Community Type A: Resource-rich community. The partnership is located in a metropolitan area of 240,000, 4.5 percent of whom are minorities (about half of whom are African American), with a poverty rate higher than that of the whole State (but with considerable growth and upgrading since the early 1990's).
Alcohol abuse was the major concern (the 33,000 students at local universities have been a sizeable group at risk). Increased gang presence and drug trafficking were emerging problems.
Partnership's Organizational Features
Grew to 108 organizational members and 50 to 60 individual members, with 15 standing committees, 15 subcommittees, and 8 spinoff projects by 1995.
Community organizing concentrated on 21 neighborhoods, with 18 neighborhood organizers--promoting empowerment, grassroots input, and volunteerism.
Project director, other long-term staff, and part-time neighborhood organizers served as community catalysts, encouraging decisionmaking by members.
Five-year overall plan with additional annual committee plans focused on specific targets.
Partnership's early vision recognized need for awareness, coordination, and filling service gaps, given general posture of community denial about underage drinking.
Prevention and Policy Activities
Many multiagency activities (gang task force, "one-stop shopping" for social services at schools).
Workplace initiative, public service announcement media campaigns, and mini-grant program.
Frequent policy initiatives, State and local, on zero tolerance, antigraffiti, banning over-the-counter sales of stimulants used by youth, entertainment zone, and others.
Partnership Outcomes
Statistically significant reductions (relative to comparison community) found in the use of illicit drugs (for past month and past year) and alcohol (for past year) by 10th graders.
All other substance abuse outcomes (except adult drug abuse in the past month) showed reductions relative to comparison community, although not statistically significant.
Coordination among public and private agencies dramatically increased.
National recognition for accomplishments.
Extensive additional support from Federal, State, and industry sources.
Model for community participation adopted by 22 counties and promoted throughout the State.
Barriers To Be Overcome
Difficulty reaching out to members of faith communities.
Some neighborhood groups too large, reducing success of community organizers.
Turf issues with drug prevention council.
Partnership Status
Prospects for continuing were promising as of 1996. Partnership had applied for 501(c)(3) status and secured funding for seven of eight spinoff projects.
Community Type A:
Resource-rich community. The partnership is in a county with a population of over 500,000, 83 percent white (African-American and Hispanic groups are 7 percent each). The county has 6 cities, 47 villages, and 48 school districts and is a suburb of Chicago. Family income varies highly, and growth has changed rural areas into commuter suburbs.
Major drug concerns were alcohol abuse, marijuana and cocaine abuse, youth alcohol abuse, driving while intoxicated, and increased drug seizures and drug arrests.
Partnership's Organizational Features
Partnership peaked at 400 members, mostly criminal justice professionals, and unfortunately had some difficulty reaching the business community.
Mission was to "promote environment where healthy lifestyles, hope, and opportunity replace alcohol, tobacco, and other drug abuse for all persons in the community."
Focused on developing prevention capacities within the 50 individual communities in the area, providing communication and coordination mechanism for them.
Started with 6, grew to 17 local partnerships that operate with independent approaches to prevention.
Early staff turnover before partnership turned to community organizing strategy. Staff have since played a significant role in coordinating partnership's work.
Prevention and Policy Activities
Led training and roundtables for local partnerships and law enforcement, and created prevention resource database. Also provided developmental dollars to local projects.
Local partnerships carried out broad variety of prevention activities.
"Fax tree" informed members about new legislation that could affect drug prevention.
Supported zero tolerance law, lower blood-alcohol-content limits for young drivers, higher fines for fake IDs and transporting alcohol, county-wide teen curfew, and training of alcohol servers at festivals.
Partnership Outcomes
Statistically significant reductions (relative to comparison community) found in alcohol abuse (for the past month and past year) by 10th graders.
All other substance abuse outcomes also showed reductions relative to the comparison community, although not statistically significant.
Driving force behind coordination among agencies (i.e., police and other service providers).
Zero tolerance enacted in January 1995.
Barriers To Be Overcome
Suffered from early staff turnover, not resolved until midway through partnership grant.
Lack of comprehensive plan, leaving local partnerships with no overarching goals.
Many active prevention groups in area, resulting in turf conflict and overlapping services.
Partnership Status
Partnership changed fiscal agent in December 1995. Continues as a coalition, receiving SAMHSA/CSAP coalition award.
Community Type C: Chronic abuse community. The partnership is in a city of 591,610 near the Mexican border. The city is the fifth poorest in the United States, with about 25 percent of families living below the poverty level. Whole sections of the city are dominated by low-income rentals, and unincorporated areas surrounding part of the city lack water, proper drainage, and paved roads. About 70 percent of the population is Hispanic.
The city has been the number one gateway for drugs from South America, and a neighboring town offers cheaper alcohol with few restrictions on sales to minors. The arrest rates for intoxicated behavior in the city were high.
Partnership's Organizational Features
Over 100 agency and volunteer members; membership informal, with emphasis on recruitment for neighborhood task forces.
Consisted of coordinating body (with law enforcement, schools, service providers, and grassroots members) overseeing task forces in seven of eight neighborhoods.
Staff served on boards of other drug prevention organizations, acting as information resources.
With city government as a fiscal agent, partnership learned to move issues through the system.
Prevention and Policy Activities
Task forces carried out prevention activities, while partnership emphasized community mobilization and training (including youths) and support of prevention activities.
No heavy policy involvement; did promote drug-free zones and demolition of crack houses.
Distributed $25,000 each year to local substance abuse initiatives through mini-grant program.
Partnership Outcomes
Statistically significant reductions (relative to comparison community) found in the abuse of alcohol by 10th graders for the past year.
Other substance abuse outcomes, except for 8th graders' abuse of alcohol in the past year, showed (nonsignificant) gains over comparison community.
One task force obtained $500,000 in city funds to restore a park, eliminating illegal drug activities and increasing safety for children and families.
Strengthened relationships among police, schools, the university, and substance abuse organizations. Also improved police relations with different communities.
Another task force changed neighborhood name as defined by media, also changing image.
Barriers To Be Overcome
Turf conflict with drug treatment providers; seen as unwilling to support prevention efforts.
Staff turnover disruptive because of long city hiring process. Steering committee turnover also disruptive (partnership lost link to city).
Some neighborhood task forces had high turnover rate and lack of involvement.
Partnership Status
The partnership welcomed the opportunity to become freestanding. It obtained 501(c)(3) designation 1 month after funding ceased, and it continues with its prevention activities.
Community Type D: Substance-producing community. The partnership is located in a southern community composed of three counties with a total population of about 110,000. The region is historically poor and most residents live in rural, remote areas. Racial minorities are less than 2 percent of the population.
The community had a high tolerance for alcohol and tobacco use, especially smokeless tobacco among teenagers, and attempts to reduce driving under the influence levels from .10 to .08 had failed in the state legislature. The marijuana trade is viewed as having a strong positive effect on the local economy, and marijuana is not abused locally. Prior to the production of marijuana, the region was known for moonshining.
Partnership's Organizational Features
Staff and partnership chair played a significant role in support of partnership.
Thirty members, mostly social service professionals, with a core group of 10 to 12 active members.
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.
Prevention and Policy Activities
All-day strategic planning meeting held in February 1994, focusing on marijuana abuse and cultivation, parental permissiveness, lack of recreational activities, and lack of community awareness about the partnership and about substance abuse.
Provided $25,000 in service dollars annually to community-based organizations.
Acted as an information and referral source and coordinated efforts of representatives of the three counties.
Conducted workplace program and ran the family resource youth service centers (which provided direct assistance and referral to families and schoolchildren).
Helped to support existing DARE and other prevention programs.
Concentrated on a school policy to increase the substance possession penalty from 10 days' suspension to immediate expulsion.
Partnership Outcomes
Statistically significant reductions (relative to the comparison community) were found in the abuse of illicit drugs and alcohol, both for the past year and the past month, reported by 8th graders.
Credited with having been a mobilizing force among social service agencies.
Immediate school expulsion policy for possession of substances was implemented.
Barriers To Be Overcome
Partnership appeared to outsiders to be an activity of the lead organization.
Little success in attracting the business, faith, or grassroots community groups.
Community had many other prevention activities that serve as alternate explanations for findings.
Partnership Status
Partnership formed a committee to explore potential sources of future funding. Lead organization committed to continue supporting the community coordinator position with funds obtained through a community services block grant.
Site Map
Help
Account
Cart
Home
