Community Type

The Lake County Fighting Back Project served Lake County, IL, an area with a population of over 500,000. The county covers 454 square miles and is composed of 6 cities, 47 villages, and 48 school districts. The county's population ranges from the very wealthy to the very poor, and from rural neighborhoods to suburban and urban communities. It is 83 percent white, with the African American and Hispanic communities making up the next largest ethnic groups at 7 percent each. In recent years, the county has experienced considerable growth that has changed formerly rural areas into commuter suburbs.

The partnership's major drug concerns were alcohol abuse and marijuana and cocaine use. Both the use of other illicit drugs and the formation of gangs appeared to be on the rise in the community as well.

Youth alcohol use, experimentation, and abuse also were on the rise, with binge drinking among 11th graders slightly higher than the national average (based on a partnership-conducted school survey). The high incidence of youths driving while intoxicated (DWI) also was a major problem in the area. Of the 11th graders responding to the survey, more than 23 percent reported that they had driven under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. DWI was a serious problem in the adult population of the community as well.

Lake County Fighting Back was classified as serving a community--a middle- or working-class community where drug problems were considered to be newly rising or beginning to reach unacceptable levels, but where the community already had considerable prevention services and infrastructure (thus, resource rich).

Partnership's Organizational Features

A number of substance abuse prevention-related programs operated prior to the start of the partnership. However, although there were prevention programs in the county, gaps in service existed. One of the founding goals of the partnership was to identify the gaps and coordinate services within and between these areas. In addition, in spite of the prevalence of the alcohol problems in the community, there were no apparent substance abuse prevention messages in the newspapers--or on local television, radio, or highway billboards.

Lake County Fighting Back started in 1989 with the formation of eight subcommittees representing the eight key areas of the community affected by or impacting substance use problems as identified by the partnership: criminal justice, youth, family, business and labor, health and treatment, education, community, and religion.

The partnership maintained its original structure during its first two years, including the eight subcommittees, an executive council, and a project staff. Changes in the organization of the partnership during its third year, coupled with staff turnover (including project director turnover during each of the first 3 years), resulted in changes in the partnership, focusing on a broader mission that emphasized community organizing.

The partnership then developed four action teams for its four major strategies: healthy child and family, local partnerships, technical assistance, and public policy. Each team focused on developing prevention capacities within the 50 individual communities in the area, providing communication and coordination mechanisms for them. At this point, the partnership was composed of an executive council, a steering committee, the four action teams, a media committee, a religious committee, the youth network, and the Student Assistance Professionals.

The local partnerships were perceived as agents of change, ensuring that their communities were free of conditions that could contribute to the myriad causes of substance abuse. Substance abuse prevention was addressed indirectly through generalized community enhancement and the development of healthy and resilient families, rather than through more direct prevention activities. The county started with 6 local partnerships and grew to 17, plus a number of youth partnerships. Each local community partnership continued to operate independently and to decided for itself how to structure and organize.

The partnership peaked at 400 listed members, mostly criminal justice professionals. It had some difficulty reaching the business community. The actual active membership was also was considerably smaller than the listed number, even though there was no formal process for becoming a partner. In general, the partnership members believed that all the key agencies were included in the partnership but expressed concern about the adequacy of minority representation.

While the partnership was successful in targeting almost all major elements that needed to be included in comprehensive prevention efforts (with the exception of the workplace), it was not able to develop a comprehensive, long-term prevention strategy to guide the efforts of its different components.

During its first 2 years, before turning to its community organizing strategy, the partnership suffered from early excessive staff turnover. The rate of turnover has since become more stable and staff have played a significant role in coordinating partnership's work.

Prevention and Policy Activities

One of the partnership's major activities was the training provision and the establishment of roundtables for the local partnerships. The workshops were attended by representatives from most of the area's partnerships and drew groups ranging from 20 to 70 people.

The partnership also established a law enforcement roundtable for the multiple law enforcement agencies in the county. On average, about 10 representatives from different law enforcement agencies participated in these roundtables.

