Capacity Building: Using Data to Support Community Coalitions in Substance Abuse Prevention

Introduction

Community coalitions are tasked with using the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) to implement environmental evidence based programs and practices (EBPs) for substance abuse prevention. To support the work of community coalitions, the Division of Substance Abuse Services (DSAS) has contracted with Vanderbilt University to create an Evidence Based Practice Workgroup (EBPW). One of the main goals of the EBPW is to identify conditions that promote and/or hinder effective use of environmental (EBPs) by community coalitions. When implementing new prevention strategies, questions of capacity arise. For community coalitions, capacity can be discussed at multiple levels. Within a coalition, capacity is needed within members, within the relationships between members, within the structure of the organization, and lastly, within each of the programs and strategies the coalition is part of (Foster- Fishman et al., 2001; Flaspohler et al., 2008). As such, the current study seeks to better understand how questions of capacity affect the ability of community coalitions to implement evidence-based environmental strategies to reduce substance abuse.

Methods

This mixed-methods study combines data from semi-structured interviews with 21 state-funded coalitions and an online survey of both funded and unfunded community coalitions in TN. Both the interview protocol and the survey protocol were approved by the Vanderbilt IRB. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and data were coded using the qualitative software Saturate. Multiple coders were used to establish inter-rater reliability. The completed interviews include counties representing major metropolitan areas as well as many of the Partnership for Success (PFS) grantees. The online survey was being disseminated at the time of this proposal, and will be analyzed using SPSS to corroborate and triangulate findings from the qualitative data.

Results

Preliminary themes from the interviews reveal challenges to implementing the SPF on the ground relating to questions of capacity. One notable need expressed by coalitions is support around data-driven decision making for community coalitions. Although some coalitions felt comfortable using data in the decision making process, many expressed frustrations with the challenges of using data for decision making in the SPF. These challenges can be broken down into three phases: data for needs assessment, for plan modification, and for understanding outcomes – which can be related to the planning, implementation and evaluation phases in the SPF framework. For example, coalitions note the difficulty in finding county level data that was current and accessible, for finding data in a format that was usable for their needs, and difficulty being able to use the data they did have in ways that could enhance their programs and activities.

Conclusion

Improving the ability for community coalitions to access and incorporate data into their decision-making process increases coalition capacity to successful implement aspects of the SPF. Implications for state level providers are that greater TA and training around data driven decision-making can enhance coalition effectiveness in implementing the SPF.