Building and Maintaining Community Coalitions, Part 3

Building and Maintaining Community Coalitions On Behalf of Children, Youth and Families - Part Three

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 three.

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 Eight: Common Elements Among Collaborations

Leadership
Unity
Communication
Participation by citizen and informal organizations
Successful accomplishments
Locality
Traits and characteristics of coalition members

Section Nine: Unique Elements of Collaborations

Autonomy - funding relationships
Use of local media
Community problem definition

Section Ten: Implications for Community Collaborations

Diversity
Open communication and trust
Early success
Leadership
Planning
Needs assessment or community scan
The role of schools
Adults and youth working together
A coalition on behalf of children, youth and families is not the same as an economic development coalition
Prevention

Section Eleven: Current Status and Future Outlook

Videotape
Community-based training
Second wave of data collection
Community-based profile of Michigan youth

References

SECTION EIGHT: COMMON ELEMENTS AMONG COLLABORATIONS

The in-depth interviews provided detailed information about the common and unique elements of coalitions that were effective in their communities. The results of the qualitative data analysis suggest that numerous common elements exist across a majority of the coalitions interviewed for this project. However, unique elements were also found to contribute to the effectiveness of coalitions, and will be discussed later. The common elements uncovered in this study suggested that there is a process involved when building a coalition.

More than half the coalitions attributed part of their effectiveness in the community to strong leadership within their coalitions. In addition, unity and communication were also found to be important common elements in the overall effectiveness of the coalitions.

Common Element 1: Leadership

Leadership was identified as an important element in a coalition's development and maintenance and in facilitating its effectiveness. Leadership qualities such as personal commitment, enjoyable involvement and determination to achieve the goals and objectives, stood out as vitally important to the development and operation of a collaborative effort. Although qualities and styles of leadership may vary, certain traits of leadership were found to be predominant or common among effective coalitions. Successful leaders have strong determination, possess the ability to seek resources, are optimistic, and know how to recruit the right people. The ability to seek resources was ranked the most important quality of a leader. The resources included human resources, financial resources, and political support. Identification of these resources, and being able to communicate effectively and gain support from them, was considered the major task of coalition leadership.

Certainly recruiting and involving the right people in a collaborative effort are important abilities of a strong leader; however, the right person to recruit from an organization, agency or community is not always the head of that organization, agency or community. As one coalition member said, "The person in the trenches, doing the work, sometimes is the best candidate." Another coalition member also pointed out that "The strength for the connection is contingent upon the staff member's personality and commitment rather than the agency's commitment." However, support from administration is imperative if a task is to be carried out effectively and time from work allocated. Moreover, members of the community must take leadership in a coalition if it is going to be effective within that community. Maintaining a balance between people with control over resources and those who are engaged in the actual direct services is a significant indicator of effective leadership.

Common Element 2: Unity
Unity refers to the strong sense of solidarity and togetherness that coalition members feet toward one another, and was assessed by over half of the coalitions as being an integral part of their effectiveness. By working together, coalition members deterred conflict and avoided duplication of services. Some coalitions used the word "camaraderie" to describe the feeling among coalition members.

Common Element 3: Communication
Effective communication, through informal means, was another common element suggested by more than half of the coalitions as important to their functioning. Networking, defined as an informal way of sharing information among coalition members, provided a sense of closeness in sharing information. Networking was cited directly as the major means of communication among coalition members.

Common Element 4: Participation by citizens and informal organizations
The involvement of religious institutions and citizen volunteers was found to be a common element among many of the coalitions. Coalitions attributed much of their operational effectiveness to the involvement of citizen volunteers and, in particular, to religious institutions. Numerous stories were told about people volunteering to participate in the coalitions or to donate resources to the coalitions. Moreover, heavy involvement of citizen volunteers demonstrates the vitality of mobilization of the local community by these community -based coalitions.

Common Element 5: Successful accomplishments
Another common element was that each coalition had accomplished something that it was particularly proud of, either in the process of building the coalition or fulfilling its tasks. These accomplishments were labeled effective elements. The building of a coalition in itself was considered to be a great accomplishment by members, as well as the many programs and services in which they were involved. Major programs and services are listed here:

Prevention programs:

alcohol, drug, teen pregnancy, crime

Clearinghouse of information:

videos, books, document, technical assistance, telephone directory for youths to call for various services
Sponsors for various events:

conferences, speakers, training workshops
Family counseling:

health, parenting, child care, home economics, household management

Arts and recreational activities:

arts network, dancing, music writing, park recreations, sports nights

Educational programs:

tutorial programs for elementary and high school students, campaigning for community awareness of youth problems, storytelling
Workshops for:

computer training, math and science competencies for high school students, leadership training
Coordination of services:

networking among various agencies to avoid duplicated services
Health programs:

Child immunization, family health planning

Job placement programs:

part-time and full-time job placement assistance

Common Element 6: Locality

"Locality" was another important element found in many of the coalitions. Locality describes the sense of connectedness to the people served and commitment to the community. For example, one of the interviewees said, "The coalition has to be close to the very area and people it serves." Many coalitions suggested that the target group the coalition serves has the final say in defining its own problem. As members of one coalition suggested, "It is important to use local folks to define local kinds of problems." A member of an equally effective coalition on behalf of youth commented that the coalition's final decision "rests with the teens."

Locality also means that a coalition must establish itself as an authority on the issues or topics it is attempting to address. In one coalition member's experience, "The main and significant achievement of the coalition is in that it has established a visible, working organization that appeals to the youth in the community. The coalition has succeeded tea attract the youth to participate in its educational projects." Dluhy (1990) speaks of the same issue when he says that the most important task for any coalition is to demonstrate to the larger community that it is the most legitimate group in the community that is capable of resolving an issue or problem.

Common Element 7: Traits and characteristics of coalition members

Traits of coalition members contributing to the effectiveness of the coalition are: (1) openmindedness; (2) trust; (3) enjoyable involvement; (4) personal commitment; and (5) willingness to volunteer. Although a coalition involves participating organizations and agencies, the makeup of a coalition, in most cases, consists of specific individuals or groups of individuals coming from organizations, agencies and the community. The effectiveness of a coalition depends more upon the quality, commitment and personality of the members than upon the organizations or agencies they may represent.

Volunteerism, a willingness to work beyond one's normal duties, is a common trait among coalition members. For example, one coalition reported that 27 members out of one agency supported the coalition through volunteer services. Volunteerism is the result of many factors. Personal interest and enjoyment of the projects was reported as contributing to the sustained involvement and interest of the members.

Since people involved in a coalition are diverse, a coalition member must have an open mind and a willingness to listen, to understand and to cooperate. Coalitions with members possessing these qualities reported few turf problems. Having an open mind, however, is not sufficient. Trust, as pointed out by many coalition members, lays the foundation for cooperation and consensus.

SECTION NINE: UNIQUE ELEMENTS OF COLLABORATIONS

This section of the report will focus on the unique aspects of the in- depth interviews with coalition members. Unique elements are defined as those features of a particular coalition that were not reported by other coalitions. These unique features may not be in congruence with literature, but may possibly shed new light on the development and functioning of coalitions.

Unique element 1: Autonomy-funding relationship

In most situations, outside funding is looked upon favorably and even thought of as essential to a coalition's effectiveness. However, one coalition formed on behalf of youth at risk has a different philosophy on outside funding. The view held is that reliance on major outside grants for funding to continue on a year-to-year basis would reduce volunteer motivation, and would make the program continuance dependent on outside money. Thus, if the money runs out the program dies, which is true even when the program is intended to be a long -term and sustainable one. The coalition does not want to downplay the importance of outside funding. Rather, it asserts that funding should be sought in such a way that it does not conflict with the goals and interests of the coalition. For example, no funds were sought by the coalition, but the members shared information about grant resources with the organizations within the collaboration.

