opportunity to document and verify the findings, engage participants in a discussion about the results, and collaboratively explore next steps for addressing the identified challenges and opportunities.

3. Results

This study engaged a diverse group of partner organizations, each contributing unique perspectives and expertise. Participants represented a variety of roles within their organizations, including senior managers, chairpersons, and dieticians/nutritionists (Table 1). The organizations themselves spanned multiple sectors, such as Federally Qualified Health Centers, community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, childcare providers, and food access groups. These partners served a wide range of neighborhoods, including Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brownsville, East New York, and Bushwick, and reflected the geographic and demographic diversity of the communities involved.

Table 1. Characteristics of Partner Organization.

Partner ID	Participant Role (s)	Org Type (Service)	Neighborhoods Served	Interview Month
P1	Senior Manager	Federal Qualified Health Center (Health)	Brownsville	November 2021
P2	Board Member	Community Board (Government)	Brownsville	November 2021
P3	Dietician/Nutritionist	Federal Qualified Health Center (Health)	East New York	November 2021
P4-A	Program Director	Community-Based Organization (Childcare)	Bushwick	December 2021
P4-B	Program Assistant	Community-Based Organization (Childcare)	Bushwick	December 2021
P5	Director	Community-Based Organization (Food Access)	Brownsville	December 2021
P6	Pastor	Faith-Based Organization (Church Services)	Brownsville	January 2022
P7	Pastor	Faith-Based Organization (Church Services	Beford-Stuyvesant	January 2022
P8-A	Executive Director	Community-Based Organization (Arts-based Education)	East New York	February 2022
P8-B	Administrator	Community-Based Organization (Arts-based Education)	East New York	February 2022
P9-A	Co-Founder	Community-Based Organization (Mental Health and Wellness)	Brownsville	December 2021
P9-B	Co-Founder	Community-Based Organization (Mental Health and Wellness)	Brownsville	January 2022
P10-A	Senior Director	Community-Based Organization (Senior Services)	Beford-Stuyvesant	November 2021
P10-B	Chief Operating Officer	Community-Based Organization (Senior Services)	Beford-Stuyvesant	November 2021
P11	Program Director	Community-Based Organization (Health and Wellness)	Brownsville	December 2021
P12-A	Administrative Assistant	Community-Based Organization (Food Access)	East New York	January 2022
P12-B	Executive Director	Community-Based Organization (Food Access)	East New York	January 2022
P12-C	Development Director	Community-Based Organization (Food Access)	East New York	January 2022
P13	Administrator	Local Government	Beford-Stuyvesant	January 2022
P14	Program Manager	Community-Based Organization (Social Services)	Beford-Stuyvesant	December 2021
P15	Co-Founder	Community-Based Organization (Social Services)	Brownsville	December 2021

It is important to note that the “A”, “B” and sometimes “C” denotations in the participant IDs indicate interviewees representing the same organization. Additionally, P1 and P2 refer to the same individual, who provided insights from the perspective of two different organizations during their respective interviews. Interviews were conducted on specific dates and followed a structured and comprehensive data collection process. This collaborative approach allowed for a rich understanding of the community’s needs and the resources available to address them.

3.1. COVID Impact, Challenges, Community Needs and Best Practices

3.1.1. Navigating Inequities in Access to Resources

Partners stated that at the beginning of the pandemic, the communities they served that were already suffering from social and health inequities were thrown into confusion and devastation. This was in part because little was understood about COVID-19, how it was caused, and how to prevent it from spreading. The existing social and health inequities were exacerbated. Some became unstably housed, seeking shelter from other family members or a city-run shelter. Partners described the overwhelming demand and need for food which indicated to them that many families faced increasing food insecurity during that time. At times, some partners had to turn people away because they did not have enough food for the demand, which caused some tensions among the community.

“We serve like over 200 people every week and always have to turn people away. And then what comes with that … the desperation, the anger and the fear … it was the economic loss, the human loss … not being able to afford food, not being able to… know where to go to get services.”

(P14)

However, they stated that while there was an overwhelming response from various benefactors to the growing food insecurity needs in the community, this response inadvertently caused an unevenness in the distribution of food that sometimes resulted in some populations being over-served while others were overlooked. As one partner stated,

“Everybody wanted to drop off food at a senior center and the reality is for some seniors they didn’t need it, and it became wasted food. We literally had to manage the drop offs… So we did have to work with our partners and also ask other people not to donate or partner with another senior facility, which was one of the family who was not getting as much.”