As part of its developmental dollars program, the partnership provided funding to prevention organizations and local government agencies for the development of prevention efforts. In fiscal year 1994-95, eight projects were funded with dollar amounts ranging from $650 to $2,000.

The partnership also created a "Fax Tree" and disseminated information regarding legislation impacting substance abuse issues and prevention efforts.

The partnership assumed an active role in prevention policies, supporting a county-wide teen curfew, training for alcohol servers at festivals, a state zero tolerance law for drivers under 18, reduced blood alcohol levels for drivers under 21, fines for open alcohol containers in automobiles, and additional fines for transporting minors while intoxicated.

Partnership Outcomes

Lake County experienced statistically significant reductions in substance use relative to its matched comparison community. According to the survey, alcohol use declined significantly for 10th graders during the past month and the past year. All other substance use outcomes showed reductions relative to the comparison community, though not statistically significant.

The partnership is also is credited with raising community awareness of drug problems in the county. It was identified as the driving force behind the now considerable exchange and coordination among local and county agencies, such as law enforcement and other service providers. The roundtables helped to build more cooperative efforts and establish a sense that many problems and solutions can be achieved by being a part of the county and not just as separate efforts within the 50 different communities.

One of the main legislative efforts, support of the zero tolerance law for minors found driving under the influence, came to a successful end when it the law was enacted in January 1995.

Inhibiting Conditions

Lake County Fighting Back suffered from early staff turnover that was not resolved until midway through the partnership grant.

In addition, the partnership suffered from a lack of a comprehensive plan, which left the various members and local partnerships with little guidance or a sense of an overarching goal. It was difficult for the partnership to define a broad-based connection between partnership work, substance abuse trends, and other community drug use indicators, and there was no strong coordination between the various local partnerships' visions. However, local partnerships may have adopted their own comprehensive plans.

The partnership also operated in a region with a large number of other active prevention groups, resulting in some turf conflict and overlapping services.

Partnership Status

Lake County Fighting Back was selected to receive a coalition grant from SAMHSA/CSAP. The partnership has relocated and changed its fiscal agent in December 1995. The partnership has been looking into ways to transfer some of the partnership's functions to others.

El Paso, TX

Community Type

The SAFE 2000 Community Partnership served El Paso, TX, a city of about 590,000, near the Mexican border. Approximately 70 percent of its population is Hispanic. The area is one of the poorest regions in the United States, and the city itself is the fifth poorest city in the U.S. Approximately 25 percent of families fall below the poverty line. The unemployment rate was 12.1 percent in January 1996. The poverty in the city is visible; about 5,000 people are homeless, and as many as 50,000 live in uncharted subdivisions of substandard housing in which families own their individual lots, but generally lack water, sewers, and paved roads.

The city has been identified as the number one gateway for drugs from South America. While alcohol was a major problem, with a neighboring town offering cheaper alcohol with few restrictions on sales to minors, the community was more concerned with illicit drugs and crimes. The community viewed alcohol as socially acceptable. Arrest rates for intoxicated behavior in the city were high.

The city was also home to a large number of gangs. Police estimates placed the number of gangs in the city at more than 4,000.

SAFE 2000 was classified as serving a Type C community--a community where substance use has been high or chronic for a long period of time.

Partnership's Organizational Features

The general consensus was that El Paso had an adequate supply of drug treatment facilities but had not developed the resources to launch an effective community prevention education campaign. The partnership was formed with a focus on youth, and emphasis was placed upon coordinating services--to minimize duplication. These concepts were framed within the context of a grassroots movement, whereby the community determined its priorities and worked with policymakers to develop strategies for tackling prevention problems.

The partnership was guided by a steering committee and a coordinating body. The steering committee consisted of 21 members who were heads of organizations from different community sectors and was chaired by a mayoral appointee. The steering committee experienced undesirable turnover during the partnership's final years of SAMHSA/CSAP funding. However, the partnership's staff remained stable and committed in the final 2 years of the partnership.