A related concept in funding is the autonomy and self-containment of the coalition. In one county, the coalition turned down a generous offer for continual funding support from a big organization because members feared they would lose their autonomy and become an affiliated institution. Another counts also reported that no funding help was needed because the coalition was built in such a way that it could be self-contained. However, many communities have so few resources that self maintenance of the most basic functions is improbable if not impossible. In these cases, ongoing sponsorship for basic needs provides confidence and support.

Unique element 2: Use of local media

The effect of the mass media on the public has long been well recognized. In business, intentional use of the mass media such as advertising is considered vital to success. However, in human services, intentional use media to help to achieve participation in the formation of goals objectives is not a common practice. By actively seeking out participation and input, human services organizations and collaborative efforts could enable citizens to take ownership of their communities.

One of the coalitions interviewed attributed some of its effectiveness to the publicity and support the coalition received from the local media. For instance, two town meetings the coalition held received front- page coverage by the local newspaper, giving the coalition plenty of advance publicity and follow -up. In one coalition member's words, the local newspaper and radio station "played an important role in alerting the community to the goals and efforts of the coalition to work cooperatively and collaboratively in solving problems of youth." The attention the coalition received from mass media did increase the awareness among citizens, youth and families that something could be done to improve their community and provide supportive conditions for youth and families. The publicity created by the local media established the authority and legitimacy of the coalition to work for the target groups it intended to serve. It seems likely that other collaborative efforts described in this research report had used media efforts and may have failed to report it or they did not design intentional use of media to assess in their accomplishments.

Unique Element 3: Community problem definition In considering effective elements, it has been observed that using the targeted audience as a resource to define its own problems is fundamental to conducting a needs assessment and building a successful coalition. People are aware of their own needs and problems. Moreover, using a community to define its own problems can empower and motivate the members of that community to act.

For example, a Native American coalition found that its leadership needed to come from within. A sense of mission and pride of leadership was one of the most valuable assets in the coalition. This was their land, their problem and their future. In their opinion, the assistance and the programs that came from outside the community and from outside agencies were doomed to failure. This coalition's strong statement demonstrates the fact that mobilization of local people to attack their own problems can be crucial in building coalitions.

SECTION TEN: IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY COLLABORATIONS

Coalitions or collaborative efforts are one aspect of comprehensive programming in the prevention of the problems facing our children, youth and families. This study was an initial attempt to document and understand collaborative efforts as they exist in communities. Common and unique elements associated with effective collaborative efforts were outlined. Programming supports and skills needed by the communities were identified. Implications of these findings for coalition development and maintenance are described in this section.

TEN MAJOR IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY COLLABORATIONS

Diversity
Open Communication and Trust
Early Success
Leadership
Planning
Needs Assessment or Community Scan
Schools
Adults and Youth Working Together
A coalition on behalf of children, youth and families is NOT the same as an economic development coalition.
Prevention

Diversity
As microcosms of the community, community-based coalitions are diverse. Their membership is comprised of a variety of people representing cultural, ethnic and economic diversity. Differences in values naturally follow and it is essential to the coalition's success that members respect each other's uniqueness. A variety of organizations are usually represented in a community-based collaborative effort. Examples included United Way, University Extension, religious institutions and youth service organizations. Local businesses and schools are also important players in the coalition process. Moreover, the children, youth and families that the coalition is attempting to serve need to be involved if a coalition is to increase the effectiveness of programs. People without children are also essential resources that enable a coalition to create a caring community. A word of caution: when beginning planning groups are too large, they may become unmanageable. The planning group can include a limited number in initiating the coalition process (i.e., key administrators from the representatives from organizations), but with ongoing mechanisms to involve all aspects of the community's social and economic life.
Open communications and trust
Open communication and trust among members are critical for a coalitions' effectiveness. For some communities the coalition is comprised of adults who grew up in that community together and never left. If the patters of communication are open and full of trust, the basic groundwork has been laid. If communication patterns are closed and there is lack of trust, the task of building a coalition will be difficult until positive relationships can be established. In more mobile communities (i.e., metropolitan ares) open communication and trust are not easily established because people do not know each other. Thus, these skills need to be developed and incorporated in the coalition process through such activities as informal social gatherings.

