Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 88, Supplement 1, pp 130–143 | Cite as

A Model-Driven Approach to Qualitatively Assessing the Added Value of Community Coalitions

  • Elizabeth Jane Herman
  • Adrienne Keller
  • Adam Davis
  • Ryan Ehrensberger
  • Sharon Telleen
  • Richard Kurz
  • Jill Heins Nesvold
  • Sally Findley
  • Tyra Bryant-Stephens
  • Mindy Benson
  • Leslie Fierro


Community-based coalitions are commonly formed to plan and to carry out public health interventions. The literature includes evaluations of coalition structure, composition, and functioning; evaluations of community-level changes achieved through coalition activities; and the association between coalition characteristics and various indicators of success. Little information is available on the comparative advantage or “added value” of conducting public health interventions through coalitions as opposed to less structured collaborative mechanisms. This paper describes a qualitative, iterative process carried out with site representatives of the Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project (CAACP) to identify outcomes directly attributable to coalitions. The process yielded 2 complementary sets of results. The first were criteria that articulated and limited the concept of “added value of coalitions”. The criteria included consensus definitions, an organizing figure, a logic model, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The second set of results identified site-specific activities that met the definitional criteria and were, by agreement, examples of CAACP coalitions’ added value. Beyond the specific findings relevant to the added value of coalitions in this project, the use of a social ecological model to identify the components of added value and the placement of those components within a logic model specific to coalitions should provide useful tools for those planning and assessing coalition-based projects.


Asthma Coalitions Community interventions Socio-ecological model of influence 



The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The authors gratefully acknowledge Gail Brottman, Cizely Curian, Vicky Persky, Gloria Thomas, Dolores Weems, and Kristin Wilson for reviewing their sites’ outcome spreadsheets, and Maureen Wilce for her valuable comments on early drafts of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11524_2010_9520_MOESM1_ESM.doc (42 kb)
Table e-3Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to assess the added value of Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project coalitions (DOC 41 kb)


  1. 1.
    Butterfoss FD, Francisco VT. Evaluating community partnerships and coalitions with practitioners in mind. Health Promot Pract. 2004; 5(2): 108–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lasker RD, Weiss ES. Creating partnership synergy: the critical role of community stakeholders. J Health Hum Serv Adm. 2003; 26(1): 119–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feighery E, Rogers T. Building and maintaining effective coalitions. Second edition. Palo Alto, CA: Health Promotion Resource Center, Stanford Center of Research in Disease Prevention; 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zakocs RC, Guckenburg S. What coalition factors foster community capacity? Lessons learned from the Fighting Back Initiative. Health Educ Behav. 2007; 34(2): 354–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC. Toward a comprehensive understanding of community coalitions. In: DiClemente R, Crosby R, Kegler MC, eds. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: strategies for improving public health. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 157–193.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Granner ML, Sharpe PA. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Educ Res. 2004; 19(5): 514–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion: factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health Educ Q. 1996; 23(1): 65–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chinman M, Anderson C, Imm P, Wandersman A, Goodman RM. The perceptions of costs and benefits of high active versus low active groups in community coalitions at different stages in coalition development. J Community Psychol. 1996; 24(3): 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garland B, Crane M, Marino C, Stone-Wiggins B, Ward A, Friedell G. Effect of community coalition structure and preparation on the subsequent implementation of cancer control activities. Am J Health Promot. 2004; 18(6): 424–434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chalmers ML, Housemann RA, Wiggs I, Newcomb-Hagood L, Malone B, Brownson RC. Process evaluation of a monitoring log system for community coalition activities: five-year results and lessons learned. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 17(3): 190–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheadle A, Senter S, Procello A, et al. The California wellness foundation’s health improvement Initiative: evaluation findings and lessons learned. Am J Health Promot. 2005; 19(4): 286–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Collie-Akers VL, Fawcett SB, Schultz JA, Carson V, Cyprus J, Pierle JE. Analyzing a community-based coalition’s efforts to reduce health disparities and the risk for chronic disease in Kansas City, Missouri. Prev Chron Dis. 2007; 4(3): A66.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kegler MC, Norton BL, Aronson RE. Strengthening community leadership: evaluation findings from the California Healthy Cities and Communities program. Health Promot Pract. 2008; 9(2): 170–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herman EJ, Garbe P, McGeehin M. Assessing community-based approaches to asthma control: the Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project. J Urban Health 2010.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herman EJ. Conceptual framework of the Controlling Asthma in American Cities project. J Urban Health 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruce T, Uranga McKane S, MacAllister Brock R. Taking a community-based public health approach: how does it make a difference? In: Bruce TA, McKane SU, eds. Community-based public health: a partnership model. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000: 99–108.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988; 15(4): 351–377.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clark NM, Gong M, Kaciroti N. A model of self-regulation for control of chronic disease. Health Educ Behav. 2001; 28(6): 769–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wenger E. How we learn. Communities of practice. The social fabric of a learning organization. Healthc Forum J. 1996; 39(4): 20–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodman RM, Wandersman A, Chinman M, Imm P, Morrissey E. An ecological assessment of community-based interventions for prevention and health promotion: approaches to measuring community coalitions. Am J Community Psychol. 1996; 24(1): 33–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clark NM, Lachance L, Doctor LJ, et al. Policy and system change and community coalitions: outcomes from Allies Against Asthma. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(5): 904–912.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nowell B. Profiling capacity for coordination and systems change: the relative contribution of stakeholder relationships in interorganizational collaboratives. Am J Community Psychol. 2009; 44(3–4): 196–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skodol AE, Spitzer RL. The development of reliable diagnostic criteria in psychiatry. Annu Rev Med. 1982; 33: 317–326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Jane Herman
    • 1
  • Adrienne Keller
    • 2
  • Adam Davis
    • 3
  • Ryan Ehrensberger
    • 4
  • Sharon Telleen
    • 5
  • Richard Kurz
    • 6
  • Jill Heins Nesvold
    • 7
  • Sally Findley
    • 8
  • Tyra Bryant-Stephens
    • 9
  • Mindy Benson
    • 10
  • Leslie Fierro
    • 11
  1. 1.Centers for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.American Lung Association in California during project implementation, currently Children’s Hospital & Research Center OaklandOaklandUSA
  4. 4.Bon Secours Richmond Health SystemRichmondUSA
  5. 5.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  6. 6.University of North Texas School of Public HealthDallasUSA
  7. 7.American Lung Association of MinnesotaSt PaulUSA
  8. 8.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  9. 9.Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA
  10. 10.Children’s Hospital Oakland Research InstituteOaklandUSA
  11. 11.Claremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations