The role of advocacy coalitions in a project implementation process: The example of the planning phase of the At Home/Chez Soi project dealing with homelessness in Montreal

Fleury, Marie‐Josée; Grenier, Guy; Vallée, Catherine; Hurtubise, Roch; Lévesque, Paul-André

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.03.008

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other common forms of data collection that are identified include: surveys in 34 (21 percent) applications (e.g., Leach et al, ), participant observation in 13 (8 percent) applications (e.g., Fleury, Grenier, Vallée, Hurtubise, & Lévesque, ), and focus groups in 5 (3 percent) applications (e.g., Wilson, Barakat, Vohra, Ritvo, & Boon, ). In comparison with Weible et al (), there is little change in the number of applications that use surveys (17 percent); however, there are minor increases in participant observation, which was identified by Weible et al () in only 3 percent of applications and focus groups were not identified at all.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Pierce¹,

Peterson²,

Jones³

et al. 2017

Policy Studies Journal

121

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To better understand how the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is applied, this article catalogues and analyzes 161 applications of the ACF from 2007 to 2014. Building on a previous review of 80 applications of the ACF (1987–2006) conducted by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen in 2009, this review examines both the breadth and depth of the framework. In terms of breadth, there are over 130 unique first authors from 25 countries, in almost 100 journals applying the framework, including a majority outside of the United States. In terms of depth, a plurality of applications analyzes environment and energy, subsystems at the national level, and utilizes qualitative methods of data collection and analyses. This review also explores how the three theoretical foci of the framework—advocacy coalitions, policy change, and policy‐oriented learning—are applied. Our findings suggest that the ACF balances common approaches for applying the framework with the specificity of particular contexts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Pierce¹,

Peterson²,

Jones³

et al. 2017

Policy Studies Journal

121

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two of the discontinued programs were in Site 2. Bringing HF programs into this site was contentious from the outset, due to political opposition at the provincial level and local opposition from the social housing sector (Fleury, Grenier, Vallée, Hurtubise, & Lévesque, ). While there were HF champions and leaders who advocated for the sustainability of HF, provincial and local opposition was much stronger immediately following the end of the At Home/Chez Soi project and was responsible for the discontinuation of two of the three HF programs at this site.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Happens After the Demonstration Phase? The Sustainability of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi Housing First Programs for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness

Nelson

Caplan

MacLeod

et al. 2017

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined the sustainability of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi Housing First (HF) programs for homeless persons with mental illness 2 years after the end of the demonstration phase of a large (more than 2000 participants enrolled), five-site, randomized controlled trial. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 142 participants (key informants, HF staff, and persons with lived experience) to understand sustainability outcomes and factors that influenced those outcomes. Also, a self-report HF fidelity measure was completed for nine HF programs that continued after the demonstration project. A cross-site analysis was performed, using the five sites as case studies. The findings revealed that nine of the 12 HF programs (75%) were sustained, and that seven of the nine programs reported a high level of fidelity (achieving an overall score of 3.5 or higher on a 4-point scale). The sites varied in terms of the level of systems integration and expansion of HF that were achieved. Factors that promoted or impeded sustainability were observed at multiple ecological levels: broad contextual (i.e., dissemination of research evidence, the policy context), community (i.e., partnerships, the presence of HF champions), organizational (i.e., leadership, ongoing training, and technical assistance), and individual (i.e., staff turnover, changes, and capacity). The findings are discussed in terms of the implementation science literature and their implications for how evidence-based programs like HF can be sustained.

show abstract

“…Thus, a policy that is actually a by-product of the dominant coalition belief system, emerges as a result of conflicts and negotiations between different coalitions of actors in the policy subsystem. 33 Also, advocacy coalition framework emphasizes the importance of the role of policy brokers who, as mediators or political intermediaries, seek to make a compromise and limit differences between coalitions to reach agreement. 25 COVID-19 policies are of significant public health concern that require complex inter-sectoral collaboration and government agreement through various coalitions.…”

Section: Policy Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Pandemic and Comparative Health Policy Learning in Iran

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic. Starting in December 2019 from China, the first cases were officially announced on February 19 in Qom city, Iran. As of April 3, 2020, 206 countries have reported a total of 932166 cases with 46764 deaths. Along with China, USA, Italy, Spain, and Germany, Iran has been suffering the hardest burden of COVID-19 outbreak. Worse still, countries like Iran are struggling with the double burden of political sanctions to provide lifesaving medical equipment and medicines to combat the emergency. Methods: Using systematic document content analysis and through the lenses of health policy triangle, this article aims to compare the policies and strategies that Iran is adopting, with the experience and recommendations of China and WHO to combat COVID-19. Results: Iran has formulated contextual-based policies to combat COVID-19 outbreak before and after virus entrance. Insufficient whole-government, whole-society approach in managing the outbreak, inadequate lifesaving and protective equipment, and delayed decisive governance are the biggest challenges in policy making to combat COVID-19. COVID-19 policies are a public health concern and require professional advocacy attempts through appropriate inter-sectoral collaboration and whole-government coalitions. Conclusion: COVID-19 is an unfolding outbreak; hence, policy learning is crucial to formulate appropriate policies and implement them accordingly. Iran has made many efforts to defeat the outbreak, but more coherent, timely and efficient action is required, now, more than ever, to save lives and slow the spread of this pandemic.

show abstract

The role of advocacy coalitions in a project implementation process: The example of the planning phase of the At Home/Chez Soi project dealing with homelessness in Montreal

Cited by 11 publications

References 37 publications

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

What Happens After the Demonstration Phase? The Sustainability of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi Housing First Programs for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness

COVID-19 Pandemic and Comparative Health Policy Learning in Iran

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About