Building and Maintaining Community Coalitions On Behalf of Children, Youth and Families - Part Two
Permission is granted by the National Network for Collaboration to create and distribute copies of this document for non-commercial purposes provided that the authors, network, institution and outside funding sources receive acknowledgement and this note is included.
This report is divided into 3 parts for ease of electronic access. This is Part two.
Project Report
Community Coalitions in Action
Institute for Children, Youth and Families
Joanne Keith, Ph.D., Professor,
Department of Family and Child Ecology
Research Assistants:
Daniel F. Perkins, M.S.
Zongqing Zhou, M.A.
Margaret C. Clifford, Ph.D.
Brian Gilmore, M.A.
Maria Zeglen Townsend, M.A.
This project and report is funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Project No. 3306 and is housed at the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families. For more information about the videotape or coalition training workshops please contact:
Community Coalitions in Action
Institute for Children, Youth, and Families Michigan State University
2 Paolucci Building
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 353-6617
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Five: An Overview of Collaborative Efforts in Michigan:
Results of the Preliminary Survey
- Focus and nature of coalitions identified through survey
- Programming and services provided by the 45 coalitions
- Groups and agencies involved in the 45 coalitions
- Development and maintenance of coalitions
- Specific steps taken by the collaborative efforts
- Summary of the preliminary survey
Section Six: In-Depth View of 13 Collaborations
- Organizational framework for community collaborations
- Health and human service agency partnerships
- Affiliation group partnerships
- Educational partnerships
- Comprehensive community partnerships with citizen input
Section Seven: Challenges and Needs
- Challenges for Collaborations
- Funding
- Needs Assessments
- Identified Needs of Coalitions
- Skills needed by coalition members
- Programming support needed by the coalitions
SECTION FIVE: AN OVERVIEW OF COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS IN MICHIGAN:
RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY SURVEY
Sixty -seven Michigan counties responded to a request to identify coalitions in their county focusing upon the needs of children, youth and families. Forty -six counties reported information about coalitions in Michigan, and 21 reported no known coalitions within their counties.
- Focus and Nature of Coalitions Identified through Survey
The respondents named a total of 116 coalitions. General categories identifying the content focus of the coalitions included: Agency/Organization Collaboration with General Focus on Children and Youth, Building Futures/Life Skills, Child Abuse/Neglect, Educational, Parent/Family Centers, Health/Safety Issues, Recreational, Single Issues, Youth -at- Risk, Neighborhood Watch.
The respondents answered additional questions concerning one of the coalitions which in their opinion was having the strongest impact upon the community. For these 45 collaborative efforts, the two most frequently chosen types of coalitions were agency/organization collaborations with general focus identified (26.7%), and coalitions whose main focus was the prevention and intervention of child abuse and neglect (24.4%). See Table 2 for the listing of general categories of the 116 and the 45 chosen coalitions.
Table 2. A Comparison Between the Focus and Nature of All
Identified Coalitions and the 45 Coalitions Selected as
Having the Greatest Impact Upon Children, Youth and
Families.
Focus/Nature All Identified Coalitions 45
Coalitions
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Agency/Organization 27 23.3 12 26.73
Collaboration With General
Focus On Children/Youth
Child Abuse/Neglect 15 12.9 11 24.4
Parent/Family Center 12 10.3 2 4.4
Youth-at-Risk 12 10.3 4 8.9
Building Futures/ 11 9.5 4 8.9
Life Skills
Education Through 10 8.6 3 6.7
the Schools
Health/Safety Issues 10 8.6 4 8.9
(i.e. Substance Abuse)
Single Issue 7 6.0 1 2.2
(i.e., Teenage Pregnancy)
Neighborhood Watch 6 5.2 3 6.7
Recreational 3 2.6 1 2.2
(i.e., sports)
Unclassified 3 2.6 0 0.0
TOTAL 116 100 45 100
2. Programming and Services Provided by the 45 Coalitions
The coalitions provided direct services to a variety of people. Eighty -seven percent of the coalitions were presently serving youth (age 13-18) in their communities with some type of programming. In addition, 78 percent of the coalitions were providing services and programs for family units (i.e., children age 0-12 and parents), while 76 percent were providing services to parents through parent education programs.
