Collaborative Solutions newsletter

colist at comm-org.wisc.edu colist at comm-org.wisc.edu
Sun Jan 28 09:38:25 CST 2007


From: "Tom Wolff" <tom at tomwolff.com>




Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Welcome to the Winter 2007 Issue of the "Collaborative Solutions 
Newsletter" from Tom Wolff & Associates. This issue continues our focus 
on the six key components of Collaborative Solutions with the spotlight 
on: “Addressing issues of social change and power”.

Highlights in this issue cover approaches to community empowerment that 
include advocacy, organizing, and getting involved in the political 
process. Numerous community examples from marvelous communities are 
covered as well as a Coalition Empowerment Self Assessment Tool

Newsletter issues are available online at www.tomwolff.com. You may find 
that the web versions to be the easiest to read and download. A text 
version can be found below.

We encourage you to distribute this information to your friends and 
colleagues. You can subscribe for free or unsubscribe at the end of the 
newsletter. Let us know what you think and what else you would like to 
see in the Newsletter.

Thanks
Tom Wolff
Tom Wolff & Associates


Collaborative Solutions
A Newsletter from Tom Wolff & Associates
Contents of Winter 2007 Collaborative Solutions Newsletter:

In this issue:

Addressing Issues of Social Change and Power.

* Overview
* Collaborative empowerment versus collaborative betterment
* How do we address issues of social change in our collaborative efforts
* Advocacy
* Organizing and Social Action Techniques
* Getting involved in the political process
* Power based versus relationship based social change
* Resources and references
* Tom Wolff & Associates Recent Clients 2004-2006

Addressing Issues of Social Change and Power

In developing collaborative solutions, we encourage groups to take 
actions that address issues of social change and power and that are 
based on a common vision. In our last newsletter, we discussed the 
imperative for a collaborative to act and not just talk. In this issue, 
we want to illustrate how these actions must address issues of social 
change and power. Collaboratives, coalitions, and partnerships are often 
composed of people who provide services that solve problems. Although 
these services can be critical components in people's lives, they are by 
no means the only solutions to all community issues. Instead, residents 
need to have the power to change the conditions of their lives by 
changing the systems and institutions that affect them.
Here’s a typical scenario that demonstrates how the available solutions 
may not match a community’s most serious problems. Imagine that a group 
of helpers goes into a community and asks residents to identify the 
major problems they are facing. The people say, “There aren’t many jobs, 
and the jobs that are available have no benefits. The area is in 
economic decline and families are hurting.” Imagine that the helpers 
respond by saying, ”Well, we hear you, but we have a teen-pregnancy 
prevention grant, so how can we help you?”
Too often providers dance away from the larger social determinants, from 
matters of social justice and social economics, because these issues 
cannot be dealt with by providing remedial services and because, very 
honestly, they feel that they don't know how to deal with these bigger 
concerns. Ultimately, we need to help communities, individuals, and 
families learn to do more than adapt to difficult circumstances. In the 
long run, we want them to develop the skills to change those difficult 
circumstances.
For example, we want to do more than just provide good medical services 
to families in inner cities experiencing asthma. We also want to help 
these people mobilize and organize to change the environmental triggers 
that can cause asthma, including environmental hazards located in their 
neighborhoods and unhealthy conditions in local public housing and 
public schools.
To create healthy communities, we must be willing to address issues of 
power. Judith Kurland, one of the founders of the Healthy Communities 
movement in America, has stated that our work “is not just about 
projects, programs or policies. Healthy Communities is about power. 
Unless we change the way power is distributed in this country, so that 
people in communities have the power to change the conditions of their 
lives, we will never have sustainable change” (Healthy Communities: 
America's Best Kept Secret, on video; see 
http://www.tomwolff.com/healthy-communities-tools-and-resources.html).

Page Top
Community examples

Obesity: For example, community responses to obesity need to move beyond 
remedial health solutions that simply intend to change individuals’ 
eating habits. Addressing the problem of obesity at a community level 
means mobilizing people to consider issues like food selection in the 
public schools, the presence in the community of grocery stores that 
sell fresh vegetables, and access to safe exercise options, including 
places to walk and bike.

