Elements of Effectiveness

There is clearly no single blueprint for building a successful coalition; each coalition is unique, reflecting the particular environment and circumstances which led to its creation.  However, during the past decade, we have gained a great deal of knowledge about specific aspects of coalitions that relate to their effectiveness at each stage of development. Leading national organizations, including CADCA, Fighting Back, Join Together, and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention have all defined the qualities that they believe are essential for success. The Drug Free Communities Act of 1997 also outlines five general elements that coalitions must demonstrate to show viability before qualifying for funding. 

Building on the collective work of these organizations as well as on our structured interviews with prevention and evaluation experts and with coalitions themselves, Drug Strategies has identified six elements that are fundamental in developing and sustaining an effective coalition.

Clear Mission Statement and Strategic Plan
Both experts and practitioners agree that this element is essential in creating a viable coalition.  The energy and enthusiasm of local residents eager to address community substance abuse problems are vitally important, but by themselves, they are not enough.  Careful assessment of the scope and nature of the problem is necessary to provide information so that the initial organizers can draft a clear mission statement that will guide the coalition at every stage of its development. Dr. Cheryl Perry, a professor at the University of Minnesota who developed Project Northland which uses communities to change norms about teen drinking, notes that action plans must have clear goals which can be substantiated with data or other information readily understandable by the community. These goals should focus on both the long term and the short term and, above all, concentrate on changes that can realistically be made within a community. For example, the Regional Drug Initiative in Portland, Oregon publishes an annual report of county and state trend data on a dozen indicators which the local community uses for planning guidance.  Fighting Back sites conduct similar community indicator studies.  

Dr. David Hawkins, Director of the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington,  has pointed out that what is missing in many coalitions is a clear framework that establishes common language and a paradigm that expresses how the community sees the problem and how to approach it.  Having a similar framework and vocabulary enables the group to talk about the problem and share a common understanding.  With such a framework in place, it is possible for coalition members to look down the road at what is expected and how to proceed.

Not all communities are ready to address substance abuse, even if funding is available to start a coalition. There may be denial, or only a vague awareness of the problem, or other higher priorities. For example, in Charlotte, North Carolina, the Drug and Alcohol Fighting Back Project initiative encountered some resistance, according to Hattie Anthony, the Executive Director: “We mobilized people and hoped they would focus on reducing substance abuse. But after people were mobilized, we found that they had a lot of agendas, only one of which was substance abuse.”   

In recent years, several new programs have been developed to help communities assess their readiness to create citizen action coalitions.  The Tri-Ethnic Center at Colorado State University has a community readiness instrument that provides step by step guidance for local planners, including questions they should ask to determine community views on the importance of substance abuse issues. Dr. David Hawkins and the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington have recently developed a guide to help communities assess their readiness for change, is one of a series of guides developed by the Research Group for the CSAP.

The National Center for the Advancement of Prevention developed a workbook to help communities develop their plans by addressing a set of ten questions at the outset. These questions include, “What is really needed? What are the best practices or science based interventions? How do these fit with other programs being done? What is the plan? Who will do this?”  Systematic thinking from the beginning increases both the likelihood of success and accountability for results.[3]                

Broad, Diverse Coalition Membership
Effective anti-drug coalitions harness the many different talents within a community. Volunteers from all walks of life participate directly in community action, often for the first time, and provide the impetus for creative new strategies.  When they are broad and diverse, community coalitions bridge the divisions that usually separate private and public, city and county programs. A 1999 Join Together survey of community groups found that all community sectors can improve their response and increase their attention to substance abuse.

The Miami Coalition, one of the earliest in the country, grew out of informal meetings among business, civic and professional leaders dismayed by escalating drug abuse and cocaine dealing in the late 1980s. Initial funding, office space and paid staff were provided by these leaders, so that a  comprehensive coalition strategy could be developed quickly. Today, the Miami Coalition remains one of the largest, best-organized anti-drug coalitions in the country.

In terms of membership structure, there are at least three types of coalitions: “vertical” coalitions which include grassroots groups, local agencies and community elites; “grassroots” coalitions made up of local residents and neighborhood groups; and “horizontal” professional coalitions that primarily include representatives from service agencies.  Each type faces particular challenges, as the twelve coalitions in our study clearly demonstrated.  However, coalitions with broad-based, diverse membership structures generally have achieved greater progress toward their goals largely because they can leverage many more resources within the community. Moreover, the involvement of local colleges and universities can provide essential research assistance with needs assessment, local indicators and evaluation.

According to Dr. Mary Ann Pentz, Director of the Center for Prevention Policy Research at the University of Southern California, involving relevant organizations which champion the goals of the coalition is crucial. For example, youth focused coalitions should have high level representation from the school system. The credibility of the entire coalition membership is also important in order to engage relevant institutions in change as well as to sustain support for the coalition.

Jim Copple believes that strong leadership is fundamental to success, even though the concept of coalitions is built on the notion of broad-based ownership and power sharing.  He notes that, “A strong leader will take the heat and move the agenda both within the coalition and with key community leaders outside the coalition.”  He also notes that leaders benefit from training, particularly on how to network, to manage agendas and to lead by consensus building.