Turf issues can be a major barrier to creating trust. It is important that they be openly discussed early in the collaboration process. If at any time during the collaborative process a turf issue surfaces, it is best to address it immediately, otherwise the group may become divided. Since coalitions are comprised of divers people who do think in territorial ways, it is important to create a shared vision. Participant sin the coalition must come to a consensus around the definition of the need or issue they wish to deal with, and develop a mission statement. This mission should provide direction in the collaborative effort's decisions and programs.
Early success
Whether a coalition succeeds or fails may depend in part on what program or activity it carries out first. A coalition's first community program or activity, which usually takes no more than six months to plan, can significantly increase the coalition members' morale and increase probability of success. An appropriate activity would increase the community's awareness of the collaboration and its mission. A town meeting is one way a collaborative effort can begin to assess the needs of the community's children, youth and families, and also allow the coalition to establish itself in the community and begin to empower the people in the process. Creating a directory of services for children, youth and families is another way that a coalition can establish itself in the community and its organizations. A coalition might present to different organizations and businesses the existing statistics about children, youth and families in that community, and solicit support for the shared vision.
Leadership
Many collaborative efforts begin with one, two or three persons. From these few people, leadership emerges. As the collaboration grows and membership increases, it is important that each member feel a sense of responsibility for the success of the coalition. In addition, advice can be sought from other communities which have had previous experience in coalition building. Changing leadership (i.e., rotating chairs or co-chairs) ensures that a few individuals are not viewed as controlling or overburdened with responsibility. In addition, change in leadership can be established in the bylaws of a collaborative effort to make the transition of leadership as smooth as possible.

The coalition members identified the following characteristics and skills that effective coalition leaders might possess (these characteristics are consistent with those identified by The National Assembly of National Voluntary Health and Social Welfare Organizations, 1991).

CHARACTERISTICS AND SKILLS OF EFFECTIVE COALITION LEADERS
1. Ability to guide the group toward the collaboration goal, while seeking to include and explore all points of view;
2. Comfort with consensus building and small group process;
3. Respect in the community and knowledge about the issues the collaboration will address;
4. Skill to negotiate turf issues;
5. Belief in the process of collaboration:
6. Knowledge about the community and organizations in the community;
7. Skill and persuasiveness in oral and written communication: and
8. Time to commit to leadership.
Planning
"Quality planning is the best insurance for quality implementation" (Gardner, 1992). As a coalition grows, it may be more efficient to break it down into subcommittees. The function of a subcommittee is to plan a new program/activity. Thoroughly planning a program requires that the right players be involved in the planning process. Thus, the subcommittees may need to recruit certain key people for a program they wish to start. Of course, the subcommittee should include representatives of the people who are going to be affected by the program, to ensure its value with the particular audience it is trying to serve. All possible problems and situations that may be related to that program must be thoroughly thought out and plans of action must be documented. However, a planning committee must not get so wrapped up in the planning that it loses sight of the goal of the program and the general mission of the collaboration. Comprehensive community wide prevention programs seem to be most effective. Programs are to be based on the history of a community, the particular needs of that community, and its existing service systems.
Needs assessment or community scan
A successful coalition will address the particular needs of the community in which it wishes to operate. Moreover, continual updating of its 'knowledge about the community is necessary, because the community and families requiring services may change over time. Assessing what the community already has in terms of programs and services is a good-starting point for a coalition beginning to evaluate the needs of its community. For example, some coalitions in our study created a directory of the organizations that offered services to children, youth and families. Creating a directory enables a coalition to discover what programs and services are available and what are not available. In addition, a coalition probably can increase its membership from these newly discovered organizations. After assessing what already exists, a coalition can continue into the next phase of a community scan. A community scan can be accomplished through a town summit, focus groups, youth summit, survey, etc. A community scan is an activity that empowers the community to take ownership of the selfidentified problems. This community scan also establishes the collaborative effort as an authority arid a vehicle through which the community can mobilize its power and resources.
The role of schools
Ten schools were identified through the survey as major participants in community collaborations. However, in the in-depth interviews, schools were infrequently mentioned as taking leadership roles. On the surface the schools would seem to be the core of the community in relation to children and youth, but this is true only if the majority of the children attend the schools in the community in which they live. Exceptions would be children bused out of their communities, children attending private schools not in the community, and children who have dropped out of schools. Furthermore, primary consideration should be given to reaching the families of children at the prenatal, infant and preschool ages.

Certainly schools and the educational system are absolutely necessary to a collaborative effort that is attempting to create successful comprehensive prevention programs. They need do be key members, but not necessarily the sector from which the organizing leadership must come. In fact a primary audience for collaborative efforts may be those children, youth and parents that feel alienated by the educational system. Leadership from other organizations could support the schools and community.
Adults and youth working together
Youth are a valuable resource, yet they are often overlooked or dismissed by adults as being too immature. Community -based collaborations involving both youth and adults are bridging generational relationships and building leadership for the future. Thus, adults involved in community collaboration need to be taught how to work with adolescents,and youth need to feel comfortable about speaking up in an adult dominated group. Mutual respect of all members' opinions is necessary for the coalition's success.
A coalition on behalf of children, youth and families is NOT the same as an economic development coalition.
A coalition focusing Upon human development has many similarities to an economic development coalition; the importance of strong leadership, group dynamics, and shared vision are a few examples. Both require economic support and involvement of the economic community but human development collaborations have some very different foci.

FOCI OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COLLABORATIONS.
1. Success with children and families requires long-term commitment, such as 10 to 20 years.
2. The "products," i.e., children, youth and families, are active participants in the process and become " moving targets " with continual change.
3. Relationships, values, causes and effects are extremely complex and vary widely within individual families and communities.
4. Families are the most powerful and economical units for making and keeping human beings humans (Bronfenbrenner, 1983). but at the same time, as very small social units. are fragile and impacted by changes in social and economic trends. Supportive communities are essential to create support systems that dramatically reduce this potential volatility.
5. The basis for working for children, youth and families is viewed as altruistic, whereas economic development is viewed as self -interest. Although we argue the needs of children can be considered human capital development with clear economic components, these outcomes are less apparent. Prevention of negative outcomes is less visible, and therefore it is more difficult to attract financial support.
Prevention
The evidence is clear and well- documented: prevention programs enhance me quality of life for youth and their families and ultimately save money. However, ineffective prevention programs are fragmented, meager, and uncoordinated; in contrast, successful prevention programs are intensive, comprehensive, and flexible (Schorr, 1988). Furthermore, comprehensive prevention programs which address multiple risk factors and their antecedents have proven to be far more effective than single focused prevention programs (Bogenschneider, Small, & Riley, 1990; Dryfoos,1990; Forgotten Half, 1988; Schorr, 1988). Successful prevention programs are adaptable to their clients' cultures; diversity and lifestyles as well as individual diversity. For example, prevention programs designed to meet the needs of youth in a specific state may not address the special needs of all youth sectors (e. g.,inner city youth and youth in rural areas, African -American youth and Hispanic youth, or even the youth in a neighboring community). Thus, what is needed to enhance the quality of life for children, youth and families are comprehensive prevention programs developed within each community, based on the perceived and observed needs of its children, youth and families. Listed below are 11 components of successful prevention programs. A single program cannot be expected to contain all these components, but it should contain a majority of these components if it is to be successful.

COMMON COMPONENTS OF SUCCESSFUL PREVENTION PROGRAMS
(Dryfoos,1990):
1. Intensive Individualized Attention
2. Community wide Multi-agency Collaborative Approaches
3. Early Identification of Problems and Intervention
4. Locus in School
5. Administration of School Programs by Agencies Outside of Schools
6. Location of Programs Outside of Schools
7. Arrangements for Training
8. Social Skills Training
9. Engagement of Peers in Interventions
10. Involvement of Parents
11. Link to the World of Work

One Summary Implication: Nearly all reports, this one included, recommend collaboration. It is our observation that this is easily "said," but not easily "done." Successful collaborations are hard work, often time consuming., and require one to put the needs of children, youth and families above the needs of institutions. Communities able to accomplish this are making wise investments in the present and the future. To, these efforts in Michigan and elsewhere and to the people behind them, we give our deepest respect and support.

SECTION 11: CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

This exploratory study was established to identify, document and evaluate a wide range of collaborative efforts on behalf of Michigan's children, youth and families. It is part of a project carried out at the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families, funded by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. this project emphasized the interaction, interdependency and interconnection between research and outreach, with both being viewed as equal components. Thus, theories and models of community collaborations have been modified based upon this action research in communities and the situations facing communities.

From this exploratory study, a large amount of information was gleaned about how coalitions develop and maintain themselves and, more importantly, a network of contacts was established to interact and support community-based initiatives on behalf of children, youth and families. The involvement of many different agencies and citizens in this efforts has opened up windows of opportunity whereby we can learn from each other's efforts. The need for technical assistance from many areas of the university has been identified; however, the need for recognition from the academic and policy arenas has also been identified by this exploratory project. Some tools were and are being developed as a part of this research project.

1. Videotape

An educational video was developed to document the early stages of community-based collaborative effort. Based in an urban setting, this coalition's focus is directed toward issues of youth at risk. The video progresses through the coalition's needs assessment process. In addition, the video presents four examples of projects started by the coalition to address the issues brought forth by the needs assessment.

2. Community based training

Coalition training within communities has also been implemented and a training program is being developed, piloted and refined. Moreover, this project is providing unique training to community teams that consist of adults and adolescents. These training sessions are being conducted as a cooperative effort between 4-H Youth Programs, the Department of Family and child Ecology, and the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families.

3. Second wave of data collection

Follow -up interviews are being conducted with the coalitions previously interviewed, to track over time whether differences exist in the maintenance and format of various types of collaborative efforts. Questionnaires and received information will be added to the computerized database. Systematic collection updating the existence (or demise) of coalitions will be conducted as time permits.

4. Community -based profile of Michigan youth

The project will be collaborating with Search Institute (Minneapolis, Minn.), RespecTeen, and Michigan communities, to conduct statewide community -based youth profile. The assessment program will be a representative sample of the state, and will provide an indication of how "healthy" our communities are in terms of providing support for children, youth and families. In addition, access to indicators of the status of children, youth and families on a county level is available in the Michigan.

REFERENCES

American Demographics (1991). American University (Desk Reference Series. No. 1). Ithaca, NY.

Andrews, M. P., Bubolz, M. M. & Paolucci, B. (1980). An ecological approach to study of the family. Marriage and Family Review, 3, 29-49.

Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community.

Western Regional Center for Drug- Free Schools and Communities, Far West Laboratory. Portland,OR.

Bogenschneider, E, Small, S. & Riley, D. (1991). An ecological risk -focused approach for addressing youth-at- risk. A paper presented at the National Extension Youth -at- Risk Summit, Chevy Chase, MD.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1983). Beyond policies without people: An ecological perspective on child and family policy. In Zigler, E. (Ed.) Children, families, and government Perspectives on American social policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M.S. (1991). Human ecology theory. In Boss, P., Doughter, W., La Rossa, R., Schum, W., & Steinmetz, I. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum.

Children's Defense Fund, (1991). The state of America's children, 1991. Washington,D.C.

Clifford, M.C., Bubolz, M.M., & Sontag, M.S. (1992). Community support systems, human values, and resource management in a family farm ecosystem. Conference Proceedings of the North Regional Conference on the Rural Family, the Rural Community, and the Economic Restructuring. Iowa State University, Des Moines, IA.

Coleman, J. (1987). Families and schools. Educational Researcher, 16, 32 -38.

