AAPS Case Study Report



AAPS Case Study Report

Connect the Dottes: A Coalition of Community Builders

I. Orienting Information

A. Vision & Mission

The formation meeting of an “Connect the Dottes” was held on October 14, 1996, facilitated by the Regional Prevention Center of Wyandotte County on the campus of the Kansas City Kansas Community College. At that meeting, the group of 10 community leaders discussed the purpose of the coalition, group rules, time commitment and historical perspective of the need for such a coalition.

The idea of a mission statement was discussed and each member was asked to write her own version of a statement and one member would combine the points from each into one statement. On October 30, the following was adopted by the group:

“To provide a network through which Wyandotte County neighborhoods can receive training, share information, identify common goals and concerns, problem-solve and develop strategies to stabilize individual neighborhoods and improve the entire community.”

At that meeting, the name of the organization was also officially adopted as Connect the Dottes, informally called the Dottes. The name came from the second half of our county name, Wyandotte, and the mission which is to connect.

The original group was made up of the following individuals:

Linda Stewart and Sharon Cormack – Regional Prevention Center (RPC)

Melissa Bynum – Leavenworth Road Association (LRA)

Wendy Wilson – Rosedale Development Association

Toni Gunther – State Avenue Business Revitalization Effort (SABRE)

Mary Jane Johnson – Liveable Neighborhoods Task Force (LNTF)

Loretta Colombel – Let’s Talk Neighbor

Patty Dysart – Armourdale Renewal Association (ARA)

Janet Eischen – Central Avenue Betterment Association (CABA)

Meredith Schraeder – Business West

During action planning for 2002, the following vision statement was adopted:

“We endeavor to build a community that belongs to and is responsive to its residents; a community that is safe, clean, attractive and economically viable; a community is which neighbors not only care about their neighborhoods, but also about one another; a community where people see government as a resource not a burden; a community in which residents understand that by working together and with their government, they can create and maintain neighborhoods in which people live peaceful, happy and connected lives.”

The vision was also amended as follows:

“To provide a network through which Wyandotte County neighborhoods can receive training, share information, identify common goals and concerns, problem-solve and develop strategies to stabilize individual neighborhoods and reduce problems associated with alcohol and other drugs.”

The name of the group received an additional line, becoming “Connect the Dottes: An Association of Community Builders.

B. Conceptual Framework

The following logic model was part of a strategic planning process held yearly by the group.

|Goal I: To reduce substance abuse among youth by 10% by 2010 and, over time, |

|among adults by addressing factors that serve to increase the risk of |

|substance abuse and factors that serve to minimize the risk. |

|RISK FACTORS |OBJECTIVES |STRATEGIES |IMPROVED IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES |REDUCED RISK/ |

| | | | |INCREASED PROTECTION |

|Laws and norms |A. Maximize capacity |1. Facilitate 10 Grassroots |Increase community |By 2010, reduce the percent of |

|favorable to |and impact of 750 |Leadership Workshops by |participation in prevention |students who report most adults in |

|alcohol and other |parents/ |September 2006. |education and community |their neighborhood would think it is |

|drug abuse |neighborhood/ | |mobilization as measured by |not wrong at all for kids their age |

| |community leaders to |2. Conduct neighborhood level|participation. |to: |

| |implement |planning and implementation | |* Smoke cigarettes: |

| |science-based |with a minimum of four |Increase awareness of impact of|1999 – 11.46% |

| |prevention strategies |neighborhood organizations |alcohol and other drug abuse as|2004 – 7.2% (-37%) |

| |through skills |using the Study Circles model|measured by community action |2010 – 4.8% (-33%) |

| |training, technical |of community mobilization by |planning/participation in |* Drink alcohol: |

| |assistance, and |September 2006. |events. |1999 – 7.6% |

| |information | | |2004 – 5.6% (-26%) |

| |dissemination within |3. Expand opportunities for |Increase knowledge of effective|2010 – 4.0% (-29%) |

