Rural community organizing and coalition building

Model programs such as Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol and others, such as the DEBIs promoted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention often incorporate community organizing strategies by function if not by name. Such strategies are essential to successful community coalition building as well as garnering social capital and financial resources. However, many model programs are designed for urban and suburban areas and do not necessarily succeed when replicated in rural and frontier areas. MCD Public Health is fiscal agent for a Drug Free Communities coalition, “21 Reasons.” In 2013 the Office of National Drug Control Policy identified 21 Reasons as one of the nine most successful DFC awardees in the country. 21 Reasons is also a 2013 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration awardee in their Service to Science program. With this success and the potential for consideration as a future evidence-based program, we sought to better understand how community organizing in rural or frontier areas might differ from that in suburban areas.  This work to be presented included a literature review on community organizing and telephone interviews with a variety of successful rural coalition organizers in three states.

The literature review identified six key areas of difference:

• Connecting and recruiting coalition members
• Leadership development
• Impact of dual relationships on one’s willingness to challenge community norms
• Need for an increased tolerance for differences.
• Impact of the pace of change (social and structural)
• Comfort with familiar tactics

Interview topics included:

Building connections, relationship structures, community dynamics, leadership recognition and development, cultural norms around underage and of-age substance use and abuse, change process, substance use prevention strategies, and general community organizing observations. To successfully replicate an evidence-based program in a rural or frontier area, potential necessary modifications include: longer time line, regional rather than single town or single county scope of service, non-electronic outreach strategies, value of social marketing approaches that put needs and values of delivery area residents in the center of intervention design processes.

Overall the findings suggest a potentially significant impact of a rural or frontier setting when replicating an evidence-based program developed in an urban or suburban setting. The lessons learned are also relevant for emerging programs considering submission for model program status or designing long-term evaluation structures.