North Quabbin Community Coalition: The North Quabbin area faced a 
transportation crisis. Low-income families were unable to go back and 
forth between the two largest communities to access such vital services 
as the hospital, the health center, and grocery stores. So the community 
mobilized. Led by the students in the North Quabbin Adult Literacy 
Program, the residents, along with the local coalition, first came up 
with a volunteer transportation system. Then they started advocating for 
change by persistently working with their state and federal 
representatives. Ultimately a new public transportation system was 
developed. In this case, a group of the people most affected by the 
problem--the low-income residents who were part of the adult literacy 
program--led the charge for change. Through the literacy program, these 
residents learned skills to become advocates and problem-solvers and 
then went on to develop strategies that produced substantial, positive 
changes in the transportation system that significantly benefited the 
whole community.

Page Top
Collaborative empowerment versus collaborative betterment

Arthur Himmelman (1996) has contributed to our understanding of the 
dilemmas in coalitions and collaborative efforts by distinguishing 
between collaborative betterment and collaborative empowerment. I will 
quote somewhat extensively from his excellent writings on this topic.
Himmelman suggests that in order “to expand and enhance self-governance 
and democracy, collaborative strategies must transform existing power 
relations and must challenge existing practices of power, wealth, and 
control that substantially contribute to our growing political and 
economic social inequities.” Himmelman sees how useful collaborative 
strategies are in addressing these fundamental issues of social justice.
As someone who works with many collaborative efforts, he notes "that 
closer examination of existing coalitions most often reveals continuing 
domination and control by elites and their gatekeepers, sometimes by 
accident but usually by design. At their best, many collaborative 
efforts produce positive service changes in institutions and communities 
that deserve both praise and replication. Nevertheless, they generally 
leave the status quo in power relations untouched, because transforming 
power relations is viewed by most public and private funders of 
collaboration as outside the boundaries of de-politicized change (change 
that does not raise questions about or take action to transform power 
inequities). Indeed, government and philanthropy strongly imply that 
those receiving service contracts or charity need to abandon political 
advocacy that could challenge or fundamentally alter the status quo.”
For Himmelman, power is not defined in terms of dominance but “as the 
capacity to produce intended results. This definition of power is 
related to feminist theories that describe power in terms of capacity, 
competence, and energy in contrast to traditional masculine views of 
power that define it as the ability to dominate or control (Hartstock 
1985). Collaborative strategies should attempt to move the holders of 
power from domination to democratically shared power.” For this to 
happen in collaboratives, Himmelman suggests that they need to focus on:

1. The importance of the quality, inclusiveness, and clarity of this 
vision for change.
2. The need for better understanding and skilled practice of community 
organizing, which can unite diverse interests with a common vision and 
purpose.
3. The need to continually expand the base of support for initiatives 
with new people, especially those who have not been included as 
decision-makers and leaders.

Himmelman notes that localized efforts must also be coupled with 
“substantial policy changes and new funding for human needs at all 
levels of government, particularly the federal level if such initiatives 
are to succeed on the scale necessary. No matter how much services are 
integrated or improved, government is reinvented, or corporations 
reengineered, a focus on services, programs or profits will never be 
sufficient to address fundamental social issues of race, class and 
gender oppression and discrimination. Those using collaborative 
strategies to resolve these issues must recruit holders and gatekeepers 
of power in the processes that move them from domination and control to 
greatly increased democratic power sharing."
He argues that this transformation can happen “in the collaborative 
process among community-based organizations and elite dominated 
institutions, if such processes are specifically designed to do so. 
Transformational collaboration must be highly creative, strategically 
planned, skillfully implemented and continually assessed for lessons 
learned.”

Page Top
So how do we address issues of social change in our collaborative efforts?

What is required for coalitions to begin to think about social change as 
a core function of their work? What kinds of skills will the coalition 
need to develop to be effective at social change? What kinds of 
approaches can a coalition use to effect social change?
In many ways it's ironic that I am now raising these questions. When I 
first began to do community coalition-building more than thirty years 
ago, the basic definitions associated with the concept of coalitions 
concerned building alliances among groups for short-term political 
change. The entire idea of coalition-building centered at that time on 
social change. However, coalition-building later expanded in the U.S. 
around issues such as the prevention of substance abuse, tobacco use, 
and teen pregnancies. As it did this, it came under the influence of the 
health and human services sector. That sector’s dominant mode involves 
remedial treatment and service delivery, which in turn became the 
dominant mode in coalitions.
When coalitions intend to address issues of social change and power, 
they need to state this intention clearly in their vision, mission, and 
goals. If their mission is to improve the quality of life for all those 
living in the community, then a goal can be to build the community 
members’ capacity to advocate for needed changes. As the coalition 
proceeds, its members will need to do an environmental scan and look at 
each issue from an ecological perspective and understand the systems and 
institutions that will need to change in order for the coalition to 
achieve its goals (see Summer 2006 Collaborative Solutions Newsletter, 
link - 
http://www.tomwolff.com/collaborative-solutions-newsletter-summer-06.htm).

