Community Mobilization and Readiness: Planning Flaws which Challenge Effective Implementation of ‘Communities that Care’ (CTC) Prevention System

Abstract

This article reviews the experience of implementing a community approach to drug use and youth delinquency prevention based on the ‘Communities that Care’ (CTC) system implemented in one Croatian county consisting of 12 communities, 2002 to 2013 (Hawkins, 1999; Hawkins & Catalano, 2004). This overview explores selected critical issues which are often not considered in substance use(r) community intervention planning, implementation as well as in associated process and outcome assessments. These issues include, among others, the mobilization process of adequate representation of people; the involvement of relevant key individual and organizational stakeholders and being aware of the stakeholders’ willingness to participate in the prevention process. In addition, it is important to be aware of the stakeholders’ knowledge and perceptions about the ‘problems’ of drug use and youth delinquency in their communities as well as the characteristics of the targeted population(s). Sometimes there are community members and stakeholders who block needed change and therefore prevention process enablers and ‘bridges’ should be involved in moving prevention programming forward. Another barrier that is often overlooked in prevention planning is community readiness to change and a realistic assessment of available and accessible resources for initiating the planned change(s) and sustaining them. All of these issues have been found to be potentially related to intervention success. At the end of this article, I summarize perspectives from prevention scientists and practitioners and lessons learned from communities’ readiness research and practice in Croatian that has international relevance.

Keywords:

• substance abuse
• juvenile delinquency
• community mobilization and readiness
• community prevention
• Communities that Care

Notes

¹ The reader is reminded that the concepts of ‘risk factors,’ ‘vulnerability,’ ‘susceptibility’ as well as ‘protective factors,’ are often noted in the literature, without adequately noting their dimensions (linear, nonlinear; rates of development and decay; anchoring or integration, cessation, etc.), their ‘demands,’ the critical necessary conditions (endogenously as well as exogenously; from a micro to a meso to a macro level) which are necessary for either of them to operate (begin, continue, become anchored, and integrate, change as de facto realities change, cease, etc.) or not to and whether their underpinnings are theory-driven, empirically-based, individual and/or systemic stake holder-bound, based upon ‘principles of faith doctrinaire positions,’ ‘personal truths,’ historical observation, precedents, and traditions that accumulate over time, conventional wisdom, perceptual and judgmental constraints, ‘transient public opinion,’ or what. This is necessary to consider and to clarify if these term are not to remain as yet additional shibboleth in a field of many stereotypes, tradition-driven activities, ‘principles of faith,’ stakeholder objectives and institutionalized, anchored flaws. Editor's note.

² The term ‘community’ a policy buzzword which has been attached to a diverse range of ideas and initiatives. It means various things to different individual and systemic stakeholders; beyond ‘shared geography,’ it can and does include ‘sharing’ of objects, beliefs, values, membership in, identification with, association with, from a micro to a globalized macro level. Community intervention can be categorized into 3 (over)-simplistic “types as one considers the ‘demands’ and implications” of community readiness and community awareness for planned intervention. Professional network: refers primarily to professional networks made up of agencies which are responsible for coordinating efforts around the goals set by a central system; i.e. government. It is most generally based on expert knowledge and professionally defined codes and protocols, and leaves little room for involvement of those outside of the professional group. The use of the term ‘community’ in this context may be considered to be little more than window dressing Community partnership: in which community members, who most often are a small organized active group who are not representative of the larger ‘community’ and professionals come together on a more or less equal footing, and form partnership. Community members have genuine influence and are actively involved in decision-making processes. Grass-roots community initiative: in which community members—again, generally an active small group—organize together over a particular issue which they consider to be important. Their meetings and other activities are not defined by professional interests. They may decide, over time, to hire professionals for advice, etc. or even partner with professionals. Examples of grass-roots initiatives include activist drug user groups. The reader is referred to a stimulating overview about community interventions.: Shiner, et al (2004) Exploring community responses to drugs Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK (www.jrf.org.uk) Editor's note.

³ CKLS is close to the survey developed by Goodman and Wandersman at the University of South Carolina as instruments that asks leaders that are directed mostly at the policy and the organizational level.

⁴ Labin and Porec are smaller cities from 12,000 to 17,000 inhabitants with relatively good organized Healthy city institutes and more prevention programs settled in different organization.

⁵ Pula is biggest city in Istria, partly capital of Istrian County, with around 58,000 inhabitants. They have many organizations and NGO's who are involved in prevention.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Josipa Basic

Prof. Josipa Basic, Croatia, is retired, full professor, University of Zagreb, Croatia, where she taught at the undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate studies at Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Law, and the Faculty of Art and Science. She also taught at the University of Rijeka and University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Dr. Basic authored 99 articles, 14 scientific books, and a textbook on prevention science. She is currently the Croatian leader for two EU projects: ‘Communities That Care (CTC) European Network: Making CTC work at the European level’ and ‘EAP_SEL—European Assessment protocol for Children's SEL skills.’ Among her awards are the 2012 International Collaborative Prevention Research Award, Society for Prevention Research (SPR), and the 2002 National/State Award for Science, from the Parliament of Republic of Croatia, for the development of prevention model for behavior disorders in children and youth.