Determinants of Community Coalition Ability to Support Evidence-Based Programs
- 427 Downloads
This study examines how aspects of coalition functioning predict a coalition’s ability to promote high-quality implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs). The study involved 62 Communities That Care (CTC) coalitions in Pennsylvania measured annually from 2003 to 2007. Findings indicate that the communities with higher levels of poverty and longer existing coalitions are related to lower support for high-quality EBP implementation. Several aspects of coalition functioning—including higher levels of funding; leadership strength; board efficiency; strong internal and external relationships; and fidelity to the CTC model—significantly predicted support for high-quality EBP implementation. Earlier measurements of coalition functioning (2003–2004 and 2005–2006) predicted EBP implementation (2007) more strongly than concurrent coalition assessments (2007). The discussion focuses on how coalitions and technical assistance providers can improve coalition support for the implementation of EBPs.
KeywordsEvidence-based programs Community coalitions Communities That Care Implementation Fidelity
This research is supported by a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission for Crime and Delinquency (PCCD). However, findings and recommendations herein are those of the authors and not official statements of PCCD. We want to acknowledge the enthusiastic support of Michael Pennington, Ruth Williams, Douglas Hoffman, Raymond Moneta, and Clay R. Yeager at PCCD in supporting the vision of this project. We are also grateful for the cooperation extended by the state-funded CTC technical assistance providers and the many CTC board members in Pennsylvania.
- Bryson, J. M. (1995). Strategic planning for profit and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Butterfoss, F. D. (2008). Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Carlson, M. (2002). Winning grants: Step by step. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Diamond, J. (2005). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
- Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D., Greenberg, M. T., Osgood, D. W., & Bontempo, D. (2009). Effects of the Communities That Care model in Pennsylvania on change in adolescent risk and problem behaviors. Prevention Science. doi: 10.1007/s11121-009-0161-x.
- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida.Google Scholar
- Harachi, T. W., Ayers, C. D., Hawkins, D. J., Catalano, R. F., & Cushing, J. (1996). Empowering communities to prevent adolescent substance abuse: Process evaluation results from a risk- and protective-based community mobilization effort. Journal of Primary Prevention, 16, 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities That Care: Action for drug abuse prevention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2005). Investing in your community’s youth: An introduction to the Communities That Care system. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.Google Scholar
- Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., Fagan, A. A., et al. (2009). Results of a type 2 translational research trial to prevent adolescent drug use and delinquency: A test of Communities That Care. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 789–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Koen, C. (1999). The case for longitudinal survey research in social science analysis in South Africa. African Sociological Review, 3, 152–167.Google Scholar
- Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar