Prevention Center of Excellence

Annotated Bibliography: Coalition/Partnership Effectiveness: Research and Recommendations

Coalition/Partnership Effectiveness: Research and Recommendations available in PDF (Download Acrobat Reader)

Compiled by Clare Desrosiers
March 1, 2006

Bales, D. (2004). The Kansas LIFE Project – Living initiatives for end-of-life care. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 7(6), 846-853.

The article describes the process by which the Kansas LIFE Project evolved, its activities, and impact on the communities served. The authors details the lessons learned from the Kansas LIFE Project experience. These included recognition of the importance of leadership, ongoing training/education, involving local leaders, clarity about policies, and ongoing program evaluation and development.

Feinburg, M.E., Greenberg, M.T., & Osgood, D.W. (2004). Readiness, functioning, and perceived effectiveness in community prevention coalitions: A study of Communities That Care. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3/4), 163-176.

Study of 21 community prevention coalitions that utilize the Communities That Care model for coalitions. Study used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Significant associations were found between: Community Readiness and Internal Coalition Board Functioning; Community Readiness and Perceived Effectiveness of coalitions; Perceived Effectiveness and Internal Board Functioning; Community Readiness and Attitudes/Knowledge of coalition board members regarding correct prevention program selection and risk factors for problem behaviors; Internal Board Functioning and Attitudes/Knowledge. Conclusions were:

1. Readiness can be a determinant of the kind of prevention strategy most appropriate for use in a specific community. For example, communities with low readiness would likely benefit more from the development of a leadership and institutional infrastructure rather than the establishment of a coalition.
2. The management of internal functioning of the coalition may be more important for achievement of success than management of external relations with the outside community.

Flewelling, R.L., Austin, D., Hale, K., LaPlante, M., Liebig, M., Piasecki, L., & Uerz, L. (2005). Implementing research-based substance abuse prevention in communities: Effects of a coalition-based prevention initiative in Vermont. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3), 333-353.

The article reports findings from a study in which the outcomes (decrease in use of marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, inhalants, other drugs) in areas where substance abuse prevention community coalitions implemented comprehensive research based strategies were compared with areas in which this did not occur. The strategies employed are described. The individuals studied were adolescents in grades 8-12. Findings suggest that coalitions that provided more research-based interventions to higher numbers of people achieved better outcomes than those that did not. Recommended practices for governmental agencies to increase coalition effectiveness include:

1. Encourage programs to use research-based prevention programs
2. Provide training, technical assistance, and networking opportunities to coalition coordinators and coalitions
3. Facilitate support, political leverage, and opportunities for public visibility
4. Maintain practices that encourage well-organized, supported coalitions with paid coordinators

Florin, P., Mitchell, R., Stevenson, J., Klein, I. (2000). Predicting intermediate outcomes for prevention coalitions: A developmental perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 341-346.

Findings from this study of 35 substance abuse prevention coalitions suggest several characteristics associated with the perception of provision of more effective interventions:

1. Establishment of an effective organizational structure with a task-focused social climate
2. Creation of strong individual and organizational capacity (ex: a high level of perceived member knowledge and skill development, more inter-organizational linkages)
3. More paid staff hours
4. More members attending meetings

Halifors, D., Cho, H., Livert, D., & Kadushin, C. (2002). Fighting back against substance abuse: Are community coalitions winning? American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23(4), 237-245.

This article summarizes a study of twelve communities that implemented the Fighting Back community coalition model to prevent substance abuse. Findings suggested that the prevention strategies used by the coalitions either had no effect or a negative effect upon prevention outcomes. Coalitions with more strategies did not show greater benefits than those without and a higher number of “high-dose” strategies showed a negative effect on overall outcomes. Authors’ recommendations are that:

1. Coalitions use evidence-based strategies.
2. Communities monitor strategy implementation and dose and quality of strategies used.
3. Coalitions and communities consider the use of environmental strategies.
4. Coalitions evaluate the impact of the their programs and in doing so: seek technical assistance with evaluation; involve community members in the evaluation process; ensure that outcomes are meaningful to the community and are tied to goals, programs and strategies; and use careful sampling procedures and a comparison group.

Hays, C.E., Hays, S.P., DeVille, J.O., Mulhall, P.F. (2000). Capacity for effectiveness: The relationship between coalition structure and community impact. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 373-379.