SAFE 2000 had task forces in seven of the city's eight districts, created to organize grassroots support and to encourage the generation of solutions to community problems within the community itself. Each district liaison recruited and organized interested neighborhoods and helped them develop and implement their own plans for prevention. The task forces generally consisted of approximately 8 to 25 active members, with outreach efforts touching hundreds.

The structure of the partnership was developed to include three levels of representation and participation: city leaders, neighborhood members, and youth.

There was no formal process for becoming a partnership member; those who expressed an interest and desire to help were considered members. This lack of a formal process was intentional; by making it less intimidating to interested individuals and agencies who could not commit a certain number of hours to the partnership, turf issues and competition were reduced and many people were allowed to participate. During the final year of SAMHSA/CSAP funding, more than 100 agencies and volunteers were listed as members.

In addition to serving as support for the neighborhood task forces, partnership staff also served on boards of other substance abuse prevention organizations, acting as information resources for similar efforts in the community. Through such linkages, the partnership was able to connect individuals and groups to one another and eliminate rivalry.

With the city as its fiscal agent, the partnership learned to move an issue through the political system. Partnership staff also helped the neighborhood task forces learn to interact with the city departments.

Prevention and Policy Activities

The neighborhood task forces carried out specific prevention activities, while the partnership emphasized community mobilization and training (including youth training), and the support of prevention activities. The partnership provided training and assistance to the task forces on the ways of conducting meetings, selection of committees and boards of directors, by-laws development, establishment of organizational structure, funds management, and ability to formalize ideas into written proposals and move them through the city system.

From 1992, the partnership's mini-grant program distributed approximately $25,000 each year to local substance abuse prevention initiatives. Many of the successful projects became self-supporting, such as the wilderness project, which provided alternative activities to high-risk youths at halfway houses.

Through its workplace initiative, which promoted drug-free workplaces, the partnership succeeded in recruiting a core group of 25-30 committed businesses to provide training and technical assistance to other businesses. A resource guide for small businesses, listing 30 services for troubled employers or employees, was also developed. The initiative increased local businesses' participation and support of the task forces in their neighborhood communities.

Other partnership prevention activities included a designated driver program (an awareness program for students and the general public); the "Showcase of Bands" (an alcohol-free youth concert); the "Family Picnic" (an alcohol-free family activity); the "Binational Project" (which included activities promoting substance abuse prevention across the border); and a community walk.

The partnership was not heavily involved in efforts to change or support policies. However, it did promote drug-free zones and drug-free workplaces, and it contributed to the demolition of several crack houses.

Partnership Outcomes

El Paso experienced statistically significant reductions in substance use relative to its matched comparison community. Significant reductions were found in the use of alcohol by 10th graders during the last year. Other substance use outcomes, except for eighth graders' use of alcohol in the past year, showed nonsignificant gains over comparison community.

The partnership also managed to build collaborative relationships that did not previously exist. It strengthened relationships with the police department, the school system and local university, and the local substance abuse prevention organizations.

SAFE 2000 successfully empowered several neighborhood task forces and their communities to take control of the substance abuse problems in their neighborhood. For instance, the partnership managed to mobilize a group of low-income Mexican-American women to develop leadership and a political voice. As a result, the women obtained $500,000 in funding from the city to renovate a park previously frequented by drug dealers.

The partnership also organized a group in a neighborhood with a great deal of illicit drug activity and violent incidents. This task force mobilized remaining residents to participate in community clean-ups and brought a small clinic and recreation center to its community. The task force changed its neighborhood name, as defined by the media, in an effort to change the neighborhood's image.

Another neighborhood task force developed a permanent central community center, and its activities included daily training for kids, computer training, recreation programs, and training for families on nutrition, health, and citizenship issues.

Inhibiting Conditions

The partnership had to deal with turf conflict among drug treatment serviceproviders. These groups were seen as very protective of their turf and unwilling to support prevention efforts.

Staff turnover was not high. However, it was disruptive because the city government was the lead agency, and the process for hiring a replacement took a long time and disrupted the task forces' organizational development.

In addition, turnover in the steering committee's leadership also was disruptive. The new chair lacked the commitment and enthusiasm of his predecessor, and consequently, the partnership lost its direct line of communication to the mayor, as well as the city's proactive support.