Comer, J. (1984). Home- school relationships as they affect the academic success of children. Education and Urban Society; 16, 323- 337.

Dluhy, J. M. (1990). Building coalitions in the human services. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Dryfoos,J. C. (1990). Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York:Oxford University Press.

Edelman, P.B., & Radin BA (1991). Serving children and families effectively: How the past can help chart the future. Washington, D.C.: Education and Human Services Consortium.

Feldman, R., Stiffman, A, & Jung, K. (1987). Children at risk: In the web of prenatal mental illness. New Brunswick, NJ: Burgers University Press.

Foa, U., & Foa, E. (1973). Measuring quality of life: Can it help solve the ecological crisis. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 5, 22 -26.

Francese, P.K.(1990). Capturing customers: How to target the hottest market of the 90's. Ithaca, N.Y.:American Demographics Press.

Fuchs, V.R., & Reklis, D.M. (1992). America's children: Economic perspectives and policy options. Science, 25, 41-46.

Garbarino, J. (1990). Risk and Remediation from an ecological perspective. Keynote address: Creating Caring Communities Conference. Institute for Children, Youth and Families, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Gardner, S. (1989). Failure by fragmentation. California Tomorrow, Fall, 19 -25.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1985). All one system: demographics of education, kindergarten through graduate school. Institute for Educational Leadership. Washington, D.C.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1989). The same client: The demographics of education and service delivery systems. Institute for Educational Leadership. Washington, D.C.

Humphreys, N. (1979). Competing for revenue sharing funds: A coalition approach. Social Work 24, 14-18.

Kagan, S. L., & Rivera, A M. (1991). Collaboration in early child care and education: What can and should we expect? Young Children, 47, 51-56.

Keith, J. & Griffore. R. (1990). Youth development and the community: An ecological analysis for research and practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology. York, England.

Keith, J., & McPherson, M. (1989). Family Demographics Project. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, Extension Home Economics.

Keith, J. & Nelson, C. (1990). Michigan Early Adolescent Survey II. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Kids Count Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-Being (1992). Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, D.C.

Kids Count Data Book (1992). Michigan State University, Institute for Children, Youth, and Families, and Michigan League for Human Services.

Lauffer, A. (1982). Assessment tools: For practitioners, managers, and trainers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R. M. (1976). Concepts and theories of human development. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co.

Lerner, R. M. (1982). Children and adolescents as producers of their own development. Developmental Review, 2, 342-370.

Lerner,R.M. (1984). On the nature of human plasticity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lerner, R. M. (1986). Concepts and theories of human development (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.

Lerner, R. M., & Busch- Rossnagel, N. A. (1981). Individuals as producers of their development: Conceptual and empirical bases. In R. M. Lerner & N. A. Busch-Rossnagel (Eds.), Individuals as producers of their development: A life -span perspective (pp. 1-36). New York: Academic Press.

National Commission On Children. (1991). Beyond rhetoric: A new American agenda for children and families. Washington, D.C.

National Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families. (1990). Children's well being: An international comparison. Washington, D.C.

Paolucci, B. (1966). Contributions of a framework of home management to the teaching of family relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 28, 338- 342.

Schneirla, T. C. (1957). The concept of development in comparative psychology. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development (pp. 78 -108). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Schor, J. & Leete- Guy. L. (1991). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of leisure. New York: Harper Collins.

Schorr, L. ( 1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of the disadvantaged. New York: Anchor Press.

Simons, J. M., Finlay, B., & Yang, A (1991). Adolescent and young adult fact book. Children's Defense Fund. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Summary tape file 3A (Machine readable data file).

United States Department of Agriculture, (1991). Expenditures on a child by husband and wife families: 1990. Family Economics Review, 4, 32.

Weisner, S. (1983). Fighting back: A critical analysis of coalition building in the human services. Social Services Review, 52, 291- 306.

William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, (1988). The forgotten half: Pathways to success for America's youth and young families.

Part One
Part Two

Return to NNCO