(P10-B)

Additionally, another partner mentioned that while many entities eagerly donated food or funds towards food purchases, the donation was only one part of the food distribution process which entailed many steps, and that additional resources such as staff to do all the work were often needed.

“One day we were talking about the mechanics behind providing one bag of food for the value of 20 dollars … the mechanics and the logistics and the personnel power behind that … and when you break it down, the support was not there. And people were like, you know, food, food, food. We want the money to go to food. Well, who orders? Who receives? Who packages? Uploading the cart and downloading the cart right after on the street, clean the streets, put the garbage and recycle it.”

(P12-B)

Partners also commented about the inequities they noted in the provision of vaccine and testing services across different communities. They noted that in their communities, there was a lack of brick-and-mortar sites, and that these communities were only being serviced by temporary, pop-up sites or vans, and that the frequency of these services was inconsistent. They stated that the provision of this type of service in their communities did little to foster trust in the community.

“I think that when you roll out something, whether it’s the testing or the vaccine or the booster or just information, people like to know that you’re still there. And I think a lot of times we come into communities like this. We try to service a need and then we disappear … that only fuels the mistrust. And so, when something else happens, you have to start all over again building that trust.”

(P9-B)

Sustaining grant funding and navigating the bureaucratic processes to gain funding support were challenges many organizations reported facing for program implementation and staffing. While organizations were grateful for the assistance they received from the city, they stated that it is not an easy and straightforward process; they expressed frustration with having to deal with the lengthy processes and barriers before being awarded any funding from the city. This was especially frustrating and problematic considering the emergency the city was then facing and the need for immediate funding to support their operations.

“The bureaucracy at times is really frustrating both for people within the health department and outside of it, because you want to collaborate, and you want to do this work together. But sometimes it just feels like there’s a lot of barriers and it takes longer to get things approved or to get guidance out …”

(P11)

They also stated that they often wondered how funds were awarded by the City because they would sometimes observe organizations who were ill-equipped or inexperienced to provide services being awarded funds, while others who were more involved in the community were being overlooked.

“That’s a whole other issue of the disconnect between the funder and those that they are funding and their total lack of understanding of what’s going on (on) the ground.”

(P12-C)

In addition to funding problems, organizations also experienced many challenges with personnel staff shortages. These included lay-offs due to businesses suffering losses as a result of a decrease in customers and staff attrition due to being fearful of coming to work. Some staff were also out sick with COVID-19 or having to care for household members who were sick with COVID-19. Later in the pandemic, organizations also had to navigate staff shortages if they had employees who were not able to come to work because they were not willing to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

“You know, with the staff, it was interesting, because we were having all these meetings around our students and every one of our staff is still a family member and they were going through their own (issues). So that even became a challenge, because some people weren’t able to come to work because of whatever the home situation was, so they couldn’t support the virtual world, as much as we would like at times, because they (were) dealing with their stuff.”

(P8-A)

To help their communities deal with the impact of COVID-19 and its resultant challenges, many partners reported that they changed from their usual business practices to respond to the immediate needs of the community. One such need was food insecurity, and many organizations began to handle food donations and food distribution.

“They literally detoured from doing any of their art and became a full-time pantry… during COVID, so they really just shut down from their daily activities.”

(P8-A)

There was also recognized need for coordination of services among and within organizations offering similar services to the same population. Some of the partners were already meeting as a group before the COVID-19 pandemic started, so they were able to quickly organize a response to the needs.

“We already had the … group established long before we could have even imagined that we would be dealing with a situation such as COVID-19. So we were able to come together as community-based organizations and respond as quickly as possible through a number of needs and advocate with our elected officials for what we thought was needed.”

(P1)

They described looking for other opportunities to partner with “like-minded collaborators across the city” to form new partnerships where they could learn from each other and pool their resources, and work alongside volunteers from the community for collective impact. Soon, coordination of services was recognized as a strength. These partners stayed in communication with each other throughout the pandemic, sharing information and engaging in joint programming activities whenever they could.

In addition to food distribution, they provided numerous examples of other instances of collaboration such as advocating with elected officials for community needs, canvassing and distributing personal protective equipment, distributing information and education materials on COVID-19, and test kits; hosting Thanksgiving and Christmas events for the community; distributing pampers, clothing and cash disbursements to assist families; making wellness calls to the home bound; advocating for and supporting the need for testing sites in their communities. and making active referrals to connect community members to services. A few organizations also submitted joint Requests for Proposals for grants. According to some partners:

“I’m trying to get a van to come to the church and give COVID tests. You know, we did it before, but you know, we got places that they can go but we want to have (testing services) at our disposal, so that they can come and take it. You know, like you’ve got to sometimes bring things into the neighborhood. You gotta work with people, you know?”