Some neighborhood task forces experienced a high turnover rate and a lack of citizen involvement.

Partnership Status

At the time of the evaluation's last site visit, SAFE 2000 did not have a strategic plan for its future beyond SAMHSA/CSAP funding. The partnership's main priority was to advance the task forces to a point where they could function on their own. The partnership was in the process of helping each task force develop a transition plan. In addition, the partnership provided each task force with minigrants of $5,000 for their preparation toward becoming self-sustaining. The goal was that the most developed task force would obtain 501(c)(3) status and function as an umbrella organization for the remaining task forces. Six of seven task forces had begun to raise funds for work beyond the life of the partnership.

One month after SAMHSA/CSAP funding ended, the partnership obtained 501(c)(3) status and continues work on its prevention activities.

Some other components of the partnership were also likely to continue after SAMHSA/CSAP funding ended, including the parent-to-parent training program and some of the programs initially funded through the minigrant program that had succeeded in obtaining funds from other agencies or organizations.

South Central Los Angeles, CA

Community Type

The Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment was a partnership in South Central Los Angeles, CA, that served approximately 850,000 persons. The community is predominantly African American, with a 20-50 percent Hispanic population.

South Central Los Angeles has suffered from the highest number of drug-related and juvenile drug-related arrests in the city and surrounding county, the highest rates of cocaine and heroin use, the highest rates of juveniles living in poverty, and the greatest rate of housing vacancies. The area also was home to a high concentration of liquor stores. In 1990, there were 728 liquor licenses within 40 square miles of the area, a rate more than 10 times that of the rest of the county.

Portions of the community had become a dumping ground for medical waste, and auto paint shops in alleys, recycling centers in the neighborhood, and blighted housing all had become breeding grounds for illicit behavior. The local unemployment level was estimated at 47 percent.

The partnership was classified as serving a Type C community--a community where substance use has been high or chronic for a long period of time.

Partnership's Organizational Features

The partnership grew out of coalition-building that began in 1989, when a conference was convened on the problem of crack cocaine in the African American community. The conference allowed the partnership to apply for SAMHSA/CSAP funding. At the outset, the partnership identified the overconcentration of liquor outlets as the issue of highest priority to the community.

The Community Coalition began with a few major strengths: its membership's breadth of experience, consisting of many agencies and individuals already involved in community organizing and substance abuse prevention; its representation of government, health, law enforcement, youth and family services, universities, medicine, religion, and other key institutions; and its demonstrated skill in dealing with the media. The partnership had more than 400 members.

The partnership also established a strong intergenerational focus. The concepts of eldership and role-modeling were employed by the partnership as strategies for recruiting and building an ongoing volunteer base. Elders served as mentors for both the partnership leaders and the youth volunteers. Many of the elders were actively involved in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and several of the strategies used by the partnership were borrowed from that era, such as canvasing the community and participating in demonstrations. The partnership's staff and its members were active participants and organizers in many community efforts.

The Community Coalition had an informal organizational structure, with the main decision-making body being a board of directors. The programmatic focus of the partnership had three components: an environmental strategy for dealing with drug and alcohol community nuisance problems; the development of youth leadership skills in the delivery of substance abuse prevention messages to peers; and the coordination of technical assistance in the form of training and educational conferences and activities for social service providers.

The partnership initiated the "Neighborhoods Fighting Back" program, a permanent watchdog organization. Fifty-nine neighborhoods with geographically specific boundaries were active within the partnership's target area.

Prevention and Policy Activities

The prevention activities were organized around neighborhood, social services, and youth components.

The battle against the rebuilding of liquor stores in the area was one of the partnership's biggest projects. The partnership met with members of the mayor's office, the City Planning Commission and Department, and the Alcohol Beverage Control Board to discuss increasing the revocation of liquor licenses.

The partnership also formed a permanent watchdog organization as one of its main prevention activities. The program addressed alcohol and substance abuse prevention from an environmental perspective and organized residents and decision-makers around issues relating to street drug sales, crack houses, alcohol and tobacco advertising, and illegal tobacco sales to youths.