Page Top
Coalition Empowerment Self-Assessment Tool

This tool, which was originally published in From the Ground Up: A 
Workbook on Coalition Building and Community Development (Wolff and 
Kaye, 1995 
http://www.tomwolff.com/coalition-empowerment-self-assessment-tool.htm), 
helps a coalition examine empowerment as an aspect of all its work: 
goals and objectives, membership, communication, decision-making, 
leadership and leadership development, use of resources, coalition 
activities, and coalition outcomes.

Advocacy

Coalitions often become involved with some form of social change and 
with power issues when they begin to advocate for resources or policy 
changes in their community.
Community examples

The Worcester Latino Coalition was committed to increasing access to 
high-quality medical interpreter services in health facilities in its 
city. At one point, coalition members met with the CEO of a large 
hospital to explain that pulling Spanish-speaking cafeteria workers into 
the emergency room to translate did not constitute the provision of 
quality medical interpreter services. After a pleasant discussion, the 
CEO smiled and indicated that he had no intention of changing the 
hospital’s practices. However, a few years later, when this coalition 
joined up with others across the state and created the Babel Coalition, 
the larger group was able to effectively advocate for legislation that 
mandated the provision of appropriate interpreter services in hospitals 
across the state.

Tobacco Advocacy: Lawsuits against tobacco companies have also been used 
as a social-change strategy. When the suits were successful, some of the 
settlement money was spread to community coalitions across the country 
that were working to prevent tobacco use. Many of these coalitions had 
clear social-change agendas and worked to pass local ordinances that 
banned the use of tobacco in restaurants, public buildings, and 
workplaces. These coalitions became powerful forces for social change. 
And their efforts were effective. The coalitions working to limit 
tobacco-use in America have made a comprehensive social change in our 
culture that is easy to take for granted until travel reminds us of how 
things used to be. On a recent trip to Europe, our family was amazed at 
what it was like to be in environments that were 
smoked-filled--including restaurants, stores, and even schools.

Page Top
Organizing and social action techniques

Saul Alinsky, (1971) a founder of community organizing in this country, 
employed social-change strategies that stressed conflict and 
confrontation. His approach to the organization of social action 
addressed power imbalances by having outside change-agents work to 
create dissatisfaction with the status quo among the people most 
affected by an issue. The outside organizers would then build 
community-wide engagement with the problem and with identification of 
the issues. Finally, the organizers would assist community members in 
bringing about change by devising winnable goals and nonviolent conflict 
strategies (Minkler, 2002).
A community example

The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO, description adapted 
from www.gbio.org) is a broad-based organization that works to coalesce, 
train, and organize the communities of Greater Boston across all 
religious, racial, ethnic, class, and neighborhood lines for the public 
good. The organization’s primary goal is to develop local leadership and 
organized power to fight for social justice. It strives to make holders 
of both public and private power accountable for their public 
responsibilities, as well as to initiate actions and programs of its own 
to solve community and economic problems. GBIO focuses on multiple 
issues. The issues the coalition works on come from within its 
participating institutions, from the concerns of the people. GBIO is 
affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF, the organization 
originally created by Saul Alinsky) and is inspired by the 65 other 
IAF-affiliated organizations working in cities and metropolitan areas 
across the U.S.
Key achievements for GBIO have included: leading a state-wide campaign 
that won passage of the State of Massachusetts’ $100 million Housing 
Trust Fund; working successfully for a $30 million annual increase in 
the state capital budget for housing; and organizing with the Justice 
for Janitors campaign to win significant pay and benefit increases for 
area janitors. Most recently, as part of a comprehensive health-coverage 
bill passed in Massachusetts, GBIO has taken the lead in shaping a 
public debate about what is truly affordable for Massachusetts residents 
when it comes to health-care costs. More than 350 members of GBIO 
congregations participated in small-group "affordability workshops," in 
which each workshop participant constructed a detailed monthly budget 
and subtracted all non-discretionary, non-health-care expenses from 
their income in order to identify how much was left over with which to 
purchase health insurance.

Page Top
Getting involved in the political system

Coalitions often shy away from getting involved with the political 
system. It is true that 501(c) 3 organizations are legally unable to 
endorse candidates or campaign for candidates. However, it is extremely 
appropriate, and generally entirely legal, for coalitions to be involved 
in educating state and federal legislators about key issues that are 
occurring in their communities(Arons,1999). There is a difference 
between educating one's legislators and lobbying them. How can we expect 
legislators to know about what's really happening in a community without 
talking to the people who live there? It is clearly legitimate for a 
coalition to provide forums where legislators can hear about critical 
issues. It is also appropriate for a coalition to inform legislators 
about the consequences for their constituents of various pieces of 
legislation and funding decisions.
So when we think about coalitions or collaboratives and their role in 
social change, we need to think about how they can build solid, ongoing 
relationships with their local political representatives. At the same 
time, we cannot rely on the political system alone to produce solutions.
Although becoming acquainted with your local elected officials may seem 
like a basic and obvious action to take, it is not common practice. In 
one project, the Health Access Networks (Outreach Works: Strategies for 
Expanding Health Access to Communities 
http://www.tomwolff.com/healthy-communities-tools-and-resources.html), 
we were involved in running sixty meetings a year across the state to 
examine issues of health access. Every month, we held five meetings in 
different locations. At these meetings, we would bring together a group 
that consisted of health-access outreach workers, representatives of the 
area’s hospitals, health centers, Medicaid offices, and people from the 
statewide health-advocacy group. Together we would discuss what was 
happening around health access: what the barriers were, and what was 
working to get people who did not have health insurance enrolled in 
coverage.
At the meetings, we would often encourage attendees to call their 
legislators about a specific bill or funding issue. After many months of 
doing this, we checked in and asked how many people were actually 
calling their legislators. Only a few hands went up. We then asked who 
in the room had ever spoken to a legislator. Again, only a few hands 
went up.
At that point, we redesigned the next month's meeting. We began it with 
a role-playing exercise in which everybody practiced calling a state 
legislator. In Massachusetts, the process of connecting with a 
legislator often involves speaking first with a young person who answers 
the phone and takes messages. The role playing helped demonstrate to the 
members of this coalition that calling one’s legislator was not a 
threatening experience. It got them engaged for the first time in that 
part of the political and social-change system. It also reminded me not 
to assume that our colleagues in the health and human service system 
have had experience with calling their elected officials.

Page Top
Community examples

The East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership: Uniting Against Violence

(Excerpt taken from a case study written by The Institute for Community 
Peace, www.peacebeyondviolence.org/ICP_PDFs/case_studies/east_bay.pdf).
"You can improve the health of your community,” asserts Deane Calhoun, 
executive director of Youth Alive! She, along with many others, is an 
active participant in the East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership, a 
vast public and private coalition involving individuals, community and 
nonprofit groups, city and county governments, school districts, and law 
enforcement agencies, located in the San Francisco Bay area in northern 
California. The coalition’s goal: to build healthy communities by 
uniting against violence.
In response to spiraling numbers of cases of homicide involving guns, 
the partnership was formed in 1993, initially to "reduce crime and 
violence in order to promote a safer, healthier and more economically 
viable environment." Its work originally emphasized violence prevention. 
The successful partnership has become the nation's largest anti-violence 
collaboration. In 1999, the group changed its mission and endorsed the 
public-health approach to violence prevention. The partnership now 
exists "to promote a safer, healthier and more economically viable 
environment by reducing crime and violence." This change in intention 
may be subtle, but it stresses the overarching positive goal of work 
toward "healthy communities."
"Things are different now," says youth advocate Calhoun. "People used to 
think, ‘There is nothing we can do about violent crime.’ Now we know 
there is. We have created a very genuine and substantial message of hope 
that is spreading to other communities across the nation."
Thanks to successful efforts by the East Bay Public Safety Corridor 
Partnership, laws that strictly regulate and restrict access to guns 
have led to a steep decline in violence that involves guns throughout 
the urban East Bay region. “In one year, 28 cities and counties, 
including some outside the region, had passed laws against junk guns. 
The partnership had taken an approach that involved changing the laws 
and successfully managed campaigns against handguns in community after 
community. The coalition’s full youth-violence prevention initiative 
included many other, more traditional approaches to violence prevention, 
but the partnership became known nationwide for its gun-restricting 
legislative component.

Page Top

Cleghorn Neighborhood Center (CNC)

The Cleghorn Neighborhood Center (CNC) is located in a low-income Latino 
community in Fitchburg, Massachusetts, an economically struggling small 
city. The CNC shifted from a model of delivering services to the 
community to a model of community building, community development, and 
community organizing. As they made this change, the residents talked in 
their biweekly community group meetings about their hopes for better 
opportunities in this country. Many thought that helping people earn 
their GEDs would be a smart first step. As part of their commitment to a 
community-building model, the Cleghorn Neighborhood Center staff paired 
the GED training with training in community leadership and community 
organizing.
When the students had completed their GED course, one group decided to 
take its GED exams in Spanish at a local community college and another 
group took its exams in a larger urban city. Those who took the test at 
the local college reported that instructions were given in English and 
had to be translated by the CNC staff. They said that they did not feel 
very well respected or well treated by the people who administered the 
exam. The group that went to the large urban area had a totally 
different experience. They felt welcomed and supported, in part because 
instructions were given in both Spanish and English.
Area residents were outraged by the GED testing experience at the local 
college. They formed an action group, the Adult Education Committee, to 
work on adult education. With the help of the CNC staff, they arranged a 
meeting with the college's vice president. At this meeting, the local 
residents presented their experience and their demands. Seven residents 
spoke and another 20 attended the meeting. The vice president was 
impressed and passed on the impressions of these Latino residents to the 
president of the college, along with recommendations for change. These 
changes are now slowly being implemented. The residents continue to be 
involved in their Adult Education Committee and in discussions with the 
college.

Page Top
Power-based versus relationship-based social change

In the search for collaborative solutions, a conflict seems to exist 
between those who focus on power-based social change (community 
organizing) and relationship-based social change (community building). 
Those who use the power-based approach believe that in order to effect 
change citizens must form organizations that aim to transform and 
redistribute power. The relationship-based approach works for change by 
building strong, caring, and respectful relationships among all members. 
Extremists from both sides feel that the two approaches are 
incompatible. They find fault with the other side. Power-based 
organizing is criticized for its inability to build relationships. 
Relationship-based community organizing is said to discourage 
individuals from becoming engaged in political action and power-broking 
for fear of violating established relationships. This conflict arises 
frequently and is a challenge for all of us who know how much good work 
collaborative solutions can accomplish.
In fact, social change requires a mix of advocacy and relationship 
building. Jack Rothman’s categorization of community organizing has been 
the standard for many decades (Rothman and Tropman, 1987). Originally 
Rothman talked about three distinct models of practice: locality 
development, social planning, and social action. More recently, Rothman 
has suggested that many professionals are using a “mixing and phasing” 
of the three models.
So, facing these differences in our approaches, how do we proceed?
Inspiration came to me during a weekly Jewish meditation I attend. There 
I found this quote: "To be holy is for power and beauty to be in perfect 
harmony." The words grabbed me immediately. It seems to me that they 
speak to the significant issues in the world and to the strategy 
dilemmas described above. The quote suggested to me that there may be a 
way to find harmony while simultaneously building relationships and 
dealing with power issues. This harmony may be the future of 
collaborative solutions.
When we think of building a community, either of the two approaches will 
not work as effectively alone as the combination of the two works 
together. I have seen confrontational community-organizing techniques 
damage relationships. I have also experienced times when, despite 
excellent personal relationships, the people in power still say, “Sorry. 
We won't change the system no matter how much we like you."
I have also seen situations in which these two approaches have worked 
together very well:

Page Top
Community Example:

Lower Outer Cape Community Coalition: In this community, our coalition 
ended up in conflict with the local hospital. The coalition was working 
on community benefits, as designated by the attorney general. The 
hospital’s community benefits committee was made up of 22 members, 18 of 
whom were hospital employees or affiliates. The coalition wanted more 
real community representation on the committee and protested. Coalition 
representatives went to the media and pushed hard for committee 
membership to be opened up. The hospital was not happy. The coalition’s 
vision was that ultimately it wanted to partner with the hospital, not 
to back it into an impossible corner. Yet its participants would not 
leave this issue.
Later, as leadership changed at the hospital, coalition members were 
invited to join the search committee for a new CEO. Since the arrival of 
the new leader, the coalition has been in partnership with the hospital 
and is moving forward on healthy-community issues. The membership of the 
hospital’s community benefits committee has shifted in the direction 
desired by the coalition. In this case, the coalition used 
power-oriented community organizing tactics at the same time that it 
held onto its ultimate goal of creating a respectful partnership with 
the hospital
I suggest that we look at our work in a new way, by creating new 
theories and a new collection of anecdotes that match the needs of 
social change for this period of history in which we are living. We 
cannot ignore power issues in a country where the separation between 
rich and poor has become extreme, where for-profit hospitals and health 
care providers are becoming more prevalent, where dollars dominate 
elections, where the media are controlled by a handful of individuals, 
and where black and Hispanic young men are incarcerated at alarming 
rates. We will sometimes need power organizing to address these issues.
At the same time, we have seen a decline in civic engagement and 
volunteerism and a decreased sense of neighborhood and community. This 
shows that we cannot ignore relationship building; community building is 
still a critical process.
We need both approaches, and we need models that will allow us to 
integrate power organizing and relationship building as we work toward 
social change, using the method that matches the situation and that 
maximizes our capacity to reach our goals.