(P7)

“And it’s not a story of us, but rather the story of a community that was able to come together and best serve those in the community.”

(P4-B)

“I was really impressed. I had very small staff and I actually had a lot of community volunteers help me with like organizing food, organizing the lines and the distribution around that…I was really surprised how many people were able to show up and help their neighbors.”

(P14-A)

“The biggest takeaway that I’ve seen because people have developed partnerships and realized that they were working doing the same work and now together, collectively, they could serve more people.”

(P9-B)

3.1.2. Recognizing and Providing Supportive Mental Health Services

Partners described the devastation experienced by community members because of illness, hospitalization, and deaths due to COVID-19, sometimes with several incidents occurring in one family. They also talked about the experiences of community members who had lost jobs and income as a result.

“I would say 45 percent, you know, had suffered some kind of trauma at home, whether it had been loss of a family member or losing of employment and (it) became either one person employed or no one …working in home.”

(P8-A)

As a result of the trauma experienced by the community due to the pandemic, several partners mentioned that they were concerned about rising mental health issues.

“We became more conscious of the mental health (issues) that came along with being affected by COVID. Not sure what to do? Not sure who to speak to? Depression was real and we even saw it in our children.”

(P8-B)

Participants felt that mental health needs were mostly overlooked as community-based groups sought to provide the community with their basic needs. Partners described the increased levels of stress experienced by families because of the impact of COVID-19 and the strange circumstances of the New York on PAUSE executive order, which effectively mandated closure of all non-essential businesses at the start of the pandemic, and resulted in social isolation from family and friends. One partner was particularly concerned about untreated trauma or grief, something that was likely to occur because of the cultural and social attitudes among Black populations towards mental health issues. Another partner openly described the stigma associated with mental health conditions among certain groups of people, while still expressing the need to address them.

“I think what people need a great deal of is mental health support. I think we need to understand, you know what people’s traumas are as a result of this pandemic. What are their triggers and how do we support them with moving on? Because there’s a lot of apprehension still with people going on with their lives.”

(P1)

“African-Americans think speaking to a therapist, people think you’re crazy … we need to get rid of that stigma because mental health is real. And a lot of people [are] overwhelmed with this COVID. You know, they [are] having anxiety.”

(P5)

To help the community cope with the mental health aspect of COVID-19, some partners shared that they formed various types of groups where people could come together in a virtual space to talk, meditate, share experiences, listen to each other and/or take part in an activity. One organization referred to their group as a “mental wellness” group while another called theirs “a parent group”. They reported that the community in general was very grateful for this kind of support and the ability to connect with others during that time.

“We have also started a parent group which is just a support group. Just people coming together to talk, you know, we’ll have a little workshop here and there. Later we kind of established a curriculum, but at the beginning it was that and then at the end, at the last one, we asked, “Well, what did you get out of this?” And you would be surprised. Like they were just happy to be able to just come to see other people and talk, whatever it was, just talk. And when we were finishing, they cried because they wanted the groups to continue.”

(P4-A)

3.1.3. Navigating Communication, Access, and Technology Challenges

Partners reported that they also experienced numerous challenges connecting their clients to services during the pandemic. Delivering services in the virtual space was a challenge at first for many organizations who did not immediately have the capacity or equipment to do so. Partners also mentioned that they had difficulties reaching their employees at times, and did not know whether this was due to illness or them dealing with other issues related to COVID.

Conversely, they also reported that community members shared their difficulties reaching businesses for resources, many of which were closed due to the PAUSE policy, switching to virtual visits with their medical providers or accessing virtual programming. They reported that many residents in their communities were simply unable to access online services including church services, because of slow or no access to broadband internet services. Accessing online services was especially challenging for many seniors whose mobile phones lacked internet accessing features, or who themselves lacked the knowledge of how to access and connect to the internet platforms.