| |12 months. |parent involvement in |prevention strategies as |* Use marijuana: |

| | |effective substance abuse |measured by action planning |1999 – 5.5% |

| | |prevention through Parent |process by June 2006. |2004 – 3.6% (-35%) |

| | |Corps training groups by | |2010 – 3.0% (-17%) |

| | |September 2006. |Increase awareness of community| |

| | | |resources as measured by |Reduce the percent of students who |

| | |4. Recruit a “community |pre-post surveys and |report their parents would not feel |

| | |champion” for participation |participation in programs. |it was wrong at all for them to: |

| | |on a task force to reduce | |* Smoke cigarettes |

| | |FASD by September 2006. |Increase knowledge of risk and |1999 – 3.53% |

| | | |protective factors for alcohol |2004 – 4.8% (+26%) |

| | |5. Provide training and |and other drug abuse among |2010 – 3.2% (-33%) |

| | |resources for a minimum of 5 |parents as measured by |* Drink alcohol regularly |

| | |churches for implementation |participation in |1999 – 3.62 |

| | |of evidence-based programs by|training/meetings by September |2004 – 5.3% (+32%) |

| | |September 2006. |2006. |2010 – 3.5 (-34%) |

| | | | |* Smoke marijuana |

| | | |Increase access to |1999 – 2.42% |

| | | |evidence-based programs and |2004 – 3.1% (+22%) |

| | | |strategies as measured by |2010 – 2.18% (-32%) |

| | |6. Serve as a catalyst for |implementation of new programs,| |

| | |schools to be co-learners, |policies and strategies by |Reduce the percent of students who |

| | |share information and |September 2006. |report they do not think it is wrong |

| | |resources, and begin outcome | |at all for kids their age to: |

| | |based planning process for |Increase access to |* Smoke cigarettes |

| | |their communities by |evidence-based programs and |1999 – 15% |

| | |September 2006. |strategies as measured by |2004 – 8.6% (-43%) |

| | | |program implementation. |2010 – 6% (30%) |

| | | | |*Drink alcohol regularly |

| | | | |1999 – 15% |

| | |7. Implement a multi-sector |Increase collaboration between |2004 – 11% (-27%) |

| | |environmental strategy to |businesses, law enforcement, |2010 – 8% (-27%) |

| | |reduce tobacco sales to |media, neighborhood |* Smoke marijuana |

| | |minors beginning in November |organizations, and prevention |1999 – 12% |

| | |2005. |advocates. |2004 – 9.5% (-21%) |

| | | | |2010 – 7% (-26%) |

| | | | | |

| | | | |Increase SYNAR compliance rate in |

| | | | |Wyandotte County by September 2006. |

| | | | |2004 – 15% |

| | | | |2010 – 80% (+81%) |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | |Reduce the percent of students who |

| | | | |report it is very easy to get |

| | | | |cigarettes by 2010. |

| | | | |1999 – 45.23% |

|Availability of | | | |2004 – 30.7% (-32%) |

|Drugs | | | |2010 – 21.2% (-31%) |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Goal II: To strengthen collaboration among communities; federal, state and local governments and not-for-profit agencies to support community|

|coalition efforts to prevent substance abuse within 12 months. |

|RISK FACTOR |OBJECTIVE |STRATEGIES |IMPROVED IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES |REDUCED RISK/ |

| | | | |INCREASED PROTECTION |

|Community |B. Develop a |8. Profile population needs, |Increased awareness of impact |Reduce the percent of students who |

|Disorganization |comprehensive |resources, and readiness to |of alcohol and other drug abuse|report that crime and drug selling |

| |prevention action plan |address needs and gaps by |on children, families and |are prevalent in their neighborhood: |

| |for interagency |September 2006. |communities as measured by | |

| |collaboration and | |participation in coalition |1999 – 26.69% |

| |community action. |9. Mobilize and/or build |training and planning. |2004 – 22.7% (-15%) |