Findings from this study of 28 substance abuse prevention coalitions suggest that several structural factors influence the effectiveness of specific coalition activities. Some findings were:

1. Active involvement of a diverse network of community members was associated with coalitions’ abilities to develop a comprehensive prevention plan and change public policy.
2. Greater racial diversity in coalition membership was associated with coalitions’ ability to improve community prevention systems and to change public policy.
3. Collaboration among coalition members was strongly associated with ability to develop a comprehensive prevention plan.

Jasuja, G.K., Chou, C, Bernstein, K., Wang, E., McClure, M., & Pentz, M. (2005). Using structural characteristics of community coalitions to predict progress in adopting evidence-based prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 173-184.

Findings: Community drug prevention coalitions that had the following characteristics are likely to show the most progress in adopting evidence-based drug prevention programs.

1. A clear community structure (a steering group with committees/subcommittees)
2. Professional representation
3. Resource (funding) sharing (with other community organizations, schools, human service agencies, health agencies, businesses, town/city/municipal government, youth recreation programs, law enforcement, juvenile justice system, media groups, or religious groups)
4. A smaller service region (region sizes examined (from smallest to largest) were single community, county, region)

Jenkins, C., McNary, S., Carlson, B.A., Givens King, M., Hossler, C.L., Magwood, G., Zheng, D., Hendrix, K., Shelton Beck, L., Linnen, F., Thomas, V., Powell, S., & Ma’at, I. (2004). Reducing disparities for African-Americans with diabetes: Progress made by the REACH 2010 Charleston and Georgetown diabetes coalition. Public Health Reports, 119, 322-330.

Findings indicated that the REACH 2010 coalition achieved seven program objectives; five were not achieved. Despite these mixed results, findings suggest that coalitions can reduce disparities for African-Americans with diabetes.

Jewell, N.A., Russell, K.M. (2000). Increasing access to prenatal care: An evaluation of minority health coalitions’ early pregnancy project. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 17(2), 93-105.

Findings from an evaluation of three health coalitions’ work indicated that several coalition objectives were achieved. This suggests that coalitions can effectively increase access to prenatal care.

Kramer, J. S., Philliber, S., Brindis, C. D., Kamin, S. L., Chadwick, A. E., Revels, M. L., Chervin, D. D., Driscoll, A., Bartelli, D., Wike, R. S., Peterson, S. A., Schmidt, C. K., & Valderrama, L. T. (2005). Coalition models: Lessons learned from the CDC’s Community Coalition Partnership Programs for the prevention of teen pregnancy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, S20-S30.

This article describes a study of community coalitions’ members perceptions of coalitions’ achievement of outcomes, resource development, and internal functioning. In relation to sustainability, most of the 13 coalitions’ who participated in the study were not sustained at the end of their funding cycle with the CDC. The authors connect “these coalitions’ inability to thrive [to]…the challenges of creating coalitions in response to a funding opportunity.” One of greatest challenges faced by many of the of coalitions was sustainment of community residents’ involvement “as members of the community-wide coalition or in the neighborhood coalitions.” Factors that were positively associated with positive perceived outcomes were having a catchment area-wide coalition and a steering or executive committee. Factors negatively associated with positive perceived outcomes were “having a new coalition, having a CBO [community-based organization] as a hub, and experiencing changes in the organizational model.” The authors conclude from their findings that “coalition-model initiatives will be most successful when a broad-based, well-established, clearly led and organized coalition is employed to do the work.”

Kegler, M.C., Harris Wyatt, V. (2003). A multiple case study of neighborhood partnerships for positive youth development. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(2), 156-169.

The article describes findings from five case studies of neighborhood partnerships. Partnerships that lasted past the initial formation stage and successfully mobilized their neighborhood to promote positive youth development shared several characteristics:

1. Partnership staff were experienced, competent, hard working, and well-connected to the larger community.
2. The neighborhood had a sense of community, strong pre-existing relationships between community members, and networks within the community.
3. Key external organizations participated in and supported partnership activities.
4. Staff and board members shared leadership.
5. There was effective interpersonal and organizational communication and decision-making
6. There were established conflict-management processes.
7. The project addressed a need the community viewed as important.

Lindholm, M., Ryan, D., Kadushin, C., Saxe, L., & Brodsky, A. (2004). Fighting back against substance abuse: The structure and function of community coalitions. Human Organization, 63(3), 265-276.

The article examines the experiences of 10 communities that implemented the Fighting Back coalition model, which focused on reducing substance abuse through “vertical” (between local ‘elites’ and grassroots organizations/leaders) and “horizontal” (between service-providing agencies) collaboration. The authors make numerous observations and recommendations about factors that contributed to successful coalition development and sustainability.

Mitchell, M. (2000). Schools as catalysts for healthy communities. Public Health Reports, 115, 222-227.

The article describes the process by which a coalition to help students and their families achieved its goals. Some factors that facilitated goal achievement included:

1. Collaboration with multiple school districts facilitated obtainment of funding and creative thinking about strategies.
2. Community investment in coalition goals.

Roussos, S.T., & Fawcett, S.B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369-402.

This article reviews 34 empirically based studies of the effects of collaborative partnerships on community and systems change, community-wide behavior change, and more distant population health outcomes. The authors make numerous recommendations for research and practice.

Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A., Parker, E.A., Lockett, M., Hill, Y., Wills, R. (2001). The East Side Village health worker partnership: Integrating research and action to reduce health disparities. Public Health Reports, 116, 548-557.

The article describes the results of a qualitative study of a local partnership. The study examined improvements that occurred as a result of the partnership’s activities. Findings suggested that partnership activities brought about improvements in research methods (used by the partnership), practice activities, and community relationships.

Snow, R.J., Engler, D., Krella, J.M. (2003). The GDAHA hospital performance reports project: A successful community-based quality improvement initiative. Quality Management in Health Care, 12(3), 151-158.

The article describes the project and identifies factors that may have been associated with its success:

1. Focusing on stewards other than the consumers for the health care improvement process
2. Engagement of the whole health care community in identification of opportunity gaps in health care improvement.
3. Use of a collaborative model to develop solutions for opportunity gaps.
4. Transparent measurement systems that helped practitioners’ see the outcomes of their interventions.
5. Strong consistent leadership
6. Rapid availability of outcome and process reports.

Swisher, J.D., Scherer, J., Yin, R.K. (2004). Cost-benefit estimates in prevention research. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(2), 137-148.

This article summarizes cost-benefit analyses from seven prevention studies. Authors conclude that the studies “offer preliminary evidence that some prevention programs are effective” and cost-beneficial. Represented in the sample of studies were both community coalitions that used individual and environmental strategies and programs that target individuals only.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (2001). Principles of substance abuse prevention. Author. Retrieved 09/2005 from http://www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov/pdfs/pubs_Principles.pdf

The article presents principles of substance abuse prevention strategies based on evidence from research literature. Strategies that facilitate efficacy in community coalitions and additional information resources are described.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (2002). A framework for strengthening state substance abuse prevention systems: Sharing practical experiences. Author. Retrieved 09/2005 from http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/pdfs/
FrameworkforStrengthening.pdf

The article provides examples of practices that have been shown to strengthen substance abuse prevention. Relevant examples include

1. Washington state provides common needs assessment data to local prevention planners. This example includes a description of the survey instruments used to collect data.
2. Pennsylvania requires all substance abuse prevention programs to implement comprehensive outcome-based planning processes. Methods through which the state supports and facilitates such practices are described.
3. Washington state recently developed a survey to assess substance abuse prevention providers’ fidelity to the prevention programs they utilize and connections between fidelity to programs and program outcomes.
4. Kansas conducts an annual survey of drug use in four grade levels and provides the data to all public and private schools to be used for prevention planning and outcome assessments. The state arranges for regional prevention centers to provide training on how to use the data.
5. Illinois recently developed guidelines for prevention programs’ adoption of evidence-based interventions.

Wolff, T. (2001). A practitioner’s guide to successful coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 173-191.

The article describes nine dimensions of coalition building that the author concludes, from an examination of the literature and his and practitioners’ experiences, are essential for success. Each dimension has multiple factors (see the article for more detail). The dimensions are community readiness, intentionality, structure and organizational capacity, taking action, membership, leadership, dollars and resources, relationships, and technical assistance.

| PCoE Home | PCoE Research Materials | PCoE Additional Resources |