“…everybody [doesn’t] like Zoom, so by that, I still have to call to find out how they’re doing. Not everybody likes to go up on Zoom and … this is too much technology for the older people … some of them don’t even have computers at their homes. Then they don’t have the set-up on their phones and all these things…”

(P6)

One organization mentioned that accessing services online or virtually was also challenging for their non-English-speaking or writing clients. This made it difficult to understand, for example, instructions needed for housing recertification or in the case of one individual, instructions on how to apply for a marriage license.

Partners also reported that there were many issues with children receiving timely access to electronic devices (i.e., mobile tablets, laptops) that would have allowed them to engage with remote learning. This was further compounded if they lived in communities where broadband access was lacking. As a result of the various challenges with technology access, many community residents including children who were being home schooled, could not benefit from services and programming that occurred in the virtual space. One partner stated that the pandemic “exposed how bad this digital divide is and (that) it still hasn’t been resolved.”

(P10-A)

“I did feel really bad about the move into the whole remote process. It was just … we didn’t do that well, and I don’t think it was enough resources to really know how to do that well. But remember, this is all new for all of us. So, you know, it really required you to have some capacity. I think now … we’re still trying to figure this out.”

(P10-B)

Partners also mentioned challenges in communicating COVID-19 safe directives to their employees and to the wider population, especially noting that there was some confusion in understanding directives from the federal government or from New York State, including the use of the term “social distancing”—what was safe to do and what wasn’t, and what type of masks were safe to wear. They felt this created an atmosphere of anxiety and mistrust among the residents.

“I know one of the things initially that we flagged is that the language that was being used to tell people how to care for themselves was, so steeped in whiteness. Culturally, black people don’t do social & distance, the two don’t go together, right? And the language that was used to tell people how to stay safe just wasn’t resonating with people in the community,”

(P9-A)

“When you’re coming from a neighborhood that is highly concentrated with public housing … even the buildings are on top of each other. And when you say that a community should social distance [it] does a disservice to them. So, I think from the very beginning, the rollout was bad. And then when you add that … we weren’t getting proper health care services to begin with. Then to add in something that people don’t understand … it creates not only panic and fear, but also mistrust, more than we had before.”

(P9-B)

Another problem with communication involved the provision of services to the community. Organizations were unsure about how the city government made decisions on where services in the community should be located, including who they communicated with about such services. Specifically, some representatives suggested that had the local government readily and consistently communicated with their local organizations, government would have had a better chance of knowing where and when to place services, as well as obtain help advertising the availability of services. As one partner stated:

“…they would park a van in front of the closed [local] library on a Monday and wonder why they didn’t get any attraction. And the only reason we knew it was there because we’d walk, you know, somebody would walk by and you know, there’s a vax [vaccine] bus there.”

(P12-C)

To keep in touch with their clients, partners instituted various ways to communicate with them to ensure needs were met, including implementing weekly calls.

“I definitely think we also implemented weekly check-in calls … we wanted to make sure that we always called and kept track of who, you know, how our seniors were doing and if they were vaccinated. If they needed support to get vaccinated and informing them.

(P10-A)

Some partners shared that with the shift to virtual programming, they were able to engage the community by hosting classes on online platforms. In addition to equipping themselves to operate in the virtual world, they also helped some of their clients obtain equipment needed to access online services. Providing online classes such as chair yoga, and line dancing served as digital third spaces where community members could socialize. For example, one partner stated that they were able to address social isolation for seniors by providing them with tablets and updated mobile phones through a donation received from a city agency. They provided instructions on how to use tablets or telephones to join online classes and access services. Partner organizations also provided virtual after-school programs for the youth and made access possible by shipping materials for classes to their homes. One partner stated that some of the children remained online, interacting in the virtual space to work on their projects even after the formal classes had ended.

“And what else really worked was us shipping things to the students’ homes. Like … that was a real win. You know, we shipped supplies, we shipped gift cards. When we didn’t have the digital gift cards, we would ship the actual gift cards to their homes … but the kids just didn’t want to go anywhere, class would be over, and they would still be in this virtual room for an hour later … making jewelry, having these conversations.”

(P8-A)

Some organizations stated that because of the nature of their businesses, they had remained open throughout the pandemic and were thus able to be accessible to the community during a time when very few doors were open. One organization explained how re-opening their physical locations allowed them to effectively use their resources to help residents access online services, at times interpreting and translating for those who could not speak, read, or write in English. This was also beneficial for services where face-to-face interaction was a necessity. Additionally, when they couldn’t directly supply the help needed by the community, they used their connections/linkages to make referrals.

“And then we also have built connections. And one of the things that we also do is, if there’s a place that we don’t know or a service or something that we didn’t know about, we call ahead. We don’t just say, “Here, take this and go there.” We call ahead. We make sure. Are you open? Are you seeing people in person? Do they need to make an appointment? So that way, you’re not sending someone to a place and then they go there, it’s closed or they’re not seeing people.”

(P4-A)

Partners also shared that they believed that community members were willing to seek them out for information and resources because they were already known to be trusted individuals/places within the community. They explained how they went above and beyond and learned to navigate outside of their usual business practices to help the community obtain what they needed at the time when these services were difficult to obtain.

And so, we had to step in to learn more about all of those other, what I call, social determinants of health in order to be responsive to the needs of the family. So not only the relational needs right, but also the economic, the health, the housing needs as well.”

(P15)

Partners also stated that the success of handling the pandemic could not have been done without the collaboration among community partners and the support of the community members through enforcement and observance of the COVID-19 prevention policies. While some people were resistant to the policies, many of the community members did comply with the mandates.

“I think our small businesses also have played a hand in spreading the word and asking questions and keep being true to the health guidance, instituting those things, helping with the … messaging about keeping us all safe.”

(P13)

3.2. COVID-19 Recovery Needs

3.2.1. Community-Involved Decision Making

For any recovery effort to be truly successful, the partners felt that it was really important for the community to lead or be involved with choosing the priorities for their communities, and that programs should be tailored specifically for each community. They also felt that more varied views should be canvassed by casting a wider net to encompass schools, faith-based and community-based organizations.

“I think recovery looks like, you know, community … really being the designers of solutions that are … beneficial to communities not, you know a city agency, not an elected official, not anyone else coming in and directing about what needs to happen … and so, it looks like, you know, everybody just stepping back and not doing blanket kind of program, where one program works in one community. Yeah, ok, so it works here, now let’s try to do it somewhere else. Well, it has to be really community centered, it has to have an equity lens, and it must be community driven.”

(P15)

3.2.2. Trust Building

Partners stated that there also needs to be a real focus on trust building in communities as part of COVID-19 recovery planning and future preparedness. This includes addressing the needs of these communities, and consistently providing needed services so communities feel heard and cared for. An important part of rebuilding community trust is the way messages are communicated. Several partners stated that for messages to be heard and adhered to, it is imperative to engage in real conversations with the community, in a way they could relate to and in spaces that are accessible to them. They felt that it was a give and take, where community-led priorities are addressed, which makes it easier to adhere to government-led priorities. They felt that it was also important for messaging to be consistent.

“We need to build trust across those different groups of people so that we can respond to people. And when things like a COVID mandate that says “Stay in Place”, you know, there’s a trust that exists there. And when the agency says, this is what you need to do. If you respect the agency because they responded to your needs and been helpful to you in the past, then you’ll trust that what they’re telling you is the best advice.”

(P16)

3.2.3. New Normal Post-COVID-19

Most partners shared the sentiment that their communities should not be aiming to merely recover from COVID-19 and resume life as normal before the pandemic, because that “normal was not working.” They stated that there needs to be a “renaissance” and a “new normal” in these communities. They thought that the first step in doing this is for government to re-evaluate and refine the current policies and protocols that would address structural racism with appropriate reparations made in education, workforce development, and housing infrastructure.

“I think recovery, reparation, and resilience are all tied into healing…the pandemic gave us the opportunity to say no, that’s not how we want to describe our neighborhood.”

(P9A)

“…recovery to me doesn’t mean we recover (and) go back to what it was like. Because what it was like wasn’t really working for our community…And so I don’t want to recover and go back to the old way.”

(P15)

“…normal was not working. There were gaps … in resources, there were gaps in care prior to the pandemic, and they’ve only been worsened and exacerbated by the pandemic. So, we can’t really go back to the way things were.”

(P11)

The partners felt that recovery included creating opportunities that give people hope for the future such as capital investment in communities, addressing social needs such as job training and skills development, financial literacy, and providing financial support to stabilize families to help them withstand the rising costs of living spurred by the pandemic. Partners felt that a big part of COVID-19 recovery is teaching people how to navigate the city’s bureaucratic system to better protect themselves and their families, including how to navigate support that could be garnered from the city. It was felt that many young parents and immigrants need this kind of support to, for example, navigate the school system, and the elderly, sometimes need help to keep up with payments for their home taxes.