3. Groups and Agencies Involved in the 45 Coalitions The specific groups and agencies or organizations that were members of the coalitions included 11 general categories: schools, community service organizations, government, health, law, agency, business, parents/families, youth services, Michigan State University Extension, and other coalitions. The open-ended responses did not mention the role of religious institutions. However, during the in -depth interviews, religious institutions were identified as major supports involved in coalitions. Table 3 lists organizations/agencies.
Table 3. Organizations/Agencies Working with Coalitions.
General Category Frequency Percent
Schools 40 86.9 Community Service 26 56.5
4. Development and Maintenance off
Almost 76 percent of coalitions began because of general concerns about the risk factors facing children, youth and families. Prevention of child abuse/neglect and intervention services to families were also strong reasons (62.2%) in the formation of coalitions. A few respondents answered that the coalition again because the development was mandated by a grant (17.7%) or some type of policy due to a crisis event (l 1.1%).
Interestingly, most coalitions identified as having greatest impact have been recently formed. Fifty -one percent of tee coalitions examined began since 1989. The earliest coalitions in this study were formed in the late 1970s, with a focus on the prevention of child abuse/neglect and intervention services to these families. It seems probable that those earliest formed coalitions have remained in place because of their incorporation within a specific agency and a clear mandate to work collaboratively. Also, there has been to some degree a consistency in funding related to the mandate, reducing the continuing need to acquire base support.
Several possible explanations exist for the high percent of recently formed coalitions. 1) a significant surge in collaborative efforts in recent years may be occurring; 2) selective reporting of the most recently formed coalitions by respondents; 3) collaborative efforts may not have long tenure and those failing or completing goals and disbanding were not reported. See Table 4 for the years in which the coalitions were formed.
Table 4. The Years in Which the Coalitions Began.
Years Frequencies Group
Percent
1977 1 4.4
1978 1
1980 2
1983 3
1985 3
1986 2
1987 3
1988 3 35.5
1989 12
1990 11 51.1
Data not
available 5 11.1
5. Specific Steps Taken by the Collaborative Efforts
Eleven possible steps that a coalition might go through in its development were listed on the questionnaire. Over 90 percent reported having taken the following actions: conducting one or several meetings; setting up future meeting dates; talking about youth issues and needs; making a commitment to work with other organizations/agencies; sharing information about programming among community organizations; and creating ideas about beginning action. Approximately two -thirds reported developing a proposed plan of action establishing a priority listing of youth needs; implementing the plan of action; and applying for a grant. Nearly half the coalitions had conducted an evaluation of the plan. However, less than 10 percent of the coalitions had directed a conference or workshop; developed directories of youth services or programs; initiated programming to conduct research; or received a grant (see Table 5).
Table 5. The Specific Steps Taken by the Coalitions.
Steps Taken Frequencies Percentages One or Several Meetings 45 100 Set Up Future Meetings 45 100 Talked About Issues 44 97.7 Commitment to Work 44 91.1 Shared Information 42 93.3 Created Ideas 41 91.1 Develop a Plan of Action 33 73.3 Establish a Priority 29 64.4 Carried Out Plan 28 62.2 Applied for Grant 27 60.0 Evaluation of Plan 22 48.9 Conferences/Workshops 4 8.9 Directories 3 6.1 Conducted Research 3 6.7 Received a Grant 2 4.4
Although the coalitions identified by the short questionnaire are diverse, there are several similar elements that summarize the initial findings from these preliminary surveys. The majority of the coalitions were either agency/organization collaborations or they focused on the issue of child abuse/neglect. Many of the coalitions were recent, with 23 of the 45 formed in the years 1989 and 1990. Although there were different initiators of the coalitions, such as specific person, specific group, specific organization or group of organizations, only a few were initiated by a group of youth. Coalitions formed because of general concerns of youth, or to prevent a specific problem or meet a specific need, outweighed those created by a crisis event or a mandate by a funding agency or policy. Lastly, a majority of the coalitions had completed significant steps in collaborating. A few had even received grants to conduct workshops or research, or had created directories.
