Reference no: EM133116198
Case Activity:
The Community Action Coalition (C.A.C.) had occupied the same storefront setting for more than 10 years, but the times had changed. From a small group of neighbors, shop owners, and church groups that had joined to fight successfully against the potential encroachment of a superhighway through their neighborhood, the C.A.C. had grown into a major community organization. Block clubs and community interest groups still formed the backbone of the organization, but a variety of programs, services, and agencies had spun off from the original system. The C.A.C.''s attempts to enhance the lifestyle of community members had resulted in the development of programs to fight substandard housing and schools, encourage consumer awareness, provide recreational and training programs for youth, and bring thriving businesses into the area.
Throughout the years, however, the C.A.C. had maintained its little office in the heart of the neighborhood. And throughout the years, the same thing had happened again and again. When citizens of the community were faced with family problems, with concerns about their children, with crises in their own lives, the C.A.C. was the only place that attracted them. Although a community mental health center was based in a hospital in the immediate area, and although a branch of the Department of Social Services had been built just two blocks away, these institutions were underutilized as self-referral agencies. Going to the community mental health center meant that one was sick. Going to the C.A.C. meant simply that one was having a problem in everyday living.
The staff of the coalition''s storefront office welcomed the chance to try to have some effect on their neighbors'' personal lives. Sometimes troubled individuals just needed someone to listen; sometimes they needed the kind of advocacy or linkage with sources of help that the organization was best at. There were times, however, when staff members felt inadequate to deal with the problems they were facing, times when they felt that at least one professional mental health worker should be present to provide training and supervision as well as direct therapy. The need for this kind of program became so obvious that the staff members decided to apply for a grant for seed money to get their new program started. They simply needed a way to begin to implement a more organized approach to mental health, one that would involve keeping the office open through the evening hours, with volunteers providing help under the supervision of professional mental health personnel. The funds would provide for training, for a portion of the salaries of the trainer/supervisors, and for materials needed for the immediate future. Later, they felt, the organization would be able to support the new program on its own.
They did make a good case for the need and for the concept. The foundation to which they applied for funding agreed to visit the community to learn more about the proposed program and about the community itself. The organization, accustomed to this kind of site visit, geared up by preparing materials, planning a presentation, and inviting a number of community members to present their views on the day of the visit.
The day arrived and the presentation began as scheduled. The staff members who had written the grant proposal felt increasingly optimistic about their chances for funding as more and more citizens rose to express their support. Suddenly, however, a man none of them knew rose to speak.
"I''ve come to represent the community mental health center that serves this catchment area," he said. "As much as we have appreciated the fine organizing work of the C.A.C. over the years, we reluctantly have to tell you that the service they are suggesting would be inappropriate for such a nonprofessional agency. It certainly would be a duplication of the services we are presently offering with the highest level of professional staff."
"Yes," answered the foundation representative. "We did get the letter of protest from your board of directors. It does seem as though some kind of liaison needs to take place here."
After a moment of stunned silence, pandemonium broke out in the room, as the anger of community members who disapproved of the mental health center''s approach rose to the surface. Amid the shouts, one thing became clear. The Community Action Coalition would not be receiving funding to meet the mental health needs of its members.
How could this confrontation have been avoided?
What could C.A.C.''s leaders have done to prepare a better plan for mental health services?
What could staff of the community mental health center have done to represent their views on service needs in a more collaborative way?
The two agencies involved in the situation seem to have differing views concerning local needs. Does this mean that their assessments were inaccurate, or is there some other possible explanation?
If you were a member of the staff of the Community Action Coalition, what steps might you take now to salvage the planning and implementation process?