250 likes | 433 Views
Applying a Framework for Coalition Development. April 11, 2005 John F. Stevenson and Paul Florin Community Research and Services Team Department of Psychology University of Rhode Island. Overview:. Alternative logics for coalition effects Developmental tasks for effective coalitions
E N D
Applying a Framework for Coalition Development April 11, 2005 John F. Stevenson and Paul Florin Community Research and Services Team Department of Psychology University of Rhode Island
Overview: • Alternative logics for coalition effects • Developmental tasks for effective coalitions • Measuring coalition constructs • Applications to coalition development
What does it take for a coalition to produce measurable effects? • The general approach can work, and there is evidence that it does work – maybe about a third of the time (Wandersman & Florin, 2003): • Pentz (1998): 9 successful out of 17 studies surveyed • Roussos & Fawcett (2000): 12 out of 34 • Yin, Kaftarian, Yu, & Jansen (1997): 8 out of 24 • Kreuter, Lezin, & Young (2000): 6 out of 68
Coalition Logic Models • Do all coalitions reach their goals in the same way? • Are there alternative “logics” for how coalitions work to achieve outcomes? • "Alternative Roles for Intentional Use of Community-Level Collaboration in Prevention” (Stevenson & Mitchell, 2003)
Getting from here to there: What does it take? • Reasons for success or failure in the literature: • 1. More rigorous designs less likely to show positive effects • 2. Variability in successful implementation (“dose- response”) (Schooler, Farquhar, Fortmann, & Flora, 1997) • It will take a strong, well organized coalition, external assistance, multiple collaborators, and time.What are the steps to a “strong, well organized coalition”?
Developmental Tasks for Coalitions • Florin, Mitchell, & Stevenson, 1993(funding from the RI Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals) • Measuring development to demonstrate progress • Measuring development to guide staff action and technical assistance
Coalition Developmental Tasks (Continued) Florin, P, Mitchell, R, and Stevenson, J (1993). Identifying training and technical assistance needs in community coalitions: A developmental approach. Health Education Research, Theory, and Practice, 8 (30), 417-432.
Do Stages Matter? • Predicting intermediate effects: Florin, Mitchell, Stevenson, & Klein (2000) • “Intermediate effects” as outcomes from early stage successes
Effects (1) Quality of the prevention plan (2) Scope of planned activities (3) Visible effects on the community judged 1 year later: • Averaged ratings of 3 key informants (president of town council, chief of police, & superintendent of schools) on items rating effects of the coalition on youth and parents, community attitudes, connections between agencies, policies of organizations, and resources available for prevention
Correlations Between Initial Developmental Tasks and Planning and Implementation Variables1
Measuring Coalition Progress Three primary instruments: Member Survey Leader Interview Key Informant Interview Additional methods: Structured Minutes Form Plan Evaluation Form Activities Report Form Policy Influence Form Collaboration Survey
COMMON GROUND SUBCOMMITTEE: PRELIMINARY TIMELINE – Fall 2004
Goals of the Common Ground Sub-Committee of the Narragansett-URI Coalition 1. To build our capacity to act effectively to address the environmental factors involved with college student underage drinking in Narragansett. * To become familiar with the mission of the NIAAA – URI grant "Environmental Methods for Reducing Collegiate Drinking." * To obtain and assimilate the latest research information regarding the best practices of environmental prevention strategies. * To explore current community attitudes and practices regarding environmental problems, assets, and prevention strategies. 2. To plan for action to address environmental factors. * To find common ground to establish priorities for local implementation of environmental prevention strategies. * To identify relevant allies and plan steps for promoting environmental change.
Goals of the Common Ground Subcommittee of the Narragansett-URI Coalition 3. To implement plans to promote prioritized environmental prevention strategies. * To use media effectively and mobilize community support * To enlist positive efforts by fraternities and sororities in support of identified environmental strategies – drawing on the Greeks’ commitment to leadership, achievement, and community service 4. To successfully achieveoutcomes in the areas of enactment and enforcement of local policies that are identified as priorities, focusing on: * Decreasing access to alcohol for underage and intoxicated students * Decreasing drinking and driving * Increasing enforcement efforts by local police 5. To sustain long-term environmental changes by supporting the URI-Narragansett Coalition and other relevant organizations in their efforts to enhance policy enforcement and on-going investigation of campus and community needs.
Conclusions • It's a long road • Unpacking the "black box" can help: • Planning • Early outcomes • Mid-course corrections • Guidance for technical assistance