This is the first 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, DC. This discussion was facilitated by Lori Zehe and Gwen Brown, members of the National Coalition Institute’s Leader/Mentors.

One of the biggest questions facing community coalitions is “What makes us a coalition rather than an organization running programs?” A group of about 40 coalition members discussed the issue and came up with some one-word descriptions of what a coalition is. The list included comprehensive voice; fluid; unselfish; mutually supportive, advocacy; support; strength; collaboration; change; facilitators; network. Coalitions are all that and more.

Said one participant, “coalitions build the capacity of local organizations to provide services. We are ‘information brokers’ who agitate for environmental changes.” Another participant added, “Coalitions are about reducing the duplication of programs and efforts while maximizing a community’s resources.”

A representative from a New Hampshire coalition shared their group’s strategy: “What we did was move to another level: to an attitude of all for one and one for all. We share resources, staff, vehicles, anything it takes to get the job done. The biggest distinction–we do not run programs! We create partners in the community to perform them.”

CADCA’s National Coalition Institute has identified three key areas of difference between coalitions and programs:

• Scale: Coalitions measure success by examining community-level indicators. This applies to all coalition outcomes (short- and long-term).
• Addresses Multiple Causes: Coalitions seek to insure that all causes of identified problems are addressed.
• Actors: Action in coalitions is diffused and taken by all members with staff playing a coordinating and supportive role.

Using the Strategic Prevention Framework
Another issue discussed during the roundtable was how individual coalitions can apply SAMHSA’s Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) to their group. Discussion participants identified the SPF as a planning tool, a logical thought process to set goals, measure progress and work toward outcome achievement. A key is using the SPF’s five elements to develop objectives, said one participant from Georgia.

The group grappled with several issues surrounding assessment. The first was how to gauge organizational and community readiness. Several participants noted that there are a number of assessment tools available to help. Examples can be found at www.preventionplatform.samhsa.gov and under assessment on the Coalition Institute’s Web site, www.coalitioninstitute.org.

Within the discussion, questions also were raised about the issue of data vs. community perception. As one participant from Florida noted, “Our problem in implementing the SPF is that data collected on substance abuse issues does not match up with our coalition members’ perceptions!”

Another Florida participant added, that you can explain to people that perception is not necessarily reality, and that the data is something they must take seriously, but you can’t just disregard people who disagree with the data or try push it on them. It is important to bring in those from the community who will believe the numbers and continue to help you sell it to the larger community.

A participant from Ohio said that their coalition had the same problem and discussed how their coalition addressed the problem. The group used student focus groups including a number of different “cliques.” Students were promised no repercussions for full disclosure. Comments from students such as “yeah, I see kids smoking dope in the bathrooms all the time,” were presented to school district and other community leaders. The students’ comments went a long way toward confirming with coalition members other data that was being collected.

The group also stressed the importance of using local data to inform the community. One of the participants from Florida said, “Local people want LOCAL data! Only this will motivate.” A participant from Georgia noted the need to publish qualitative data in addition to quantifiable data to help get community buy in. A participant from Missouri agreed, adding that data and numbers are essential for working with the legislature.

More information on the SPF and its elements is available on the Drug-Free Communities Support Program Web site, http://drugfreecommunities.samhsa.gov/, and on the Coalition Institute’s Web site, www.coalitioninstitute.org.