“And those are the kind of skills that many people, especially older people (find) … much harder to navigate, and you fall behind your property taxes, and … you have a lien on your house … it’s even worse with COVID.”

(P12-B)

The partners stated that the community needed a whole package of services to address their needs. Such support included mental health support, preventative health services, nutrition and physical activity opportunities, as well as services that addressed the social determinants of health. This includes streamlined access to social services, equity in distribution of services, financial support, jobs or job enrichment building, and a coordinated infrastructure to help build awareness of available services.

The long-term goal would be to provide safer communities, safer and more affordable housing, and financial independence for community members. Partners said they are prioritizing working on projects that will make real systemic change in their communities to help close the racial wealth gap, and help their communities achieve a stable life. Such projects include working with other community stakeholders on developing a food hub that will serve the community, teaching financial literacy to community members to help them to grow wealth instead of just getting by, how to save over time so they could achieve home ownership, and how to save for schooling for their children. Another priority is to support the creation of small businesses that meet community needs and support ownership within the community.

“I think that … is a big piece that’s missing and just in the economic investment. Safer, safer communities, safer housing, you know, more affordable housing.”

(P11)

Many organizations stated that their priority in recovery efforts was to get their financial house in order. Some client-centered places stated that they needed to work on rebuilding their client base or patient population to generate funding streams which were eroded as a result of COVID-19. Others needed financial support in the form of grants but would like a more simplified and less bureaucratic process to obtain funding.

“…we need less bureaucracy to collect the…money because my thing about it, as I said to someone… that organization…they got money but their application was senseless. Oh my God…It’s like asking you when your mother conceive you, on what day you was born, what color was your eyes or how many toes you had, how many fingers you had. It’s so annoying.”

(P5)

Others stated that they needed financing to do the work they do on a broader scale. They urged city government to allocate funds more intentionally, and to also consider funding the smaller grassroots organizations in the community that really know and work with the community day-to-day. They also stressed that it is important to help find ways to sustain the support so that in emergency times, these organizations would be in a better position to respond.

“…if the city would have taken five seconds to talk to some of us smaller, community-based organizations that are really dealing with the community as an overall, we would have told you what to do with that money, right? Because we’ve been doing it. We know where hot meals are important, and we also know where canned goods would be best. Because we know that sometimes one family is in a shelter and maybe one family doesn’t want a cooked meal, they want like actual groceries or when diapers were needed. We could break down things for you because we are out here in the community.”

(P4-B)

3.2.4. Improving Equity in Communication and Technological Infrastructure

As detailed in Section 3.1.2, the pandemic revealed huge inequities in technological access and knowledge. Partners felt that it was imperative to address these needs by ensuring that each resident had broad-band access and was given opportunities to learn how to access online services. Where possible, it was imperative to equip the community with the technology and other tools needed to access services and to stay connected especially during emergencies.

To address the inequities that became apparent during the pandemic, partners stated that the technological infrastructure needed to be improved both in their institutions and in the wider community, specifically with helping people to gain access to needed equipment, training on the use of equipment and how to conduct online programming efficiently and effectively. This would allow institutions to easily use online technology for more efficient and rapid dissemination of trusted education and information in the community. They felt that particular attention needs to be focused on students’ ability to adapt to at-home, online learning. Many partners felt that it was important to be adaptable and flexible, so they planned to maintain the ability to work both in-person as well as in a virtual space and to augment their online program offerings in the future.

“I think we have to prepare for this happening again. And now you’re starting to think about technology. Now you start to think about internet and Wi-Fi, and all of that stuff…I think that whatever people have done remotely, I would love to learn more on how they effectively did that.”

(P10-A)

“There is a lot of people…who would fall through the cracks, where you can really help them over the phone or video call.”

(P3)

“I think with the students pivoting from in-person learning to at home learning, I think there’s still a learning curve there. But so many kids I think suffered educationally from not being in school for pretty much a year and a half, and they were at home getting this remote instruction, which may not have been the best way of learning for them. So, you know, I think there needs to be better systems in place for that type of teaching.”

(P2)

For communication, partners felt that it was important to invest in utilizing multiple ways of reaching people in their communities. While some of the obvious ways include telecommunication and social media channels as discussed above, they also suggested reaching people in the places they are most likely to go to such as pharmacies, grocery stores, laundromats and fast-food places. They also felt that one needs to think about catering to reach those who are not online or computer-literate.

