Search results

Community coalitions are an important part of the public milieu and subject to similar external pressures as other publicly funded organizations – including changes in required strategic orientation. Many US government agencies that fund efforts such as community-based social marketing initiatives have shifted their funding agenda from program development to policy development. The Florida Prevention Research Center at the University of South Florida (Tampa, Florida, USA) created community-based prevention marketing (CBPM) for policy development framework to teach community coalitions how to apply social marketing to policy development. This paper aims to explicate the framework’s theory of change.

The research question was: “How does implementing the CBPM for Policy Development framework improve coalition performance over time?” The authors implemented a case study design, with the “case” being a normative community coalition. The study adhered to a well-developed series of steps for system dynamics modeling.

Results from computer model simulations show that gains in community coalition performance depend on a coalition’s initial culture and initial efficiency, and that only the most efficient coalitions’ performance might improve from implementing the CBPM framework.

Practical implications for CBPM’s developers and users are discussed, namely, the importance of managing the early expectations of academic-community partnerships seeking to shift their orientation from downstream (e.g. program development) to upstream social marketing strategies (e.g. policy change).

Adolescent problem behaviours (substance use, delinquency, school dropout, pregnancy, and violence) are costly not only for individuals, but for entire communities. Policy makers and practitioners that are interested in preventing these problem behaviours are faced with many programming options. The purpose of this review is to discuss two criteria for selecting relevant parenting programmes, and provide five examples of such programmes.

The first criterion for programme selection is theory based. Well-supported theories, such as the social development model, have laid out key family-based risk and protective factors for problem behaviour. Programmes that target these risk and protective factors are more likely to be effective. Second, programmes should have demonstrated efficacy; these interventions have been called “evidence-based programmes” (EBP). This review highlights the importance of evidence from rigorous research designs, such as randomised clinical trials, in order to establish programme efficacy.

Nurse-Family Partnership, The Incredible Years, the Positive Parenting Program (Triple P), Strengthening Families 10-14, and Staying Connected with Your Teen are examined. The unique features of each programme are briefly presented. Evidence showing impact on family risk and protective factors, as well as long-term problem behaviours, is reviewed. Finally, a measure of cost effectiveness of each programme is provided.

The paper proposes that not all programmes are of equal value, and suggests two simple criteria for selecting a parenting programme with a high likelihood for positive outcomes. Furthermore, although this review is not exhaustive, the five examples of EBPs offer a good start for policy makers and practitioners seeking to implement effective programmes in their communities. Thus, this paper offers practical suggestions for those grappling with investments in child and adolescent programmes on the ground.

The purpose of this paper is to probe the extent to which principals, as boundary spanners, manage with the influence of the local educational authority (LEA) and the superintendent over school matters.

The study is based on sequential quantitative→qualitative explanatory mixed research design. It is based on a sample of 161 Hebrew elementary school principals in two school districts in Israel who completed a questionnaire and on in-depth interviews with four school principals.

The findings indicated that school principals initiate assistance from the superintendent and the LEA depending on the influence they have in schools. However, they utilize their relations with each external agency differently. With the LEA, they established mutual exchange relations whereas school principals engage with the superintendent in order to negotiate more effectively with the LEA. By doing so, principals can control external agencies’ involvement in schools along with strengthening the power of the central educational authority.

The study makes a unique contribution to the literature on school principals’ role with external agencies by revealing their navigation and balancing among the various factors that influence schools. The study highlights the agential role of school principals.