Effects of Sectoral Diversity on Community Coalition Processes and Outcomes

Abstract

Collaboration with diverse partners is challenging but essential for the implementation of prevention programs and policies. Increased communication with partners from diverse sectors may help community coalitions overcome the challenges that diversity presents. We examined these issues empirically in a study of 17 substance use prevention coalitions in Mexico. Building on coalition and workgroup literatures, we hypothesized that sectoral diversity would improve outcomes but undermine coalition processes. Conversely, we expected uniformly positive effects from higher levels of intersectoral communication. Data are from a 2015 survey of 211 members within the 17 community coalitions. Regression models used sectoral diversity and intersectoral communication to predict coalition processes (cohesion, leader-member communication, efficiency) and outcomes (community support, community improvement, sustainability planning). Sectoral diversity was negatively associated with coalition processes and was not associated with coalition outcomes. Intersectoral communication was positively associated with two of the three measures of coalition outcomes but not associated with coalition processes. Our findings concur with those from prior research indicating that sectoral diversity may undermine coalition processes. However, more communication between sectors may facilitate the coalition outcomes of community support and sustainability planning. Skilled team leaders and participatory decision making may also help coalitions promote intersectoral communication, thereby engaging diverse community sectors to implement preventive interventions and actualize sustained public health impact.

Community voice in cross-sector alignment: concepts and strategies from a scoping review of the health collaboration literature

“…Community members add a sense of urgency around issues that they experience first-hand as important for their own well-being [ 69 ]. Community voice adds intellectual and experiential capacity to aligning organizations [ 27 , 30 , 70 ]. Community members can provide data on the community in the short term, and by incorporating community members over the long-term, for example as decision-makers and paid employees, aligning organizations can institutionalize community voice as a lasting knowledge-producing solution.…”

Diverse social movement coalitions: Prospects and challenges

“…Future research should try to access, how diverse coalitions overcome these challenges. Remarkably, while there is a rapidly growing body of literature on social movement coalitions (e.g., Brooker & Meyer, ; McCammon & Moon, ; Van Dyke & Amos, 2017; Van Dyke & McCammon, ), there are relatively few studies looking at how coalitions are developed and sustained across difference (for important exceptions, see Bandy & Smith, ; Beamish & Luebbers, ; Brown, Wells, Jones, & Chilenski, ; Bystydzienski & Schacht, ; Cole & Luna, ; Levi & Murphy, ; Luna, ; Wood, ). Most of the research on coalitions rooted in the social movement studies literature focuses on the facilitators of coalitions, such as threats, political opportunities, prior social ties, ideological compatibility, and resources (Van Dyke & Amos, 2017; see also, Dixon et al, ).…”

Coalition‐building and the forging of solidarity across difference and inequality

“…Nonetheless, important studies have been conducted, particularly over the last 2 decades, providing substantial insight into factors, practices, and processes that aid coalition building across divides (e.g., Bandy & Smith, 2005a, 2005b; Beamish & Luebbers, 2009; Bystydzienski & Schacht, 2001a, 2001b; Brown et al., 2017; Cole & Luna, 2010; Einwohner et al., 2019; Levi & Murphy, 2006; Wood, 2005). This article reviews this literature, with a focus on the coalitional factors that facilitate working across divides and the deliberative processes and practices that have been found beneficial for developing trust, commitment, and, ultimately, solidarity across difference and inequality.…”