4. Discussion

This study examined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of community and faith-based organizations serving predominantly Black and Latino communities in North and Central Brooklyn, New York; communities that were hardest hit by the pandemic. Specifically, the study examined how these organizations were impacted by COVID-19: the challenges they faced especially during mandatory “Stay in Place” orders, lessons learned, best practices and post-COVID-19 aspirations and needs.

It is well known that CBOs are an effective way to reach populations who would often not engage with other institutions. CBO involvement has been shown to be essential to health promotion and outreach given their knowledge of their communities and their long-standing relationships [21]. Furthermore, in the past few years, federal agencies have recognized the vital role institutions such as CBOs have played in strengthening health literacy in their communities [22]. As such, local organizations are vital in promoting healthy behaviors leading to improved health outcomes. The CBO partners in this study identified the impact of COVID-19 in their respective communities noting that the already existing social and health inequities were worsened by COVID-19 causing a disproportionate burden of illness, hospitalization and deaths, as well as other socioeconomic challenges such as loss of jobs and income and increased levels of food insecurity. These impacts as identified by the partners are echoed by several studies in the literature which found that marginalized communities across the US, including immigrants, the undocumented, the homeless, people with disabilities and the incarcerated, were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 caused by underlying structural barriers such as lack of access to preventive care as well as underlying health conditions [23].

Partners described pivoting from their usual business practices to provide for the recognized immediate needs of their communities such as food insecurity. Coordination of service provision among entities, for example, for the procurement and distribution of food, was stated as being inefficient and problematic at the beginning stages of the pandemic which resulted in an inequitable distribution of food resources to an increasingly food-insecure population. In a study involving five major cities in the US, it was found that in cross-sector collaboration for food distribution, there was a notable lack of coordination among organizations that had no prior history of working together. One of the reasons stated for this was the lack of resources to meet virtually to establish lines of communication. This resulted in some groups designing and implementing their own programs leading to redundancy in service provision. On the other hand, the same study found that there was cohesiveness among entities with a prior history of collaboration that were quickly able to assess and address gaps in food services in their communities [24]. Additionally, a 2019 evaluation of community-based collaborations found that when community organizations partnered with other public health organizations that shared a common goal, stronger interventions were implemented [21]. This points to the importance of establishing collaborative partnerships and working groups to address community needs even in non-emergency times.

Partners also noted that there were inequities in service provision for vaccine and testing services in the communities they served, noting that there were not many permanent vaccine sites in their communities and the provision of services was inconsistent. They came together to advocate with elected officials for these and other community needs. Similar findings were noted in other studies [25,26], which noted that socioeconomic factors such as education, employment and income played a factor in the difference in vaccine access observed across different communities with non-Hispanic Whites faring better. These studies also found that other factors such as the lack of information about vaccine availability, doubts about vaccine safety, and limited or lack of access to the internet to obtain vaccination appointments contributed to the inequities in access seen. Joint CBO advocacy for vaccine access in their communities was similarly recognized as being an important strategy to give voice to these communities’ needs [27]. Additionally, partners reported challenges with funding and staffing during the emergency due to rampant illness and downstream effects of policies. This placed a significant strain on these organizations’ ability to support their communities. These findings add to the literature which in one study, described the stresses placed on the rural health system due to increased staff shortages and financial losses as a result of the pandemic [28]. Given that these organizations provide essential social and economic services to their communities, the support and survival of these organizations are important for the survival of the populations they serve.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted significant communication challenges faced by community members in North and Central Brooklyn, NY, as identified by organizational partners of the BBkNH. Residents encountered barriers such as limited internet broadband access, insufficient knowledge to navigate online platforms, and a lack of necessary equipment for virtual engagements, including telehealth appointments. These challenges reflect broader systemic issues of digital inequity, which disproportionately affect low-income and minority populations. For instance, nearly one-third of New York City households lack a home broadband subscription, with racial and socioeconomic disparities compounding the issue [29]. Vulnerable populations, such as older adults and non-English speakers, were particularly impacted, as they faced additional barriers in accessing telehealth services and online resources [30,31].

Findings from this study align with the existing literature, which underscores the compounded impact of digital inequities during public health crises. The lack of digital literacy and access to technology hindered effective communication and engagement with essential services, exacerbating health disparities. Addressing these gaps requires a multifaceted approach, including expanding broadband infrastructure, distributing technological devices, and implementing digital literacy programs tailored to community needs [29]. For example, initiatives such as device distribution programs and partnerships with community organizations to provide digital literacy training have been some of the strategies already used by community partners. Such interventions are vital to ensuring equitable access to resources, particularly in underserved urban neighborhoods, where digital access is now recognized as a critical social determinant of health.