The youth activities were aimed at providing a voice for youths, training them to become community volunteers and organizers. The Teen Tobacco Awareness Project attempted to purchase tobacco products in a number of liquor stores and documented its findings in a survey. The project's youth component launched a voter education campaign on a ballot initiative that would send those convicted of three felonies to jail for life, calling for youth convictions to be exempted from the initiative.

The partnership also provided technical assistance to other organizations and agencies.

Partnership Outcomes

The partnership community showed statistically significant reductions in substance use, relative to its comparison community. Significant reductions were found in the use of alcohol reported by eighth graders during the past month and past year combined.

The partnership fought successfully for stronger local laws controlling the rebuilding of liquor stores, following civil unrest that had destroyed many of the stores. As a result, and the area now has 150 fewer liquor stores. Other liquor stores approved for rebuilding were required to have security guards and improved lighting. As a result of its "Rebuild Campaign," the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control has been expanded to include the ability to impose and enforce conditions on the issuance of beer and wine licenses, directly affecting the sale and consumption of alcohol in the community. Due in part to the work of the partnership, the potential problems surrounding alcohol outlets raised awareness statewide, leading to the consideration of state legislation.

Among other actions, the partnership, through its "Neighborhoods Fighting Back" project, successfully forced an absentee landlord to board up an abandoned house that had been used for cocaine trafficking and consumption. Also, the partnership area's teens convinced a city council representative to develop a new ordinance that would levy financial penalties on those selling tobacco to underage youths.

The Community Coalition was extremely successful in gaining and influencing media attention for its efforts. After each partnership campaign was developed, the partnership sought media coverage for the campaign, trying to help shape the story. The partnership maintained a listing of all and categorized them by potential print opportunities. The partnership's strategy has worked so well that the media comes to the partnership for ideas and expert opinion on certain topics. The partnership has been featured on network TV as well as on respected public TV broadcasts, such as the "McNeil/Lehrer Report."

Inhibiting Conditions

During 1993, the partnership suffered from some fragmentation of component areas and constituencies, which it attempted to resolve through greater emphasis on joint programs.

Partnership Status

In 1994, the Partnership received 501(c)(3) status, and responsibility for the SAMHSA/CSAP grant shifted to the new nonprofit organization. In 1995, the Partnership applied successfully for a SAMHSA/ CSAP coalition grant.

The project director had devoted considerable time to identifying resources that could be used to help the partnership remain viable beyond the SAMHSA/CSAP grant. The partnership's extensive network was instrumental in helping identify potential sources of future funding. Among other support, the city has invested $450,000 in rehabilitating a city-owned building for partnership use. This new headquarters is located in the midst of an area that was severely damaged by civic unrest and has since become the center of a major community and economic revitalization project.

During the life of the partnership, it provided technical assistance to a number of organizations and agencies. Because of grant constraints, these services did not have an associated fee. One of the partnership's current goals is to develop a fee schedule and to begin marketing its services for hire.

Knox, Laurel, and Whitley Counties, KY

Community Type

The Tri-County Substance Abuse Prevention Alliance was located in a southern community composed of three counties with a total population of about 107,000. The region has historically been characterized by extreme poverty, and most residents live in rural, often remote areas.

The partnership community is predominantly white; racial minorities make up less than 2 percent of the population.

Alcohol and tobacco use, especially smokeless tobacco among teenagers, is common. Recent attempts to reduce DUI levels from .10 to .08 failed in the Kentucky legislature.

The marijuana trade is viewed as having a strong positive effect on the local economy, but is not abused locally. Prior to the production of marijuana, the region was known for its moonshiners.

The partnership was classified as serving a Type D community--a community with a local economy in which production or distribution of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or illicit substances is a significant component.

Partnership's Organizational Features

The partnership began when various community groups had an emerging interest in addressing the substance use problems in the region. An annual community needs assessment survey of parents and low-income social service clients also found an increased concern over illicit drug and alcohol use in the community.

