PURPOSE: To describe the models created by the 13 communities in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Community Coalition Partnership Program (CCPP), and the relationship between key organizational features of the coalitions and the perception by coalition members of interim and community-wide outcomes. METHODS: This study relied on three sources of data: interviews conducted on site with a sample of coalition staff, evaluators, and members (n = 364); a written survey administered after the site visit to those interviewed (n = 216) asking about perceived outcomes and changes between the beginning and end of the project; and a coalition member survey mailed to all coalition members at all sites (n = 341) focusing on perceptions of coalition functioning, outcomes, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A variety of coalition models were developed. Respondents were positive in their assessments of how their coalitions operated even though few were sustained. The coalitions for which members perceived more positive outcomes were better established at the outset of the grant, led by paid staff, and had an area-wide focus, a steering committee, and a hub that was not a community-based organization. Coalitions composed primarily of neighborhood members were difficult to maintain. CONCLUSIONS: Despite members' high ratings, by the end of the funding period most coalitions were no longer functioning. It may be that coalitions are useful but not as permanent structures in communities. Grassroots and individual members not affiliated with an agency may require meaningful incentives to sustain participation. Because maturity of the coalition at the start of the project was a good predictor of sustainability, time should be spent verifying the stage of coalition development before funding.
PURPOSE: To describe the models created by the 13 communities in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Community Coalition Partnership Program (CCPP), and the relationship between key organizational features of the coalitions and the perception by coalition members of interim and community-wide outcomes. METHODS: This study relied on three sources of data: interviews conducted on site with a sample of coalition staff, evaluators, and members (n = 364); a written survey administered after the site visit to those interviewed (n = 216) asking about perceived outcomes and changes between the beginning and end of the project; and a coalition member survey mailed to all coalition members at all sites (n = 341) focusing on perceptions of coalition functioning, outcomes, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A variety of coalition models were developed. Respondents were positive in their assessments of how their coalitions operated even though few were sustained. The coalitions for which members perceived more positive outcomes were better established at the outset of the grant, led by paid staff, and had an area-wide focus, a steering committee, and a hub that was not a community-based organization. Coalitions composed primarily of neighborhood members were difficult to maintain. CONCLUSIONS: Despite members' high ratings, by the end of the funding period most coalitions were no longer functioning. It may be that coalitions are useful but not as permanent structures in communities. Grassroots and individual members not affiliated with an agency may require meaningful incentives to sustain participation. Because maturity of the coalition at the start of the project was a good predictor of sustainability, time should be spent verifying the stage of coalition development before funding.
Authors: Noreen M Clark; Laurie Lachance; Linda Jo Doctor; Lisa Gilmore; Cindy Kelly; James Krieger; Marielena Lara; John Meurer; Amy Friedman Milanovich; Elisa Nicholas; Michael Rosenthal; Shelley C Stoll; Margaret Wilkin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Matthew Chinman; Joie Acosta; Patricia Ebener; Patrick S Malone; Mary E Slaughter Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 7.327