SECTION SIX: IN-DEPTH VIEW OF 13 COLLABORATIONS
The major purpose of the exploratory study was to gain insight into the structure and function of coalitions, to better understand how communities are empowered through the process of developing and maintaining collaborative efforts orb behalf of children, youth, and families. The study was also intended to discover common or unique elements in the process of coalition building. The in-depth interviews with active members of 13 coalitions were conducted and provided information about the history and development of the collaborative effort, why and how the collaboration began, the focus of the coalition, community sector contributions, the process used to identify needs, and the nature and function of leadership. Stumbling blocks, failures, and difficulties, as well as accomplishments, were of interest.
The in -depth interviews included open -ended questions and checklists. They began with two or more active members of each coalition cooperatively developing an ecomap by providing names of organizations, businesses, agencies and other social systems directly or indirectly involved with children, youth and families in their community. Figure 6 (Figures do not translate to databases) is an example of the ecomaps which were developed. This activity served as an icebreaker to facilitate involvement of the interview participants and also provided graphic information about the direct and indirect involvement of various community sectors in each coalition.
- Organizational Framework for Community Collaborations
Coalitions are conglomerates of organizations, groups, and professions (Dluhy, 1990). Empowerment of a community calls for applying the concept of partnerships. Partnerships balance individual and community rights and greatly enhance access to resources (Vlasin, 1991). The organizational structure of the partnership and the types of community sectors involved in collaboration affect access to resources and dictate the resources needed to develop and maintain collaborative efforts. The type of community sector involvement and the structure of the partnership as an organizational system also influence the focus of collaborative efforts and the types of resources exchanged.
Definitions of Organizational Systems:
Formal systems are characterized by the existence of a
hierarchical structure, explicitly defined roles, and fixed
procedures and rules.
Semiformal systems function with some planned procedures and
rules but participants have an equal voice in decisions and
may change rules and roles.
Informal systems are characterized by functional exchanges
between participants arising from needs, desires or personal
interests; implicit expectations versus formalized rules; and
undefined roles.
For the purposes of this study organizational systems are defined as formal, semiformal, or informal. The following definitions are adapted from Clifford; Bubolz, and Sontag (1992).
In the collaborative effort process, several representatives of agencies from one community sector established partnerships with agencies, organizations and representatives of other community sectors to form conglomerates with unique characteristics and organizational structures.
Based on predominant community sector involvement, four types of partnerships were identified:
- health and human service agency partnerships
- affiliation group partnerships encompassing organizations and volunteers from religious institutions and/or members of ethnic groups
- educational partnerships, including schools and businesses
- comprehensive community partnerships with citizen input, including agencies and community volunteers.
Illustrative cases for these types of partnerships reveal the history and development of the coalition, the focus of collaborative effort, the organizational structure of the collaborative partnership, and the resources emphasized as important to collaborative efforts. The term "resources," as used in this study, refers to the classification by Foa and Foa (1973) in their model of resource exchanger According to Foa and Foa there are six classes of resources necessary to account for the basic needs of human beings: information, status, money, goods, services and affectionate regard. In this research, resource exchange was not examined in depth, but we have noted that these resources are integral to the functioning of collaborative partnerships.
Each category of collaborative partnerships described below is graphically depicted in Figures 7 through 10.(Figures do not translate to databases) The figures represent the collaborative connections among community sectors and their mutual focus on the needs of children, youth and families. These models are based on information obtained from the ecomap activity (Lauffer, 1982) and in-depth interviews. The number codes in each represent the types of community sectors directly and indirectly involved in collaborative efforts on behalf of children, youth and families. Table 6 provides an explanation of the codes for the sectors involved in the collaborations.