| | |capacity to address needs of | |2010 – 18.62% (-18%) |

| | |a diverse population |Increase knowledge of effective| |

| | |beginning in October 2005. |prevention strategies and | |

| | | |programs as evidenced by | |

| | |10. Develop a comprehensive |participation in co-learning | |

| | |strategic plan by February |and research. | |

| | |2006. | | |

| | | |Increase awareness of existing | |

| | |11. Implement and encourage |prevention programs and | |

| | |implementation of strategies,|resources as measured by | |

| | |policies, practices, and |community resource assessment. | |

| | |programs that have | | |

| | |demonstrated effectiveness |Increase resources directed | |

| | |with the target population by|toward evidence-based | |

| | |July 2006. |prevention programs and | |

| | | |practices as measured by | |

| | |12. Monitor, evaluate, |resource assessment. | |

| | |sustain, and improve or | | |

| | |replace those that fail by | | |

| | |September 2006 | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

|Goal III: Increase healthy behaviors of high-risk youth through early intervention. |

|RISK FACTOR |OBJECTIVES |STRATEGIES |IMPROVED IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES |REDUCED RISK/ |

| | | | |INCREASED PROTECTION |

|Early Initiation |C. Enhance community |13. Implement training on the|Increase staff awareness of the|Increase age of onset: |

|of Problem |efforts to implement |impact of family alcohol and |impact of alcohol and drug |* Cigarettes |

|Behavior |evidence-based programs|drug abuse on children by |abuse on the family as measured|1999 – 11.78 years |

| |and strategies for |July 2006. |by participation. |2004 – 11.71 years (-1%) |

| |high-risk youth. | | |2010 – 12.32 years (+5%) |

| | |14. Identify and evaluate |Increase knowledge of |*Alcohol |

| | |existing resources by |evidence-based programs and |1999 – 13.71 |

| | |December 2005. |strategies as measured by |2004 – 13.58 (-1%) |

| | | |participation in action |2010 – 14.43 (+6%) |

| | |15. Develop an action plan to|planning process. |* Marijuana |

| | |implement at least one | |1999 – 12.98 |

|Perceived Risks of| |evidence-based program in an |Increase meaningful |2004 – 12.83 (-1%) |

|Drug Use | |early childhood education |opportunities for high-risk |2010 – 13.67 (+6%) |

| | |classroom and one alternative|youth to learn new skills and | |

| | |program by September 2006. |gain recognition for |Increase the percent of students who |

| | | |conventional involvement as |report they risk harming themselves |

| | | |measured by participation. |in they use: |

| | | | |* Smoke cigarettes |

| | | | |1999 - 89.5% |

| | | | |2004 – 86.8% (13%) |

| | | | |2010 – 90.1% (+4%) |

| | | | |* Drink alcohol |

| | | | |1999 – 81.1% |

| | | | |2004 – 79.7% (-2%) |

| | | | |2010 – 83.3% (+4%) |

| | | | |* Smoke marijuana |

| | | | |1999 – 85.9% |

| | | | |2004 – 82.9% (-4%) |

| | | | |2010 – 87.52 (+5%) |

| | | | |Reduce the percent of students who |

| | | | |report use in the past 30 days: |

| | | | |* Cigarettes |

| | | | |1999 – 20.6% |

| | | | |2004 – 13.3% (-36%) |

| | | | |2010 – 9.8% (-26%) |

| | | | |* Alcohol |

| | | | |1999 – 38.2% |

| | | | |2004 – 31.7% (-17%) |

| | | | |2010 – 27.5% (-13%) |

| | | | |* Marijuana |

| | | | |1999 – 18.4% |

| | | | |2004 – 13.4% (-27%) |

| | | | |2010 – 9.62% (-28%) |

| | | | | |

C. Purpose of Present Study

The Connect the Dottes Coalition of Coalitions was chosen because not only is it the “senior” coalition in Wyandotte County, but also it’s the one with the broadest scope and mission concerning alcohol and other drugs.

II. Coalition Overview

A. Community Context and Setting

1. The community in which the coalition is located is Wyandotte County. Wyandotte County was founded by the Wyandotte Indians who moved here from the Upper Sandusky region of Ohio in 1843. They had been converted to the Methodist religion before their departure, and the church played a major role in the community. One of the first things they did on their arrival here was to build the Church of the Wilderness near what is now 18th & Washington Blvd.

The portion of the area settled by the Wyandottes was called Wyandotte. There were other communities settled as the area grew – Riverview, Armourdale, Kansas City, Argentine, Rosedale, Muncie, Edwardsville and Bonner Springs. In 1886, the four cities of Wyandotte, Riverview, Armourdale and Kansas City merged and took the name Kansas City in the hopes of capitalizing on the success of the bigger Kansas City already in existence across the river. In 1919, Argentine joined Kansas City, then Rosedale in 1922. Muncie is still just an area within the county, but Edwardsville and Bonner Springs have kept their separate identities even in the face of the city/county consolidation in 1997.

2. Demographics of the community: There are 157, 882 residents; 58% are Caucasian, 28% African-American, 16% Latino, and 5% other. The population has been declining since 1978, leaving behind the most needy residents. Thirty-seven percent of the households live in rental housing and approximately 15% of those are vacant. Many of those have been abandoned and are now tax delinquent. The median value of homes is $37,000. In some parts of eastern Wyandotte County, every other parcel of land is at least three years tax delinquent. These properties also tend to be unimproved, which leads to broken windows, weeds, abandoned cars and other conditions which make neighborhoods not only unattractive but unsafe. Alcohol and other drug abuse is the root cause of many of these environmental problems. These conditions prove attractive to drug deals and others engaged in problem behaviors.

3. The coalition originally came together to address the risk factor of neighborhood disorganization in 1996. It started as a meeting of the Neighborhood Business Revitalization leaders representing six distinct parts of Wyandotte County – Leavenworth Road area, Central Ave. area, Armourdale, Rosedale, western Wyandotte County and Minnesota Avenue area. Although there neighborhoods were in different areas, they shared concerns. On coming together, they discovered they had more in common than not in common. Some of the common elements that occasioned the formation of the group were things like concerns over graffiti, truancy, absentee landlords, drug houses and other factors influencing the quality of life in KCK neighborhoods.

4 The growth pattern of the community has had a major impact on the coalition. Since the city grew from east to west, with the newest construction of both homes and infrastructure occurring in the west, the older portions of the community experienced the most deterioration, both of housing stock and infrastructure such as roads and sewers. That growth pattern has solidified the older neighborhoods most of which are represented by NBR’s, and they have tended to ban together to share successes and failures with other neighborhood groups with similar problems.

Another aspect of community life that has affected the group is the change in demographics brought about by white flight and segregation in the 1950s and 1960’s. That shift in population had divided the community both racially and economically. However, with recent trends both in infill new home construction and great improvements in the school district, that division has lessened and there is a more equal distribution of diversity across the city.

B. Coalition Development, History, and Organizational Structure.

1. The substance abuse prevention capacity in Wyandotte County has been building since the coalition began. The coalition has sponsored ten monthly Grassroots Leadership Workshops each year for neighborhood leaders, beginning the year the coalition began. The topics have included environmental prevention strategies, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, race relations, community risk and protective factors. Training and mini-grants have been provided to organized neighborhood groups by Kansas City Neighborhood Alliance to implement action plans for neighborhood improvement.

The coalition has also had a direct impact on many programs implemented by other organizations. For example, the Truancy Diversion Program implemented in 1999 was in direct response to concerns raised by the coalition, and is now supported by all 5 school districts in the county. The coalitions has also been responsible for Landlords trainings, in response to concerns about rental properties and their affects on neighborhoods; improvements in living conditions for many people with various disabilities who live in a high-rise apartment building; and other projects which have a direct impact on neighborhoods throughout the county.

The coalition targets for change include young children before problem behaviors begin. Training and technical assistance has been provided to faith-based and community organizations to implement the evidence-based program “Al’s Pals” in 27 early childhood education classrooms. Those teachers and administrators report positive change although the coalition is working with Wingspan for a program evaluation. This evidence will help the coalition determine future direction and provide credibility. One hundred parents of children between 3 and 6 years of age are participating in a national evaluation of “Building Blocks for a Healthy Future”, a CSAP funded national evaluation project. The program was distributed through congregations.

There was a decrease in the percent of students who reported their parent would not think it is wrong at all for them to use drugs. By working with National Families in Action, the coalition plans to educate and involve parents in substance abuse prevention. The coalition was able to bring the Parent Corps to Turner High School as part of a national evaluation to identify the impact of parents on the decisions of their children to use alcohol and other drugs. The coalition provides information and resources to the Parent Leader to increase the capacity of parents.

Training and technical assistance has also been provided to the four public school districts. Training with special education staff resulted in the assessment and diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder of one student last year. Communities That Care training with the Turner School District resulted in the development of a Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coalition to develop a comprehensive prevention plan. Six school counselors are using a promising prevention strategy, “The Good Behavior Game” in classes with special needs students. They took baseline data on problem behaviors to measure potential changes.

2. The organizational structure is similar to the “round table” theory. There is no chair, rather a facilitator who keeps the process moving. Each representative is equal. The current facilitator is Sandy Culig, and the former facilitator was Sharon Cormack.

III. Community Partnerships

A. Key Partners

1. Key partners are currently:

Patty Dysart – Armourdale Renewal Association

Lynn Frenick - Central Area Betterment Association

Rebecca Gillam - KU-Educational Outreach Committee

Wendy Griswold – Kansas State University

Kyle Gunion – Healthy Homes

Emerald Jackson – Mount Carmel

Mary Jane Johnson – Liveable Neighborhoods Task Force

Stephanie Moore – Community Housing of Wyandotte County

Leslie Okammor – Leavenworth Road Association

Paul Soptick – Wyandotte Countians Against Crime (WCAC)

Jennifer Stone or James Prim – Kansas City Neighborhood Alliance

Wendy Wilson – Rosedale Development Association.

The key partnerships developed based on identified needs within the group, although some members have remained over the years, namely the NBR’s. Each key partner brings particular expertise to the whole.

2. Other community members continue to be involved depending on the process and the project. Currently the coalition is recovering from loosing its facilitator, Sharon Cormack, who retired in October 2004. The new facilitator, Sandy Culig, began working with the group in late February. See Appendix D for a complete list of those the coalition has worked with over the years of its operation

3. New opportunities to work with key leaders have emerged in the past year. United Way is a new partner in substance abuse prevention; they will use the Study Circles model of community planning to develop and implement an action plan to reduce alcohol and other drug abuse in a minimum of four neighborhoods. An Assistant to the Mayor participated in Baseline alcohol and drug abuse training and the Prevention Generalist Training. She will become a new coalition member in October 2005. The Kansas City Kansas Police Department has worked closely with the coalition on the Central Park Towers and the Drug-Endangered Child task forces. A new multi-strategy plan to reduce the sale of tobacco to minors involves the media, Chamber of Commerce, Unified Government Commissioners and the Police Department. We are also attempting to obtain a member representing school districts. However, with the budgetary cutbacks, their attendance is made more difficult.

B. Support Organization

1. The facilitator for the coalition is funded through the Regional Prevention Center. Specific projects or trainings have also been funded by the RPC, as well as through fund-raising, grants and in-kind contributions..

2. The RPC funds the position of the facilitator.

3. The RPC provides technical support consisting of current research, matching evidence-based programs to opportunities for the coalitions, CTC support, data from the CTC survey and other relating support.

C. Resources

1. The RPC supports and projects the majority of the funding for the coalition. Other funding comes from fund-raising, grant writing and in-kind contributions.

2. The libraries have been a very important resource for the Truancy Diversion Project of the coalition, contributed nearly $18,000 in-kind services.

3. Yes it is. So much of the coalition’s assistance comes from the community sector, which is what we would expect, since it is a community coalition.

4. We would like to more actively engage the schools, but we know their resources are very limited due to state funding. We are also attempting to leverage funds from the faith community.

5. We believe that we might have had more success with the faith community if we could have obtained some actual “buy-in.”

IV. Coalition Goals and Outcomes

A. Community Change Goals

1. The goals of the coalition are: To reduce substance abuse among youth by 10% by 2010 and, over time, among adults by addressing factors that serve to increase the risk of substance abuse and factors that serve to minimize the risk; To strengthen collaboration among communities; federal, state and local governments and not-for-projects agencies to support community coalition efforts to prevent substance abuse within 12 months; To increase healthy behaviors of high-risk youth through early intervention.

2. Those have been the goals of the group since the coalition began, but they have had minor revisions over the years.

B. Risk and Protective Factors.

1. Key risk factors are laws and norms favorable to alcohol and other drug abuse, availability of drugs, community disorganization, early initiation of problem behavior and perceived risks of drug use.

2. The protective factors targeted are bonding and healthy beliefs and clear standards of behavior.

C. Outcomes

1. Population level outcomes are as follows:

a. Increase community participation in prevention Increase community participation in prevention education and community mobilization as measured by participation.

b. Increase awareness of impact of alcohol and other drug abuse as measured by community action planning/participation in events.

c. Increase knowledge of effective prevention strategies as measured by action planning process by June 2006.

d. Increase awareness of community resources as measured by pre-post surveys and participation in programs.

e. Increase knowledge of risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug abuse among parents as measured by participation in training/meetings by September 2006.

f. Increase access to evidence-based programs and strategies as measured by implementation of new programs, policies and strategies by September 2006.

g. Increase access to evidence-based programs and strategies as measured by program implementation.

h. Increase collaboration between businesses, law enforcement, media, neighborhood organizations, and prevention advocates.

i. Increased awareness of impact of alcohol and other drug abuse on children, families and communities as measured by participation in coalition training and planning.

j. Increase knowledge of effective prevention strategies and programs as evidenced by participation in co-learning and research.

k. Increase awareness of existing prevention programs and resources as measured by community resource assessment.

l. Increase resources directed toward evidence-based prevention programs and practices as measured by resource assessment.

m. Increase staff awareness of the impact of alcohol and drug abuse on the family as measured by participation.

n. Increase knowledge of evidence-based programs and strategies as measured by participation in action planning process.

o. Increase meaningful opportunities for high-risk youth to learn new skills and gain recognition for conventional involvement as measured by participation.

D. Strategies

1. General strategies are:

a) Facilitate 10 Grassroots Leadership Workshops by September 2006.

b) Conduct neighborhood level planning and implementation with a minimum of four neighborhood organizations using the Study Circles model of community mobilization by September 2006.

c) Expand opportunities for parent involvement in effective substance abuse prevention through Parent Corps training groups by September 2006.

d) Recruit a “community champion” for participation on a task force to reduce FASD by September 2006.

e) Provide training and resources for a minimum of 5 churches for implementation of evidence-based programs by September 2006.

f) Serve as a catalyst for schools to be co-learners, share information and resources, and begin outcome based planning process for their communities by September 2006.

g) Implement a multi-sector environmental strategy to reduce tobacco sales to minors beginning in November 2005.

h) Profile population needs, resources, and readiness to address needs and gaps by September 2006.

i) Mobilize and/or build capacity to address needs of a diverse population beginning in October 2005.

j) Develop a comprehensive strategic plan by February 2006.

k) Implement and encourage implementation of strategies, policies, practices, and programs that have demonstrated effectiveness with the target population by July 2006.

l) Monitor, evaluate, sustain, and improve or replace those that fail by September 2006

m) Implement training on the impact of family alcohol and drug abuse on children by July 2006.

n) Identify and evaluate existing resources by December 2005.

o) Develop an action plan to implement at least one evidence-based program in an early childhood education classroom and one alternative program by September 2006

|Broad Strategies |Coalition Specific Strategies/Components from above |

|1) Community-based Process |b) c) d) f) h) i) j) n) |

|2) Prevention Education |a) e) k) l) m) o) |

|3) Environmental Changes |g) |

V. Results

A. Coalition as Catalyst for Change

1. The graph of the coalition’s community changes is shown below.

[pic]

2. See appendix 1 for complete list of community changes. Some of the more profound changes are listed below.

3. Some of the more profound community changes revolved around the coalition’s work with Central Park Towers, which is a high-rise housing many of the persons released from state mental institutions. The living conditions were not good and the complex was a concern to the entire Central Area Betterment Assn. Because of contact by the coalition, many positive policy changes were implemented such as: management fired the on-site manager and hired two new on-site managers; cleaning supplies were made available to residents, tenants were given a copy of work order requests they initiated. Other sweeping community changes included the passage of a new graffiti ordinance (with a fine of up to $1000), Rental Licensing inspections, Landlords’ Training, and improved programs for child-care providers and parents on the effects of alcohol and other drugs on unborn children.

B. Factors Associated with Rates of Change

1. The rate of change is increasing until October of 2004 when the facilitator of the coalition retired. We expect the rate of community changes to begin increasing since the new facilitator began working with the coalition in February 2005.

2. A major key event for the coalition was the loss of the facilitator who had worked with the group since their inception. That can be noted on the graph below. Other key points are also high-lighted on the graph below.

[pic]

C. Coalition’s Contribution to Community Improvement

1. Goal areas

a. The top two goal areas are those about families living in safe and supportive communities and being part of the community’s planning and decision-making processes.

b. Since this is a community coalition, it is not surprising that the majority of the community changes are occurring “families will live in safe and supportive communities.” The second greatest area, “all citizens are part of their community’s planning, decision-making, and . . .” is also what we would expect.

2. Sectors

a. The primary sector for community changes is the community sector.

b. This is more or less what we expected, but we would have hoped for more activity in the schools. We do expect the “religious organizations” sector to grow due to the coalition’s work with the Faith Committee of the Mayor’s Council Against Domestic Violence, and the work with churches being introduced by one of two new staff members at the RPC. She has been assisting the coalition in getting past the barriers of working with churches in the community.

c. This shows us that we need to more actively engage the 5 school districts within our county, and continue to work with the faith community.

3. Strategy

a. The distribution is exactly what we expected, with the main focus of our work in community-based processes and environmental change.

b. This distribution is absolutely consistent with the goals and objectives of the coalition.

4. Key Services Provided by the Coalition

a. The most consistent service is the parent education series which has been running since 1999. We also see that a number of our services provided are trainings presented by RPC staff, after coalition members made the contact.

b. The services are being provided to parents, those who work with parents and/or young children, neighborhood leaders, and the community at large.

c. Things are pretty good in this category.

5. Risk & Protective Factors

[pic]

a. Yes, we think that we are moving state outcomes data in a positive direction.

b. From the graph above, we can see that the two biggest risk factors our coalition is impacting are the ones we targeted – Community Laws & Norms and Neighborhood Disorganization. That was no surprise.

VI Contribution to State Outcomes

1. Although we’re not the only group working on this problem, we do think that our efforts have contributed to the lowering of the targeted problem behaviors reflected on the CTC student survey.

2. You can observe from the thick green lines (see explanation) that there is overall a lessening in the behavior. Although we have attempted to analyze the little increase from ‘03 to ’04, we have not come up with a definitive solution.

|30-day alcohol use vs. CCs vs. time |30-day tobacco use vs. CCs vs. time |

|[pic] |[pic] |

|30-day marijuana use vs. CCs vs. time |Explanation |

|[pic] | |

| | |

| |Before the year 2004, the largest school district in our county (KCKPS =|

| |20,000 students) only took the survey in odd numbered years. Beginning |

| |in 2004, they have started taking the test every year. The charts shown|

| |below have an extra line added in green. We believe that line is more |

| |accurate of the data in our county because of the reason just stated. |

3. All three targeted areas have shown dramatic decreases, with alcohol and tobacco showing the most change. As a coalition, we think that might have to do with the neighborhood focus of our group. Smoking and drinking seem to be neighborhood problems, whereas marijuana use seems to be a drug problem. We realize that is just a statement of semantics, but it does reflect the perception on our community.

VII. Conclusions

A. Challenges & Strengths

1. One of the greatest strengths of our coalition is the ability to allow for the ebb and flow of coalition members according to project and need. Some members have flowed off the “active” roster for a time, only to reappear back on the “active” list at a later date. There have never been recriminations over members’ needs and how they either relate or don’t relate to the coalition. The ability to keep going in the face of that kind of fluctuation is a very great strength. We think another aspect of our coalition’s make-up that has contributed greatly to our success is that there is not a “president” or other identified political presence in the group. The facilitator is not seen as the leader, but rather as the helper, the person providing technical support. Therefore, there is no hierarchy., and no one thinks he or she is more important than another member.

2. The greatest limitation of our members is also perhaps one of their greatest strengths – they are all involved very heavily in the group of neighborhoods they serve. Occasionally a problem very specific to one neighborhood and not to the others arises in our meetings. Although sometimes that problem can be seen as having the potential of occurring in other parts of the community, sometimes it is just too specific. That can create some tension in the group, but it has never distracted them from the overall goals listed above.

3. Barriers to change are complex and varied. Some revolved around the Unified Government and their overlap into the areas worked on by the coalition. Sometimes that overlap is seen as a good thing by governmental departments, and sometimes it is not. In addition, there is still some reference back in the community’s history when certain areas were cities unto themselves and therefore independent, which is not the case now. That particular attitude appears to be continually decreasing. There is also the extreme poverty of our community. More than 75% of the children in the Kansas City Kansas public Schools qualify for free or reduced lunches. That kind of poverty affects people’s attitudes and their beliefs.

4. We have been planning to have a special training on “A Framework for Understanding Poverty,” based on the work of Ruby Payne to give us a better understanding in the differences that exist between poor, middle-class and wealthy. That is just one of the things we have discussed as a way of better understanding the citizens of our community. We have contacted a trainer.

5. As noted above, we want more involvement with the school district. We also have the opportunity to partner with United Way of Wyandotte County and the Children’s Campus of Wyandotte County on some very exciting projects.

B. Implications of Coalition Efforts

1. The most valuable lesson we have learned in that not one of us operating separately could have accomplished what we have done. Also we have seen the absolute necessity of having a paid staff person as our facilitator. During the period we were without that support, we were fairly stagnate. We should share these lessons with both potential coalition members and other coalitions working in our community so they can understand those lessons learned.

2. Nothing very surprising has arisen. See above.

3. The coalition has improved knowledge within the community around substance abuse through training, information dissemination, and collaboration with many other agencies, governmental departments and community groups.

C. Final Conclusions

1. There are always new opportunities that come with changes in membership and changes in focus. The coalition plans to remain strong and active.

2. Parent education should definitely be continued. We also must continue to work with other community sectors and remain open for opportunities.

3. We think that as a group, we could use more training and staff development to assist us in assisting the community.

4. Since our efforts have centered on the two risk factors of laws & norms favorable to use and community disorganization, there would appear to be research possibilities for seeing if a community-based coalition can truly impact substance abuse.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download