Coalitions face a critical juncture when the leadership changes.  Many coalitions do not prepare for this succession, so that if one or two people—often the founders of the organization—leave, the future of the coalition is seriously threatened. Coalitions that have been able to sustain their efforts over time either still have their original leader or they have developed the next generation of leaders within the coalition.  Very few coalitions, however, have given thought to ensuring a smooth transition if the leadership changes. In this context, training of coalition members is vital in order to provide them with the essential skills to take on leadership roles if the need arises.

According to the 1999 Join Together survey, community leaders also want leadership from the federal government in the form of significant changes in long-standing public policies and a change in spending priorities.  Specifically, they cited these policy priorities:  limit alcohol and tobacco advertising, increase alcohol and tobacco excise taxes, and increase federal funding for substance abuse prevention and treatment.

Diversified Funding Sources
As many coalitions have painfully learned from experience, relying on one major funder can prove fatal.  If that funder withdraws support for any reason, the coalition is faced with the immediate crisis of finding new sources. This is often not easy, particularly when local institutions may not have “bought into” the coalition from the outset because it did not need to engage them to provide support.  Some of the CSAP-funded coalitions did not survive the termination of the CSAP community partnership program in 1996.  One major reason was their dependence on a single funder.

The importance of diversified funding, particularly from local sources, in sustaining coalitions has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past decade of coalition expansion.  Legislation currently being drafted in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to extend the Drug Free Communities Act for five more years reflects this important lesson.  As with the original program, the extension will also require coalitions to provide a 100 percent match from local sources for grants received under the Federal program.  This strengthens the likelihood that funding for a significant portion of the coalition comes from local sources.

Training
Many experts point to training as making a difference in a coalition’s survival.  Training helps coalitions to identify problems, develop a vision and a strategy, establish clear steps to achieve their goals, monitor the process and measure outcomes.  Dr. Mary Ann Pentz from the University of Southern California, who has developed comprehensive training programs for coalitions in implementing prevention goals, believes that training often makes a pivotal difference.  Training should cover areas such as community readiness, membership recruitment, strategic planning, information about current research on effective programs, and learning how to interact with the media. In addition, as Dr. Harold Holder, Director of the Prevention Research Center in Berkeley, California, notes, coalitions need to learn to look at the community as a system in order to recognize the special interest groups with a stake in the “problem.” For example, bars, convenience stores and restaurants profit from alcoholic beverage sales. They may initially be resistant to citizen efforts to reduce sales to underage youth, even if the sales are illegal.

Although training and technical assistance are critical, coalitions do not have adequate access to these services.  Join Together provides action kits on various topics as well as on-line information, including the latest research and survey data and help with strategy development and funding. It also maintains a listserve so that subscribers can post questions and receive answers from each other as well as Join Together.  Join Together also promotes models of successful training programs that they have previously hosted.   The Fellows program, which ended in 1998, consisted of 235 community leaders (business, grassroots, legislators, prevention experts) who received leadership development training.  The program expanded into a peer to peer exchange where, until 1997, several fellows, along with other leaders, became consultants for several months to other communities and aided them in developing a comprehensive strategy.  Through six regional Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies, CSAP provides its grantees technical assistance, including help with evaluations and accessing science-based programs. CADCA also provides training, national and regional conferences, distance learning, online guides, help with media relations and links to other organizations.  However, many of these resources are self-directed, not in-person training and the coalition may not have the time or knowledge to utilize them.

Evaluation
Evaluation is centrally important to the successful development of a coalition as well as to its long-term viability.  Funders who may be willing to invest in the start-up phases of building a coalition will probably not be inclined to continue support without evidence of positive community impact. As the continuing national evaluation of the Fighting Back coalitions points out, it is sometimes difficult to demonstrate that coalitions have made a difference.  This is especially true where success is measured by reductions in alcohol and other drug use and drug-related problems in a particular community.  Often these measures do not reflect the actual effect the coalition is having.  Many factors contribute to the difficulty of obtaining a true picture of coalition impact, including a lack of accurate baseline measures and multiple influences that may distort outcomes. For example, overall drug use among youth may rise in a community despite energetic coalition activities; however, stronger forces such as national trends and high resident turnover may largely account for this increase. Moreover, very few communities have accurate information about local drug use, so that coalitions often undertake their initiatives without a solid baseline. 

The newer coalitions have learned the importance of developing measurable outcomes from the outset, and the Drug Free Communities Program requires coalitions receiving assistance to build evaluation into their initial strategy. Time is also a critical factor. As CADCA’s Public Policy Consultant Sue Thau notes, “Changing attitudes and norms in a community takes three or four years, and behavior change may take another two years. Funders often expect more immediate outcomes.”

More recently, researchers have looked to asset-building across a broader range of issues, including improvement in public health and safety. To capture the full effect a coalition has in its community, evaluation should involve multiple methods, including such factors as changes in service delivery, community awareness, community knowledge, norms about prevention, and the whole continuum of care.

Short-term measures can also be helpful, including process evaluations as the coalition develops.  Evaluation feedback even in the early stages can help redirect coalition efforts by increasing capacity to plan and to move toward results. In this way, coalitions can look at  short-term results at different phases and discuss what went wrong or what went right.

ENDNOTES: