Applying Key Elements

Drug Strategies’ study of twelve anti-drug coalitions in cities where the Knight Foundation’s Community Initiatives Program is concentrated yielded a wealth of information about the real challenges coalitions face at every stage of development. The six essential elements for coalition effectiveness discussed in the preceding chapter provide an informative, analytic perspective for understanding the actual experience coalitions have on the ground. Each of the elements provides a useful context for examining both coalition strengths and weaknesses.

Clear Mission Statement and Strategic Plan
This important step is crucial in laying the foundation for a strong coalition. As Drug Strategies learned from its coalition study, those that did not agree on a clear mission from the outset encountered serious difficulties at later stages. The Long Beach Coalition, for example, was created in 1972 to provide Federally funded substance abuse treatment under the Federal Hughes Act. In the intervening decades, the coalition did not clearly define its mission, but instead, through its monthly lunches, became a loose-knit gathering which gave  treatment providers an opportunity to get together.  Although concrete goals were accomplished in the early years, such as reducing the number of liquor stores in south Long Beach and opening several new social service agencies, the coalition has not developed a strategic plan that defines its current mission and goals. In 1997, the Long Beach Coalition merged with the South Bay Coalition, which had lost its principal leader, and the merged coalitions are now in the process of developing a strategic plan. The need for clear direction, including goals and objectives for each meeting, is widely recognized. Betty Batenburg, a coalition member, notes that “If goals are not set beforehand, the meeting turns into a networking session. While networking is important, it should not take the place of discussions regarding how we are going to implement the indicated projects that will bring the group closer to their overarching goals.”

Not all communities are ready to address substance abuse, even if funding is available to start a coalition. For example, Rural Neighbors in Partnership, an umbrella for three county coalitions near Tallahassee, Florida, was created in 1991 when the Florida School Board Association and DISC Village, a private treatment provider, received a CSAP grant. Although the coalition conducted needs assessments in the three counties, it could not generate support from local residents, in large part because smoking and drinking were considered normal behavior, even for young teenagers. The coalition also lacked strong leadership and diversified sources of support.  When CSAP funding expired, Rural Neighbors disbanded.

Changing conditions within the community when concerns shift from substance abuse to other problems can also change the mission of coalitions. This in turn can lead to merger with other organizations or dissolution. In Wichita, Kansas, Project Freedom and Family Coalition started in 1989 to increase public awareness of substance abuse.  When the Coalition leadership realized that community mobilization around substance abuse might be more effective, and technical assistance was leaning in this direction, the coalition changed its mission.   The coalition supported a wide range of activities (including environmental strategies to address youth violence) and enjoyed strong support from funders and political leaders.  However, by 1999, diverging perspectives within the coalition led to the breakup of Project Freedom; some members continued and changed the mission to reducing truancy (Wichita ACTS against Truancy), while others left altogether.

Newer coalitions have built on the lessons of the past decade about the central importance of defining the mission and strategic plan from the outset.  For example, CARE Partnership of the Centre County Region in State College, Pennsylvania, was started in 1999 by five community leaders who were frustrated by the lack of coordination of local prevention programs. This core group, after spending a year researching the best way to proceed, adopted the Communities That Care model, which provides step-by-step guidance on how to develop and evaluate a community coalition. The group is now in the process of collecting substance abuse indicator data and inviting key community leaders to join the coalition.

Many coalitions during the early formation stages have not realized the central importance of defining their mission and strategy.  Accomplishing these important initial tasks can involve substantial time and energy, particularly if the coalition focus is multi-dimensional. Achieving consensus within the organizing group also can be challenging, especially if the coalition leaders do not have prior training or experience in effectively managing this process.  Some coalitions come apart either because they do not define or agree on a core mission; others stumble through several years of choppy efforts which do not add up to progress. The coalitions that successfully develop a clear mission and strategy from the outset have a much greater chance of success.

Broad, Diverse Coalition Membership
During the past decade, many different types of anti-drug coalitions have emerged. Some are built through grassroots, neighborhood groups; others are composed largely of service providers.  However, the most effective, durable coalitions are those that include a broad, diverse membership that brings together local agencies, grassroots organizers and community business, civic and media leaders.  The Miami Coalition (the largest of the 12 coalitions in Knight cities) is an excellent example of the powerful foundation a broadly based membership can provide.  Initiated by an influential group of business, civic, and professional leaders in 1988, the coalition has grown to include 7,000 volunteer members from all sectors of the community.  Day-to-day operations are directed by a paid Executive Director, who is backed up by a 25-member Executive Committee, primarily from the private sector, as well as eleven task forces representing different perspectives, such as law enforcement, faith organizations, treatment, that meet regularly to plan and coordinate activities. This wide reaching membership has sustained the coalition through challenging transitions over the past twelve years. 

Miami’s experience underscores the importance of broad membership in providing “social capital” to give coalitions ready access to key community leaders, media outlets and funding sources.  The Georgia Policy Council for Children and Families provides guidelines for coalitions developed within the state, including a mandate that the coalitions’ Board of Directors include representatives from the police, local government and Department of Family and Children Services.  In Columbus, the Children, Youth and Family Coalition assembled an advisory committee composed of the Superintendent of Schools, Director of the United Way, the City Manager, and a lead member of a local foundation to provide leadership and guidance and to suggest additional board members.

Coalitions which do not have broad-based membership often encounter great difficulties in developing and sustaining significant anti-drug initiatives. For example, the Long Beach Coalition, which began in 1985 in order to provide Federally funded treatment services, did not grow beyond its original membership base.  By the late 1990s, the coalition had lost a sense of direction. Sustained by annual membership dues, the Coalition consists entirely of volunteers. Former coalition President Jim Gilmore observes that, “The problem is that we are a group of treatment providers, and while this homogenous membership has meant a shared interest that has kept the group together for many years, we really need the additional support of diverse leadership well connected within the community­even if our views differ.” He adds that “It is possible that one of the most important mistakes we have made over the years was that we did not work hard enough to maintain those relationships (i.e., with the police department, schools, city council) once we had them.”

Strong, Continuing Leadership
Strong leadership is critically important to coalitions at every stage of their development. However, the kind of leadership needed may change as the coalition evolves. For example, many coalitions are begun by one or two highly committed, often charismatic people who push the organization forward through the challenges of startup.  In some cases, these leaders may actually prove to be too dominant, building an agenda that reflects their own priorities rather than community concerns. The membership base can also suffer, since possible participants may be driven away if they do not believe they can play a meaningful role within the coalition.  Many coalitions experience changes in leadership, which can in fact strengthen the organization.  Planning for leadership succession, particularly after the departure of the original leaders, is important to the long term survival of a coalition. Having continuity among paid staff can ease leadership transitions; however, most coalitions are staffed entirely by volunteers.

Coalition leadership in some cases comes directly from state and local government. For example, the Aberdeen Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council in Aberdeen, South Dakota, was started in 1988 by the Mayor after a needs assessment found very few anti-drug programs. Using local funds collected from legal gambling machines, the Council provided seed money for a range of community initiatives. The Council continues to be led by Aberdeen’s Mayor, whose office also provides administrative support. Although the Mayor’s leadership has provided stability for the 25-member coalition, a lack of volunteers remains a problem. Membership requirements are not burdensome: anyone who registers and attends two previous meetings is entitled to vote on upcoming initiatives.  Perhaps because it is so closely connected to the Mayor’s office,  the coalition is not widely recognized within the community.

Leadership often changes as coalitions develop.  In Charlotte, North Carolina, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Drug and Alcohol Fighting Back coalition began as a grassroots effort in 1991, bringing together many different neighborhoods within District 2, one of Charlotte’s poorest areas.  Leadership was shared between the coalition’s committee of representatives and Mecklenburg County government, which provided fiscal oversight.  Conflicts often arose over the expenditure of small sums: the coalition regarded the county’s scrutiny as overly restrictive. The current Executive Director, Hattie Anthony, recalls that “We stumbled a bit initially with the leadership of our coalition. The first coalition leader did not get along well with the county government. Since then, through hard work we have earned the respect and trust of both the county government and the neighborhoods.”  The coalition is now the county’s major contractor for drug prevention activities in District 2.

The Madison County Partnership in Richmond, Kentucky, which was started in 1990, has gone through several leadership changes which reflect different stages of development.  The first director provided support in conducting needs assessments, writing grants, and supporting the coalition’s subcommittees.  The second director took a more prominent organizing role, bringing in more members and creating a strategic plan.  The coalition’s current director, Lara Nagal, coordinates the increasingly autonomous subcommittees as well as directing day-to-day operations. The coalition has won several awards for its anti-drug activities.

Diversified Funding Sources
Finding continued funding support may be the single greatest challenge to coalition survival.  Every coalition in the Drug Strategies study has experienced funding difficulties, even the large, well established ones. A clear lesson from the past decade is that funding from only one source can prove fatal.  For example, Rural Neighbors in Partnership (which served Tallahassee’s three surrounding counties) was created in 1991 when CSAP awarded a community partnership grant to the Florida School Board Association and DISC Village, a private treatment provider.  These two organizations were funded to create a network of anti-drug coalitions within the three counties, but they were unable to generate support within the communities and had trouble recruiting volunteers. When the CSAP grant expired, there was no grassroots support to carry on the coalitions and the Partnership dissolved.

Some coalitions are supported through local revenues.  The Aberdeen Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council, for example, receives office space and administrative assistance from the Mayor as well as funds collected from legal gambling machines in the city. The Governor’s Commission for a Drug Free Indiana is funded by fines paid by DUI offenders and various Federal funds, including a grant from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration.  The Long Beach/South Bay Coalition collects membership dues to cover expenses. The CARE Partnership of the Centre County Region in State College, Pennsylvania, is supported by state grants, while the University Park Campus Community Partnership, also in State College, receives funds from Penn State University and the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. 

Training
Training for coalition leaders, members and staff can strengthen coalitions; however, very few coalitions have much training opportunity, largely because of a lack of funds. In the early 1990s, when the coalition movement began, training was more readily available through the Robert Wood Johnson Fighting Back initiative as well as CSAP. For example, Wichita’s Project Freedom and Family Coalition, which started in 1989, offered coalition members training in alcohol and other drug issues, conducting needs assessments, implementing strategic plans, and cultural sensitivity.  Staff also attended national conferences. (Project Freedom has since disbanded.)

Some coalitions benefit from local training opportunities, such as those provided by the Bluegrass Prevention Center of the State Champions for a Drug Free Community in Kentucky, which provides administrative and technical support to anti-drug coalitions statewide.  The Governor’s Commission for a Drug Free Indiana not only pays for members and staff to attend training seminars, including the annual CADCA conference, but also provides internal training for leadership, team and coalition building. 

With the advancement of technology and the Internet, many training resources are available online.  CADCA and Join Together have made numerous training resources and materials available over the Internet.  These resources are a low-cost supplement to in-person training for coalitions with limited funds.

Evaluating Coalition Impact
Coalitions have learned from direct experience the central importance of evaluating their activities, in terms of both process and outcome.  With a few notable exceptions many of the earlier coalitions did not build evaluation into their original strategy.  The subsequent inability to show results increased the difficulty of recruiting new members, particularly among community leadership, and of sustaining financial support.  For example, the Lexington/Fayette Champions coalition, which began in 1985, did not plan for evaluation, with the result that it was virtually impossible to judge whether any of the program initiatives were making an impact in the community.  Along with other difficulties, such as lack of direction, high turnover, and internal conflict, the Champions coalition could no longer sustain itself. Now merged into the Mayor’s Alliance on Substance Abuse, the new coalition has given evaluation top priority.

Coalitions that began with major Federal funding through CSAP or foundation funding through the Robert Wood Johnson Fighting Back initiative were required to build evaluation into their initial planning. The Charlotte Mecklenburg Drug and Alcohol Fighting Back Project has worked with nearby universities to evaluate its programs. The coalition also use data generated by the local Alcohol Beverage Control Board and law enforcement agencies. Since 1991, when the coalition started, alcohol sales in District 2 have dropped by 17 percent. Despite a city-wide increase in drug and alcohol related crime, DWI arrests in the District have declined by half and drug arrests by 12 percent. AA and NA chapters have also expanded.

“If you can’t evaluate it, don’t do it,” has become the motto for the Lexington Richland Fighting Back coalition in Columbia, South Carolina, which started with CSAP and Fighting Back funding in 1990. All coalition initiatives must incorporate an evaluation component, although this has proved a difficult challenge at times. Since South Carolina does not collect much baseline data at the district or county level, the coalition is often required to establish its own baseline numbers.  Area universities have provided help in evaluating projects.

Evaluation enables coalitions to track their own progress, report the impact of their work to funders and the community, and  use the information to garner new resources and members.  As coalitions typically do not include individuals who have expertise to conduct formal evaluations, they should seek guidance from external sources to help incorporate evaluation into the coalition strategy.

Coalitions face significant challenges.  These include:   conflict within the coalition, negative coalition climate (where one group dominates and others are not comfortable in presenting their viewpoints), competing priorities and  competing theories about the targeted problem, high turnover rates of coalition leadership and membership, low priority given to the targeted problem by community members or by local agencies and organizations, insufficient abilities or resources, and high turnover rates of local key leaders who may support the coalition.   Recognizing these potential obstacles can help coalitions address them more effectively.