Implementing the Capacity Building for Change Model With Substance Abuse Prevention Coalitions

Abstract

Community prevention coalitions are a commonly utilized mechanism for supporting community-based prevention efforts. The effectiveness of community coalitions to foster change and improvements in outcomes is inconclusive and often influenced by other factors such as community readiness and coalition capacity. Limited studies have examined the effects of technical assistance (TA) models on coalition and community capacity to facilitate change and improvements in outcomes. The present study analyzed the effects of a capacity-building TA model on the implementation of both key coalition processes (e.g., strategic planning) and the facilitation of community changes (i.e., program, policy, and practice changes) by prevention coalitions. A between-group randomized controlled trial, with a delayed intervention control group design, was used with eight coalitions in the Midwest. The results suggest that although internal coalition capacity increased, it did not immediately result in greater facilitation of external community changes by the community prevention coalitions. C Capacity Building for Change Model r 763 adolescent substance use. Since coalitions are likely to continue as a common mechanism for addressing issues of critical community and public health concern, it is important to further examine and refine the prevention support system models to better assure support for enhancing the capacity and effectiveness of prevention coalitions.

The impact of coalition characteristics on outcomes in community-based initiatives targeting the social determinants of health: a systematic review

“…Fourteen studies were state-wide or regional efforts comprised of multiple communities using the same implementation framework, such as the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant [SPF-SIG], Healthy Cities, or Communities That Care [ 13 , 28 – 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 48 , 49 ]. A smaller number of studies investigated coalitions with structural or contextual differences [ 42 , 50 , 51 ], or that were linked through a funding program or community of practice [ 32 , 35 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 52 ]. Ten studies included coalitions that were formed in response to a funding opportunity and/or government policy [ 13 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 46 ], four included coalitions formed in response to a research project [ 33 , 48 – 50 ], three included coalitions that were explicitly grassroots [ 47 , 50 , 51 ], and ten studies included coalitions with unclear origins [ 28 , 29 , 32 , 35 , 38 – 40 , 42 , 44 , 52 ].…”

“…A smaller number of studies investigated coalitions with structural or contextual differences [ 42 , 50 , 51 ], or that were linked through a funding program or community of practice [ 32 , 35 , 38 , 43 , 46 , 52 ]. Ten studies included coalitions that were formed in response to a funding opportunity and/or government policy [ 13 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 46 ], four included coalitions formed in response to a research project [ 33 , 48 – 50 ], three included coalitions that were explicitly grassroots [ 47 , 50 , 51 ], and ten studies included coalitions with unclear origins [ 28 , 29 , 32 , 35 , 38 – 40 , 42 , 44 , 52 ]. Compared to nation-wide projects, the three grassroots coalitions tended to focus on discrete programs or problem solving, did not have guiding theoretical frameworks, and used the coalition model to increase their access to decision makers and funding bodies [ 47 , 50 , 51 ].…”

“…Eight coalitions targeted multiple health determinants, including neighbourhood improvement, substance use, educational attainment, violence, nutrition, physical activity, unemployment, and housing [ 28 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 41 , 48 , 51 ]. Coalitions with a single focus targeted alcohol and other drug use ( n =7) [ 36 , 38 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 52 ], family violence ( n =2) [ 39 , 47 ], health equity ( n =2) [ 30 , 37 ], youth empowerment ( n =1) [ 43 ], early childhood development ( n =1) [ 40 ], food environments ( n =1) [ 44 ], and environmental issues ( n =1) [ 42 ]. Two studies did not specify the focus of the coalitions [ 35 , 40 ].…”

“…Authors cited a variety of guiding frameworks for their research. Five papers cited a collaborative capacity framework, including the Community Coalition Action Theory [ 34 ], CSAP Strategic Prevention Framework [ 13 ], Institute of Medicine’s Framework for Collaborative Public Health Action in Communities [ 51 , 52 ], the Food Policy Council Framework [ 44 ]. Four used untitled models built through literature reviews [ 28 , 39 , 47 , 50 ].…”

“…Twenty three studies used participant surveys, most commonly Likert-type questionnaires administered to coalition coordinators or participants [ 13 , 28 – 30 , 34 – 52 ]. With the exception of Donchin et al’s tool [ 30 ], which required researchers to allocate a rating to participant responses, all surveys collected self-reported ratings on communication, trust, efficiency, task-focus, decision making and participation.…”