Page Top
Resources and References

References

Alinsky, S. Rules for Radicals, Vintage Books, New York , 1971

Aron, D. Oh yes,nonprofits can and do advocate for legislation! A quick 
primer on lobbying.The New England NonProfit Quarterly ,Fall 1999 p 52-55.

DeChiara,M., Unruh,E., Wolff,T., and Rosen,A. Outreach Works: Strategies 
for Expanding Health Access in Communities, AHEC Community Partners,2001.

Greater Boston Interfaith Organization www.gbio.org

Hartstock, N. Money, Sex and Power: Toward A Feminist Historical 
Materialism Boston, MA. Northeastern University Press 1985

Institute for Community Peace: 
http://www.peacebeyondviolence.org/ICP_PDFs/case_studies/east_bay.pdf

Himmelman, A. On the theory and practice of transformational 
collaboration: From social service to social justice. In Creating 
Collaborative Advantage Ed. Chris Huxham Sage Publications, London 1996

McKnight, J. Do no harm: policy options that meet human needs. Social 
Policy, Summer 1989 p 5-15.

Minkler, M. (Ed) Community Organizing and Community Building for Health, 
Rutgers University Press, New Jersey 2002

Rothman, J. and J.E. Tropman Models of community organization and 
macropractice: Their mixing and phasing. Strategies of Community 
Organization ed. F.M. Cox, J.L. Erlich, J. Rothman, J.E. Tropman. 
Itasca, Ill :Peacock 1987

Wolff, T., and Kaye, G. (eds). From the Ground Up: A Workbook on 
CoalitionBuilding and Community Development, AHEC Community Partners, 
Spring 1995.

Page Top
Resource: Real Clout and Real Clout Workbook

Real Clout by Judy Meredith and Cathy Dunham is an excellent how-to 
manual for community activists who want to change public policy. 
Although the focus is on health-care policy at the state and county 
levels, these materials are generic enough to apply to almost all policy 
arenas. This extremely smart and practical manual walks you through the 
steps.
Among the chapter titles are these:

What Is Public Policy? And Who Makes It?
Public Policymaking in the Administrative Branch
Making Public Policy in the Legislative Branch
How to Influence a Public Policy
Practical Applications: Campaign Implementation Tools

Real Clout is available for free download online at www.realclout.org. 
Also online is the recent The Real Clout Workbook, written for both 
grassroots leaders and professional advocates.
Tom Wolff & Associates Recent Clients 2004-2006

Arts Extension Service, Univ. Mass.
Boston U. Sch. Public Health, Campus Community Partnership Program
Connect to Protect, HIV Prevention
CDC Rape Prevention Education
CDC Project Escape, Violence Prevention
CDC Division on Oral Health
Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services, End Stage Renal Disease Program
Champions for Progress, Utah
Cleghorn Neighborhood Center
Council on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Hudson Falls, NY
Dept Psychology Wichita State Univ
Dept Psychology Georgia State University
Enlace, Holyoke MA
Health Communities Access Program, HRSA
Holyoke Planning Network
Institute for Non Profit Development Mt.Wachusett Community College
Kansas Health Foundation
Meharry Medical College
MetroWest Community Health Care Foundation
Mary Black Foundation Spartanburg SC
Mass. SABES (System for Adult Basic Education Support)
Meriden and Wallingford Substance Abuse Council, CT
MATCH, Tobacco Coalition
National Parkinson Foundation,
North Quabbin Community Coalition
Nevada Oral Health Coalition
North Central Massachusetts Minority Coalition
Prevent Institute. School of Public Health U North Carolina
Reach 2010 Coalition Boston Public Health Coalition
SAMHSA, Community Coalitions, Rockville, MD
State Solutions Rutgers NJ
Tennessee Dept of Health
US Breast Feeding Coalition
West Central Initiative Community Change Fergus Falls, MN
Vermont Conference on Addictive Disorders





More information about the Colist mailing list