A New Perspective

The mixed results of national evaluations, combined with experiential evidence from hundreds of coalitions, have led some experts to question some of the fundamental assumptions underlying the original coalition concept.  These evolving roles include the following:

·                      Community coalitions are not themselves interventions but instead provide  infrastructure to support planning and services to address a specific community concern.  Those services and plans should be based on the most current research and local data.

·                      Sufficient competence may not exist within a coalition to support a solid planning process and to implement a strategic vision.  Nor will some communities embrace the coalition and its goals. Environmental conditions that coalitions work in can determine success. In both Washington, D.C. and Newark, New Jersey, for example, two major Fighting Back efforts terminated in large part because the communities were in disarray.

·                      Structure is important. Coalitions are formal organizations that should provide leadership, a clear decision making structure, definition of roles for Board of Directors, members and staff, fiscal accountability, and training.  

·                      Not all communities may be ready to establish coalitions or be able to sustain them over time. Indeed, some of the best coalitions may be short lived, coming together to develop programs which can then be institutionalized.

Dr. Paul Jellinek, Vice President of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, in discussing the Fighting Back initiative, recently observed,  “We didn’t understand how poorly equipped we were in this country to come together around any issue, or that the process of bringing people together as a community would, to some extent, compromise the community’s capacity to focus strategically.  It was an evolutionary process where, to build trust, people made tradeoffs.”[2] 

ENDNOTES: