Leveraged Resources and Systems Changes in Community Collaboration

Most models of community collaboration emphasize the ability of diverse partners to come together to enact systematic changes that improve the health of individuals and communities. The ability of these groups to leverage resources is thought to be an important marker of successful collaboration and eventual improvements in community health. However, there is a paucity of research addressing linkages between systems change activities and leveraged resources. This study used a sample of collaboratives (N = 157) that received technical assistance and funding through the Georgia Family Connection Partnership (GaFCP) between 2006 and 2007. Data were collected from collaborative report of activities and funding, member ratings of collaborative functioning, and characteristics of the communities served by the collaboratives drawn from US Census data. Cross-lagged regression models tested longitudinal associations between systems change activities and leveraged dollars. The results indicated that systems change activities predict increased leveraging of resources from state/federal and private partners. However, there was no evidence that systems changes were linked with leveraging resources from local groups and agencies. These findings have important implications for providing technical assistance and training to health partnerships. Furthermore, future research should consider the relative strength of different systems change activities in relation to the ability of coalitions to leverage resources.     

Collective Action Meets Prospect Theory: An Application to Coalition Building in Chile, 1973–75

Expected utility theory explains collective action as an attempt by individuals to maximize their gains. In contrast, my application of prospect theory to collective action suggests that people are motivated to participate in collective action by a fear of loss. These alternative rationalities are considered in the context of the successful cooperative effort of four economic groups in Chile during 1973–75, the first years of the Pinochet military regime. In this case, the logic of prospect theory better captures how actors made decisions about whether or not to engage in collective action. Of the four groups that did join the 1973–75 economic coalition, only one (the mineowners) appears to have maximized its net asset level, as expected utility theory predicts. All four groups seem to have been motivated to cooperate because they found themselves in the domain of losses and expected that cooperation with other, even rival, economic groups might help them recoup their recent losses.     

What Motivates People to Participate More in Community‐based Coalitions?

The purpose of this study was to identify potential opportunities for improving member participation in community-based coalitions. We hypothesized that opportunities for influence and process competence would each foster higher levels of individual member participation. We tested these hypotheses in a sample of 818 members within 79 youth-oriented coalitions. Opportunities for influence were measured as members' perceptions of an inclusive board leadership style and members' reported committee roles. Coalition process competence was measured through member perceptions of strategic board directedness and meeting effectiveness. Members reported three types of participation within meetings as well as how much time they devoted to coalition business beyond meetings. Generalized linear models accommodated clustering of individuals within coalitions. Opportunities for influence were associated with individuals' participation both within and beyond meetings. Coalition process competence was not associated with participation. These results suggest that leadership inclusivity rather than process competence may best facilitate member participation.     

The Paradoxes and Promise of Community Coalitions

Community coalitions, as they are currently applied, are unique organizations whose ability to promote community change is different from other types of community organizations. This article explores those differences and elaborates how community coalitions can use those differences to transform conflict into greater capacity, equity, and justice. Concerns are also raised in this article about how community coalitions can intentionally and unintentionally protect the status quo and contain the empowerment of grassroots leadership and those of marginalized groups. There is a need for more theory, research, and discourse on how community coalitions can transform conflict into social change and how they can increase the power of grassroots and other citizen-lead organizations.     

Building Collaborative Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework

This article presents the results of a qualitative analysis of 80 articles, chapters, and practitioners' guides focused on collaboration and coalition functioning. The purpose of this review was to develop an integrative framework that captures the core competencies and processes needed within collaborative bodies to facilitate their success. The resulting framework for building collaborative capacity is presented. Four critical levels of collaborative capacity—member capacity, relational capacity, organizational capacity, and programmatic capacity—are described and strategies for building each type are provided. The implications of this model for practitioners and scholars are discussed.     