Table 6. Codes of the Community Sector
Code Community Sector
01 Schools
02 Health and Human Services
03 Government Agencies (e.g.,City, County, State)
04 Courts System (e.g.,Lawyers, Judges)
05 Private Businesses
06 Funding Agencies (e.g.,Foundations,
Nonprofit Corporations)
07 Religious Affiliation Groups
08 Media and Public Communications
09 Community Service Clubs (e.g.,Kiwanis, Rotary,
Optimist)
10 Youth Serving Organizations (e.g., Scouts, 4-H)
11 University Extension
12 Coalitions
13 Ethnic Affiliation Groups
14 Parents
15 High School Youth
16 Middle School Youth (Early Adolescence)
17 Private Practitioners
18 Town Meetings and Forums
2. Health and human service agency partnerships
Coalitions in this category most frequently began with an initial informal gathering of a small nucleus of representatives from two to three health and human service agencies. Representatives from the religious institutions, courts, and schools or universities joined forces with health and human service agents to accomplish mutually agreed upon goals. These coalitions tended to focus collaborative efforts on the development of programs aimed at prevention rather than treatment, fostering cooperation among agencies to disseminate information (i.e ., parent enrichment) and prevent duplication of direct services.
Although these health and human services partnerships tended to begin as informal systems of resource exchange, they eventually developed a semiformal system framework or a formal system framework, depending upon the general focus of collaboration. When the focus was direct services, the coalition tended to move toward the establishment of a formal system framework. When the purpose was dissemination of information, the tendency was to establish a semiformal system structure to facilitate information exchange among members of the coalition and develop procedures for getting information to the general public.
In their initial informal phase, these health and human service partnerships tended to develop cooperative relationships among members of the coalition, through informal exchange of ideas based on mutually agreed upon needs and goals. A semiformal structure was then established to accomplish goals. Roles and rules began to be developed. The acquisition of financial resources became more critical. Finally a formal organizational structure with specific roles (e.g., administrator, advisory board, program leaders, clients) and rules (e.g., by laws, schedules) was implemented.
The following brief description of Coalition A (see Figure 7)(Figures do not translate to databases) illustrates the evolutionary process for a health and human service agency partnership which began with a focus on the development of prevention programs. Coalition A evolved over a four- year period from a small nucleus of people including representatives from the Department of Social Services, Community Mental Health, Probate Court and a private practitioner. This small group discussed concerns over the money spent on out- of- home placements for children in foster care. They were interested in developing programs that might alleviate the need for foster care placements.
Figure 7: Stylized Example of Agency Partnership Health and Human Service (Figures do not translate to databases)
In the early stages of collaboration, several churches joined the coalition and provided multiple resources leading to the establishment of a resource center. Interview participants who described this coalition agreed, "The churches were the driving force keeping the center open the first year." At first the center operated with very limited funds and a broad spectrum of services provided by many volunteer professionals. Eventually grants were obtained from two funding sources and donations from the churches, enough to pay a part -time program coordinator. Volunteers performed some administrative duties to allow the coordinator time to concentrate on programming and public relations. A program targeting sexual abuse of children was developed. A grant from the Department of Social Services was obtained to finance the program.
The need for financial resources appears to have forced the resource center collaborative partnership to move from an informal, to semiformal, to formal organizational framework. Collaboration began with a few people informally exchanging ideas based on mutually agreed upon needs and goals. A semiformal structure was developed to accomplish goals. Rules and bylaws were established and the need for financial resources increased. As the coalition moved into a formal organizational phase, members of the original collaborative partnership expressed concern that future grants would result in a change in focus from prevention to treatment. This shift in emphasis would require the hiring of licensed professionals and an even tighter organization structure with more distinct roles, less flexible rules, and a narrower range of services.
3. Affiliation group partnerships
Two Coalitions (B and C) from His study fell into the Affiliation Group Partnership Category (see Figure 8).(Figures do not translate to databases) Coalition B is broad -based, encompassing many volunteers from various community sectors who are directly involved with children, youth and families, and many who support the work of the coalition indirectly. This coalition has substantial support from the business sector as well as the support of several funding agencies. As illustrated in Figure 8,(Figures do not translate to databases) religious and ethnic affiliation groups formed the core of the collaborative partnership. They were joined by representatives from the schools, healths and human service agencies, the courts, and private businesses.
An interview participant stated that the main purpose of coalition B is "to come together to resolve problems and meet the needs of people in the community, particularly the needs of black children, who are considered to be in crisis. The history of successful programs which are operated by volunteers has shown that negative stereotypes such as black people will not get involved and will not volunteer to provide services are myths."
The key figure in the collaborative partnership is the volunteer coordinator and chairperson of the Advisory Council who spends hours on the telephone each day, keeping in touch with all volunteer coordinators of Programs. The chairperson of the Advisory Council works closely with committee chairs.
Coalition B operates as an all inclusive semiformal system with types of resources exchanged both among coalition members and members of the community who serve as volunteers at all levels. Diversity and personal volunteer involvement are key components in the effective functioning of this large, very active affiliation group partnership.
Figure 8: Stylized Example of Affiliation Group Partnership (Figures do not translate to databases)
The purpose of coalition C is to provide Native American people with quality services and to improve their economic, social, psychological, health and employment situation. The coalition began in the 1970s when several sectors of the community joined together to work for recognition as a tribe in the state of Michigan; at the present time the tribe has been recognized for ten years. The broader coalition is organized into three basic sectors: an administrative, an economic development, and a youth advisory sector.
This coalition is classified as an Affiliation Group Partnership because member affiliation with the Native American community is a predominant, factor. Coalition C also has the characteristics of a Health and Human Services Partnership. Coalition members are representatives of the affiliation group or the health and human service community sectors. Some members are representatives of both groups.
For the most part Coalition C appears to function as a formal system characterized by explicitly defined roles and relatively fixed procedures. Formal systems illustrate a greater dependence on financial resources which must be obtained from sources outside the coalition. For example, in mother coalition that we studied, Be your advisor actor established a youth center. The financial resources that support the center mainly come from grants, and maintenance of programs is dependent on outside funding.
4. Educational partnerships
Coalition D was classified as an educational partnership. Educational partnerships are focused around schools and school- age children and youth. Coalition D was started in 1989 by concerned civic leaders. In 1990 the collaborative partnership received a major grant from the U. S. Department of Education and adopted its present structure as a Business Executive Round Table with three working panels. Currently it has over 200 volunteers on its working panels. Figure 9 illustrates the community sectors listed on coalition D's roster entitled "Community Partners." (Figures do not translate to databases)
The Round Table has as its primary goal to assist in the improvement of educational outcomes for young people. The planning team is made up of people who are working with companies and organizations represented on the Round Table. The team was charged to develop a system or format "for actually accomplishing things in the community, coming up with a purpose, vision, and value statement, as well as some objectives that could be accomplished in the first year." At a later date the team was to present its recommendations to the full Round Table membership and the community. It was also to create panels or work groups to carry out the recommendations. Three panels were created: an education panel, an employers' panel, and a resource panel. The panels, which are made up of 30 to 40 people, meet on a regular basis and the planning team meets once a month.
Projects identified as priorities are carried out in the school setting. The human services panel, for example, noticed that there was a need to provide support and help for youth in the schools where social workers are not easily accessible on a day -to -day basis. The panel developed a model that would allow university social work graduate students, under the supervision of community-based social workers, to provide services at an identified school site.
Although this coalition has an overall formal organizational structure and is dependent on grant funds, it also has characteristics of a semiformal system with respect to decision making by the planning committees and informal networking among the panels. The major focus of the panels is the provision of information as a resource to children, youth and their families, to improve their educational status.
Figure 9: Stylized Example of Educational Partnership (Figures do not translate to databases)
5. Comprehensive community partnerships with citizen input
Coalitions E and F were classified as comprehensive community partnerships with active citizen participation (Figure 10).(Figures do not translate to databases) In Coalition E, seven representatives from youth -serving organizations attended a meeting organized by the Extension county office. Brainstorming resulted in plans to contact 60 people from various community sectors including law enforcement, schools, churches, business, financial institutions, city government, county government, parent teacher organizations, 4- H, senior citizens, youth, Department of Social Services, substance abuse services, service organizations, Scouts, health care providers and media. Representatives from the above community sectors were asked to become a part of a needs identification exercise for youth and families that reside in the school district and to assist in setting priorities. They were told about attempts to start a community,coalition and were invited to take part.
Six major areas of need.were identified: a community center, expanding the school curriculum, substance abuse, creating awareness and priorities for family time, jobs and employment, and parental involvement with their children and the community. Four focus groups were formed@that evening. As a result of this first meeting, the school board decided to conduct a survey asking students and their families what kinds of things they would like to see added to the curriculum. The school board is also cooperating wish the community center focus group and has agreed to lease a school building to be used for a community center.
Every member of the coalition is a "volunteer," meaning that no one is paid for serving on the coalition; most have jobs for which administrators ' allow time to be spent on collaborative activities. A local business is providing space, at no cost, for monthly meetings. A local community service club provides refreshments. The coalition seeks funds for specific projects as needs are identified. Thus far, the only overhead expense required has been for postage.
According to interview participants, the most significant accomplishment of the coalition has been "creating the vehicle through which so many groups, agencies, and individuals are able to communicate. Perhaps most important is that the people of the community have a feeling or attitude that there is a trustworthy group of people working at finding solutions to critical needs. There is a new and positive attitude that something really is possible and the community and its people can move forward." Coalition G began as a very informal system of exchange with very few defined roles or rules. Actions arose from agreed- upon needs and group problem solving about issues as personal as family time and as concrete as the establishment of a teen center.
Coalition F has been in existence for almost two years and has over 200 volunteers working on various task forces dealing with recreation, after school programming, program planning, and citizen and youth involvement. This collaborative partnership consists of representatives from every sector listed in Table 6 (see page 24).
The coalition began with two people who met and discussed the possibility of bringing together youth workers and other concerned citizens to improve program services for children and to develop educational and prevention programs for youth at risk. They drafted a letter and mailed it to colleagues who they thought might be interested in working as a coalition to improve services and share resources. About 30 people attended the first meeting. They talked about the needs of local youth and families and about the challenges of working together. Everyone agreed to meet on a regular basis. They explored various possibilities with respect to their goals and the structuring of their new partnership. A task force was Formed to begin work on exploring possibilities for a town summit meeting and to discuss the benefits of that approach. A pre -town meeting wa,s held to learn more about the process and to prepare for the summit meeting. A great deal of preparation went into that first summit meeting, including training of facilitators for focus groups, publicity and promotion, and fund raising to pay for refreshments and video rental.
One hundred people attended the first town summit meeting and evaluations of the meeting were very positive. A similar meeting for high school and junior high school students was held and approximately 90 teenagers and 20 adults attended the youth town meeting.
As an outcome of the town meetings and the focus groups, several primary uses were identified: the need for parenting education; a real concern about drug abuse prevention; recreational activities for youth; the lack of information about community events for youth and families; and where to go for services, assistance or information. A directory of services was developed and distributed by coalition members in the community. In addition, a telephone information hotline was also established. Because a large number of teens were involved in taskforce activities, there was, much input from the teens. Teen demands resulted in expanded recreation and educational programs during the summer months.
Coalition F operated as an all -inclusive semiformal system with many informal interconnected networks. Citizens were empowered by the town summit meeting. All types of resources were exchanged within and among taskforce groups. Interview participants felt that the strength of the coalition's success in involving citizenry was the task force approach.
"Task forces are designed to have a task that can be accomplished within a reasonable amount of time, and when that task is accomplished and goals are met it can dissolve or it can select new tasks or new goals to achieve... Task forces have a particular task and go out and do it, accomplish it and complete it.... People don't have to make a lifetime commitment." All collaborative efforts are volunteer. There are no paid staff members. Any grant funding for special projects is then spun off to an existing agency rather than have the coalition as a body operate a program," explained interview participants.
Figure 10: Stylized Example of Comprehensive Community Partnerships with Citizen Input (Figures do not translate to databases)
SECTION SEVEN: CHALLENGES FOR COLLABORATIONS
Coalition building is a complex and, for some, a new adventure. It brings with it new challenges for human services and communities. The results of the survey suggested that stumbling blocks, difficulties and failures were also a part of some of the collaborative efforts. About half of the coalitions interviewed had started within the past year or two; therefore, this was a new experience for many individuals. Members of the coalitions reported various challenges and problems. Some have been successfully overcome, while others are still ongoing. The top three challenges or problems were: (1) inadequate funding; (2) resistance to involvement from a critical community sector; and (3) lack of involvement of parents.
Turf was another problem reported by several coalitions, and appeared in three forms: (1) territorial issues; (2) selection of leaders from various coalition members, that is, who should chair the coalition; and (3) conflicting personalities of the members. Turf, however, was not an ongoing problem, because most of the coalitions reported learning mechanisms to solve turf problems. Presumably those that don't solve this issue never get started or dissolve. Table 7 shows the number of people who thought that the major challenges or problems are still ongoing, and also shows the percentages of people who stated that the challenges or problems have been overcome.
Table 7. Percentage of People Who Said Challenges or Problems Are
Still Ongoing Compared to the Percent of People Who Said
the Problems or Challenger Had Been Overcome.
Challenge or Problem Ongoing Overcome
Inadequate Funding 79 5
Resistance to Involvement from 62 22
a Community Sector
Lack of Involvement of Parents 56 11
Lack of Involvement of the 55 9
Socially Disadvantaged
Lack of Involvement of Youth 33 11
Poor Planning of 27 9
Coalition's Efforts
Lack of Support from Citizens 20 30
Lack of Support from Coalition 18 18
Members' Home Agency/Organization
Lack of Direction of 15 39
Coalition's Focus
Failure of Projects 14 42
Community Denial of 14 13
Youth Problem
Lack of Documentation 13 75
Bureaucratic Red Tape 13 25
Turf Competition Between Agencies 10 55
Poor Networking with Outside 9 46
Agencies/Organizations
Lack of Leadership or Struggle 0 80
for Leadership
Distrust of Coalition Members' 0 56
Motives
Poor Communication Among Members 0 50
Absence of Ethnic Diversity 0 68
Among Coalition Members
A Member Who Blocks Progress 0 50
Coalition Activities Reach 0 42
a Plateau
Conflict Among Coalition 0 50
Members
Burnout or Unrealistic Demands 0 50
on Members
Most of the collaborative effort interviews started with a group of individuals from organizations or agencies who initiated the coalitions. They were responsible for organizing meetings, seeking resources and setting up communication channels. Building a sense of common goals is essential in coalition building. Unity, as discussed earlier, was considered by the majority of coalitions interviewed to contribute greatly to the success of coalitions. Without a common goal, unity is difficult to achieve. Coalition members reported the need to have an open mind to different views, to have trust in other members, and to have a personal commitment to the coalition. "On one goal we could agree, the care and wellbeing of all our children."
A collaborative effort needs resources and members from different agencies to function effectively. The resources could include staff, equipment, facilities, information, services and finance. Every party involved must be willing to give up something for the benefits of a coalition. Likewise a coalition is strengthened if it provides something useful to an individual or agency that it cannot receive on its own.
- Funding
Funding was considered necessary by most of the coalitions interviewed. Most reported that they needed support in the area of grant writing. The question did arise, however, as to how much funding was enough. It was feared by some coalitions that too much emphasis on funding could reduce the motivation and volunteerism of coalition members and threaten the autonomy of the coalition. While it was generally acknowledged that funding was necessary to carry out programs, respondents cautioned that funding is a means, not an end.
2. Needs assessments
The process and tools used in identifying needs varied from surveys to informal discussion. Most used a combination of tools. They included mailed surveys, consultation with the target audience, interviews, professional opinions, existing data, town meetings, information provided by agencies, grant writing, family and services worker interactions and expertise. The use of these methods was quite evenly distributed among the coalitions. However; the survey method appeared to be used most frequently, but with no evidence as to its effectiveness. One coalition needs assessment was an empowerment process utilizing focus groups, town meetings and forums.
IDENTIFIED NEEDS OF COALITIONS
- Skills needed by coalition members
According to the coalitions, fund raising and grant writing were the most needed types of support, followed by community awareness of problems, planning a future strategy and parental involvement.
Figure 11: Skills Needed by Coalitions (checklists by respondents). (Figures do not translate to databases)
2.Programming support needed by the coalitions
Approximately half of the coalitions requested programming support needed to prevent child abuse, teen pregnancy, high school dropouts and truancy, and alcohol and drug abuse. Assistance was requested in working with businesses and schools. Storing and help with all stages of education were also important programming areas.
Figure 12. Programming Supports Needed by Coalitions (checklist by respondents). (Figures do not translate to databases)
Return to NNCO