The partnership's main objectives were to provide a mechanism to promote new and coordinated services and service delivery for the minority population; to determine the scope and nature of the substance abuse problems; to act as a conduit of information, referral, and technical assistance to organizations, communities, business, and government; and to promote the collaborative efforts of service providers.

The Alliance was made up of approximately 30 members. Membership was mostly composed of social service professionals. The partnership had 10-12 active and stable partners at the core of its membership.

The staff and the partnership chair played a significant role in support of the partnership. The project director remained the same throughout the life of the partnership, providing continuity and historical knowledge.

The Policy Committee served as a steering committee, made award decisions on developmental support funds, and decided when a strategic planning session was needed.

Four additional committees focused on specific issues, including family involvement; community education and awareness; academic and career achievement; and resource development.

The partnership's decision-making process allowed anyone to bring forward any item, either in committee or in full session, where plans of action are agreed upon by consensus.

Prevention and Policy Activities

The partnership held an all-day strategic planning meeting in February 1994, focusing on five planning issues: marijuana use and cultivation, parental permissiveness, lack of recreational or alternative activities, lack of community awareness about the partnership, and lack of awareness about alcohol and tobacco abuse.

One of the partnership's major activities was its provision of service dollars to community-based organizations, allocating $25,000 annually for this purpose.

The partnership has acted as an information and referral source and has coordinated efforts of representatives of the three counties. Other activities included its workplace program and the advent of family resource youth service centers (which provided direct assistance and referral to families and school children with basic needs, including substance abuse services).

The Alliance helped to support existing DARE and other prevention programs, like Peer Helpers and Red Ribbon Week. It helped the DARE program expand by developing materials to be used with fourth and fifth graders.

It concentrated its policy efforts on an initiative to increase the substance possession penalty at local schools from a 10-day suspension to immediate expulsion.

Partnership Outcomes

The partnership community showed statistically significant reductions in substance use, relative to its comparison community. Significant reductions were found "in the use of illicit drugs during the past year and the past month" reported by eighth graders.

The Alliance promoted the coordination of services for minority populations and shared information about substance abuse problems. The partnership was able to bring representatives from the three counties together to coordinate and pursue more effective prevention efforts.

The advent of family resource youth service centers in the area has also been linked to partnership efforts. The partnership's survey results, which clearly illustrated a need for such centers, were used in applications to the state for funding. The partnership's county coordinators worked closely with the centers to lend support to its activities and to coordinate efforts for events.

The partnership was also credited with having been a mobilizing force among social service agents.

Inhibiting Conditions

The partnership's major inhibitor has been its lack of identity in the community. To outsiders, it appears to be an activity of the lead organization. For example, there are no signs indicating the partnership's location within the organization's offices.

The Alliance has also had little success in engaging the interests of the business, faith, or grassroots community groups. The overwhelming predominance of social service providers has resulted in a concern that the partnership many not truly represent the community, but rather represents the perspective of the social service industry.

The partnership also suffered from some turf conflict. There were a number of prevention activities independent of the partnership, including after-school programs, treatment programs, and outreach programs. This also made it possible that there were rival explanations for any reductions in substance use.

Partnership Status

The partnership formed an ad hoc committee to explore potential sources of future funding.

In addition, the lead organization had committed to continue to support the community coordinator position with funds obtained through a community services block grant. The committee members felt that they would likely be able to continue with their direct services activities. They were confident that they would be able to secure the necessary funding to maintain the level of activity that they had held in the past.

References

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). (1993). National evaluation of the Community Partnership Demonstration Grant Program: Third annual report. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

CSAP. (1995). National evaluation of the Community Partnership Demonstration Grant Program: Fourth annual report. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

CSAP. (1997). National evaluation of the Community Partnership Demonstration Grant Program: Fifth annual report. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Kaftarian, S. J., & Yin, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Local and national outcomes from Community Partnerships to Prevent Substance Abuse. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20 (3).

Yin, R. K., Kaftarian, S. J., Yu, P., & Jansen, M. A. (1997). Outcomes from CSAP's Community Partnership Program: Findings from the National Cross-Site Evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20 (3), 345-355.