Is Political Conservatism Adaptive? Reinterpreting Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation as Evolved,Sociofunctional Strategies

The Dual Process Model (DPM) explains prejudice and political conservatism as functions of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Duckitt, 2001). From an evolutionary perspective, such orientations may represent specific adaptations to coalitional competition in the ancestral environment (Sinn & Hayes, 2016). Supporting this view, recent research suggests the two orientations represent divergent strategies, with RWA pursuing an honest‐cooperator strategy and SDO a deceptive, cooperation‐mimicking strategy (Heylen & Pauwels, 2015). In two studies, we examine additional evidence for an adaptationist interpretation of DPM. Utilizing life history theory, Study 1 finds that RWA reflects the predicted “slow” strategy by endorsing planning and control, investment in family relationships, altruism, and religiosity. In contrast, SDO reflects a “fast” strategy by devaluing planning and control, secure relationships, and altruism. Utilizing rank management theory, Study 2 finds that RWA reflects a prosocial orientation, endorsing coalition building and social networking while rejecting deception and manipulation. In contrast, SDO reflects an exploitive orientation, rejecting coalition building and networking but endorsing ruthless self‐advancement and deceptive tactics. These findings support an adaptationist revision of RWA to recognize its prosocial, honest‐cooperator dimension and of SDO to recognize proself, “dark” tactics seeking power within groups.     

Small Wins Matter in Advocacy Movements: Giving Voice to Patients

In this article, the various players are delineated in a story of a contested illness and patient advocacy, played out within the corridors of federal power. It is suggested that the mistreatment and negative attitudes that health care providers and others have towards those with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is possibly due to the social construction of this illness as being a "Yuppie flu" disease. Institutional factors are identified that created these norms and attributions, as well as the multiple stakeholders and constituent groups invested in exerting pressure on policy makers to effect systemic change. This article also provides examples of how the field of Community Psychology, which is fundamentally committed to/based on listening to and giving voice to patients, is broadly relevant to patient activism communities. This approach focused, over time, on epidemiological studies, the name, the case definition, and ultimately the change in CFS leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Keys to this "small wins" approach were coalition building, use of "oppositional experts" (professionals in the scientific community who support patient advocacy goals) to challenge federal research, and taking advantage of developing events/shifts in power. Ultimately, this approach can result in significant scientific and policy gains, and changes in medical and public perception of an illness.     

Building Interdisciplinary/Intersectoral Research Partnerships for Community-Based Mental Health Research with Older Minority Adults

Community-based research often brings investigators from different disciplinary backgrounds together with community representatives to conduct research on topics of mutual concern. This paper describes a case example that illustrates an interdisciplinary/intersectoral study of depression and barriers to mental health care among older adults and illustrate the factors central to implementing a successful research partnership. It will address the following conditions that facilitate and challenge interdisciplinary/intersectoral research: (1) achieving commonality of purpose in study design and research and referral approaches; (2) ensuring the ability to develop, field-test and implement psychometrically rigorous and culturally and qualitatively appropriate instruments; (3) building effective management structures for interdisciplinary/intersectoral research partnerships; and (4) identifying, training and supporting qualified researchers to carry out a mental health study with older ethnically diverse adults. The paper concludes with strengths and limitations of the approach.     

Top-Down,Bottom-Up,and Around the Jungle Gym: A Social Exchange and Networks Approach to Engaging Afterschool Programs in Implementing Evidence-Based Practices

This paper uses concepts from social networks and social exchange theories to describe the implementation of evidence-based practices in afterschool programs. The members of the LEGACY Together Afterschool Project team have been involved in conducting collaborative research to migrate a behavioral strategy that has been documented to reduce disruptive behaviors in classroom settings to a new setting—that of afterschool programs. We adapted the Paxis Institute’s version of the Good Behavior Game to afterschool settings which differ from in-school settings, including more fluid attendance, multiple age groupings, diverse activities that may take place simultaneously, and differences in staff training and experience (Barrish et al. in J Appl Behav Anal 2(2):119–124, 1969; Embry et al. in The Pax Good Behavior Game. Hazelden, Center City, 2003; Hynes et al. in J Child Serv 4(3):4–20, 2009; Kellam et al. in Drug Alcohol Depend 95:S5–S28, 2008; Tingstrom et al. in Behav Modif 30(2):225–253, 2006). This paper presents the experiences of the three adult groups involved in the implementation process who give first-person accounts of implementation: (1) university-based scientist-practitioners, (2) community partners who trained and provided technical assistance/coaching, and (3) an afterschool program administrator. We introduce here the AIMS model used to frame the implementation process conceptualized by this town–gown collaborative team. AIMS builds upon previous work in implementation science using four phases in which the three collaborators have overlapping roles: approach/engagement, implementation, monitoring, and sustainability. Within all four phases principles of Social Exchange Theory and Social Network Theory are highlighted.