Community partners elevated the significant mental health impact the COVID-19 pandemic left on community members. Although partners organized themselves to prioritize basic needs, they consistently observed heightened stress, anxiety, grief, and trauma most likely due to the intensified social isolation and disrupted support systems, among other factors. Another study has shown this impact on youth [32]. The immediate survival concerns during the early pandemic stage overshadowed the mental health needs that were becoming exacerbated. Partners specifically mentioned concerns around untreated trauma and grief among Black communities where stigma around mental health remains a barrier to care, and these concerns are supported in other studies as well as the need to provide culturally sensitive support [33,34]. While these concerns are true for many, some partners saw this as an opportunity to address mental health directly since the concerns were so widespread. Partners responded to this crisis by creating virtual support spaces that emphasized connection, shared experiences, and emotional vulnerability. The positive response to these groups underscores the value of community-based, low-barrier approaches in addressing mental health and wellness, which one review of the literature on similar interventions concluded was needed to improve mental health among Black populations [25,32]. Furthermore, these findings demonstrate the critical role of community partners and the importance of integrating culturally responsive mental health support into emergency preparedness and recovery efforts.

Community partners rejected a return to pre-pandemic “normal,” viewing COVID-19 recovery as an opportunity to address long-standing structural inequities arising from systemic racism. Partners emphasized that recovery should center healing, reparations, and resilience through policy reform and sustained investment in education, workforce development, and housing. These investments were also elevated as themes in another study and demonstrated the ways in which social justice impacts health [35]. They also highlighted the need for holistic support that integrates health, economic stability, and assistance navigating complex government systems, particularly for older adults, immigrants, and families. This lack of support was noted in another study that examined the challenges faced by agencies and organizations as they shifted their operations during the pandemic [36]. Partners identified funding instability and excessive bureaucracy as barriers to response efforts, especially for smaller organizations who likely do not have capacity to navigate systems but possess essential local knowledge. The idea that investments in social infrastructure are needed to support effective, equitable crisis responses is demonstrated as a key conclusion in another study focused on community organizations and formal institutions [37]. All these findings underscore the need to center community expertise and structural reform in recovery efforts to promote equity and stability.

Although participating organizations represented a range of sectors, service areas, and community roles, we did not systematically collect information on organizational size or the number of individuals routinely served. As a result, we were unable to characterize the relative reach of participating organizations or examine whether perspectives varied according to organizational size or service volume. Future research may benefit from collecting organizational-level characteristics to better understand how organizational capacity and reach shape experiences during public health emergencies.

5. Conclusions

This study underscores the indispensable role of local community organizations in responding to and recovering from emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic in predominantly Black and Latino communities in North and Central Brooklyn. They not only mitigated crises around food insecurity, vaccine access gaps, digital inequities, and unmet mental health needs, but also highlighted the structural inequities that exacerbated the impact of COVID-19. Their experiences reaffirm the necessity of sustained collaboration, equitable resource allocation, culturally responsive mental health support, and investments in digital and social infrastructures.

Public health practitioners and researchers should continue to foster and maintain relationships with local community organizations because they are viewed as trusted messengers in their communities and can be effective and credible disseminators of health information and promotion [9,10,21]. Additionally, this study adds a new and tangible component to the literature, which is a comprehensive review and revamp of the emergency preparedness plan utilizing lessons learned from these partners’ experiences. They strongly advised that this plan should involve the local community and include strategies such as the following:

• Emergency funds for local community organizations vetted by City Government in collaboration with community boards, to provide basic needs to the community.
• A better system in place for remote learning that ensures that all students have access to and are adept at using the equipment needed.
• Dissemination of needed information through various trusted sources/channels to reach as diverse a population as possible, such as television, telephone and media channels; faith-based organizations, community-based organizations, businesses, and schools.
• Development of a list of places where people could go to for certain items in their respective neighborhoods.
• Disseminating standard packets of information and PPE, such as masks, hand sanitizers and test kits for distribution.
• Widely educating the public about the list of recommended items to have in a Go-Bag in case they have to leave their homes in a hurry, or to have on hand in case they need to shelter in place [38]. Recovery efforts must move beyond restoring pre-pandemic conditions and should center community expertise, sustained capacity building, and structural reform to advance health equity and community resilience.