This is the sixth and final in a series of articles based on roundtable discussions on issues relevant to community coalitions from CADCA´s National Leadership Forum XVI, held Feb. 14-16, 2006, in Washington, D.C. This discussion was facilitated by Ann Comiskey and Ava Troxler, members of the CADCA National Coalition Institute´s Leader/Mentors.

This session brought together people who are actively engaged in helping to start coalitions in new locales. It was designed for people responsible for Drug-Free Communities Support Program mentoring grants as well as coalition leaders who are informally helping to develop new coalitions. What are we learning about the mentoring approach to creating new coalitions? Are some mentoring approaches more effective than others? Is it possible to provide too much help and support?

“Mentoring,” said one participant, “is like parenting a village. There are no cookie cutter coalitions when mentoring. Some younger groups may be on their way to success because their ideas are fresh, but they may have a problem with a lack of membership. You have to ask yourself, what does the community need?”

Said one participant from Georgia, “You must build trust in the relationship. Develop a vision, create a process and have a mission statement.”

Several themes emerged throughout the session. For example, participants agreed that mentoring must strike a balance—providing assistance, but not offering too much help. “When you have a vision, you can provide too much support. You have to know when to not give as much,” said one participant from Florida.

A New York participant agreed, “Sometimes I find that you can provide too much help. There has to be a compromise between the doers and the planners. Stronger groups may not have a need for coalition support. You have to know when the community and leaders do not want the support.”

“Sometimes progress is slow,” said a participant from North Carolina. “We had monthly meetings with one coalition that struggled for capacity for years. It’s about capacity building and teaching coalitions how to expand.”

Added a participant from Georgia, “Coalition building is a process. You have to find out what their values are and share your knowledge. Creating a strategic blueprint using the Strategic Prevention Framework helps with the planning process. You can then share this information with new and existing coalitions.”

Information sharing is key—whether long distance as a Pennsylvania coalition that mentors a California coalition described, or face-to-face meetings, as several other participants discussed. Said the Pennsylvania participant, “We were able to provide plenty of direction and moral support at a distance, through e-mails and phone calls.”

In Vermont, a network of mentors was established to enhance support of community coalitions. Groups in New York also set up a mentoring network creating events that encouraged interaction between coalitions and mentors.

In Mississippi, small coalitions throughout the state meet on a regular basis to share successes and disappointments. “Finding out what has worked for others, helps to create a better overall strategy for all. Some members have more legislative support in their communities and at the state level. Sometimes, other coalitions are able to benefit from those contacts or learn how to gain similar support in their area.”

Additionally, there was consensus among the participants about conducting mentoring activities with a variety of staff and volunteers rather than just one key contact. Said a participant from Oregon, “I have found that informal support helps other members to become involved. Having more than one member involved helps us to communicate with the coalition.”

A participant from Vermont agreed. “Rotating staff meetings are a good idea. It causes more awareness and allows a variety of staff to attend. More experienced staff members in attendance then can help mentors to relay key points back to the coalition.”