Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Model-Driven Approach to Qualitatively Assessing the Added Value of Community Coalitions

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Community-based coalitions are commonly formed to plan and to carry out public health interventions. The literature includes evaluations of coalition structure, composition, and functioning; evaluations of community-level changes achieved through coalition activities; and the association between coalition characteristics and various indicators of success. Little information is available on the comparative advantage or “added value” of conducting public health interventions through coalitions as opposed to less structured collaborative mechanisms. This paper describes a qualitative, iterative process carried out with site representatives of the Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project (CAACP) to identify outcomes directly attributable to coalitions. The process yielded 2 complementary sets of results. The first were criteria that articulated and limited the concept of “added value of coalitions”. The criteria included consensus definitions, an organizing figure, a logic model, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The second set of results identified site-specific activities that met the definitional criteria and were, by agreement, examples of CAACP coalitions’ added value. Beyond the specific findings relevant to the added value of coalitions in this project, the use of a social ecological model to identify the components of added value and the placement of those components within a logic model specific to coalitions should provide useful tools for those planning and assessing coalition-based projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Butterfoss FD, Francisco VT. Evaluating community partnerships and coalitions with practitioners in mind. Health Promot Pract. 2004; 5(2): 108–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lasker RD, Weiss ES. Creating partnership synergy: the critical role of community stakeholders. J Health Hum Serv Adm. 2003; 26(1): 119–139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Feighery E, Rogers T. Building and maintaining effective coalitions. Second edition. Palo Alto, CA: Health Promotion Resource Center, Stanford Center of Research in Disease Prevention; 1990.

  4. Zakocs RC, Guckenburg S. What coalition factors foster community capacity? Lessons learned from the Fighting Back Initiative. Health Educ Behav. 2007; 34(2): 354–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC. Toward a comprehensive understanding of community coalitions. In: DiClemente R, Crosby R, Kegler MC, eds. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: strategies for improving public health. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002: 157–193.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Granner ML, Sharpe PA. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Educ Res. 2004; 19(5): 514–532.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion: factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health Educ Q. 1996; 23(1): 65–79.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chinman M, Anderson C, Imm P, Wandersman A, Goodman RM. The perceptions of costs and benefits of high active versus low active groups in community coalitions at different stages in coalition development. J Community Psychol. 1996; 24(3): 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garland B, Crane M, Marino C, Stone-Wiggins B, Ward A, Friedell G. Effect of community coalition structure and preparation on the subsequent implementation of cancer control activities. Am J Health Promot. 2004; 18(6): 424–434.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chalmers ML, Housemann RA, Wiggs I, Newcomb-Hagood L, Malone B, Brownson RC. Process evaluation of a monitoring log system for community coalition activities: five-year results and lessons learned. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 17(3): 190–196.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheadle A, Senter S, Procello A, et al. The California wellness foundation’s health improvement Initiative: evaluation findings and lessons learned. Am J Health Promot. 2005; 19(4): 286–296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Collie-Akers VL, Fawcett SB, Schultz JA, Carson V, Cyprus J, Pierle JE. Analyzing a community-based coalition’s efforts to reduce health disparities and the risk for chronic disease in Kansas City, Missouri. Prev Chron Dis. 2007; 4(3): A66.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kegler MC, Norton BL, Aronson RE. Strengthening community leadership: evaluation findings from the California Healthy Cities and Communities program. Health Promot Pract. 2008; 9(2): 170–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Herman EJ, Garbe P, McGeehin M. Assessing community-based approaches to asthma control: the Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project. J Urban Health 2010.

  15. Herman EJ. Conceptual framework of the Controlling Asthma in American Cities project. J Urban Health 2010.

  16. Bruce T, Uranga McKane S, MacAllister Brock R. Taking a community-based public health approach: how does it make a difference? In: Bruce TA, McKane SU, eds. Community-based public health: a partnership model. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000: 99–108.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988; 15(4): 351–377.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Clark NM, Gong M, Kaciroti N. A model of self-regulation for control of chronic disease. Health Educ Behav. 2001; 28(6): 769–782.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wenger E. How we learn. Communities of practice. The social fabric of a learning organization. Healthc Forum J. 1996; 39(4): 20–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Goodman RM, Wandersman A, Chinman M, Imm P, Morrissey E. An ecological assessment of community-based interventions for prevention and health promotion: approaches to measuring community coalitions. Am J Community Psychol. 1996; 24(1): 33–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Clark NM, Lachance L, Doctor LJ, et al. Policy and system change and community coalitions: outcomes from Allies Against Asthma. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(5): 904–912.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nowell B. Profiling capacity for coordination and systems change: the relative contribution of stakeholder relationships in interorganizational collaboratives. Am J Community Psychol. 2009; 44(3–4): 196–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Skodol AE, Spitzer RL. The development of reliable diagnostic criteria in psychiatry. Annu Rev Med. 1982; 33: 317–326.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The authors gratefully acknowledge Gail Brottman, Cizely Curian, Vicky Persky, Gloria Thomas, Dolores Weems, and Kristin Wilson for reviewing their sites’ outcome spreadsheets, and Maureen Wilce for her valuable comments on early drafts of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Elizabeth Jane Herman

  2. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Adrienne Keller

  3. American Lung Association in California during project implementation, currently Children’s Hospital & Research Center Oakland, Oakland, CA, USA

    Adam Davis

  4. Bon Secours Richmond Health System, Richmond, VA, USA

    Ryan Ehrensberger

  5. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Sharon Telleen

  6. University of North Texas School of Public Health, Dallas, TX, USA

    Richard Kurz

  7. American Lung Association of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA

    Jill Heins Nesvold

  8. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Sally Findley

  9. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Tyra Bryant-Stephens

  10. Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA, USA

    Mindy Benson

  11. Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA

    Leslie Fierro

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Jane Herman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adrienne Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adam Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryan Ehrensberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sharon Telleen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard Kurz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jill Heins Nesvold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sally Findley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Tyra Bryant-Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mindy Benson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Leslie Fierro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Jane Herman.

Additional information

This project was supported through a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, under program announcement 03030. The findings and conclusions of this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Table e-3

Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to assess the added value of Controlling Asthma in American Cities Project coalitions (DOC 41 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herman, E.J., Keller, A., Davis, A. et al. A Model-Driven Approach to Qualitatively Assessing the Added Value of Community Coalitions. J Urban Health 88 (Suppl 1), 130–143 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9520-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9520-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation