Coalition Vitality Assessment Tool v2.0 USER’S GUIDE

Purpose. The Coalition Vitality Assessment Tool (CVAT) is an organizational assessment tool that can be used annually to identify the strengths and limitation of a community prevention coalition across four important domains:

  1. Coalition composition (pages 3 to 4)
  2. Leadership and staffing (pages 5 to 6)
  3. Plan and implementation (pages 7 to 8)
  4. Sustainability (pages 9 to 10)

The CVAT creates a workspace for coalition leaders and coordinators to assess the vitality and strength of their coalitions. A “perfect” CVAT score does NOT exist. The results will reflect a point-in-time assessment that can inform decisions about how to prioritize improvement efforts of the coalition and what training and technical resources can support these improvement efforts. For example, benefits of completing the CVAT process include:

The Connecticut Prevention Training and Technical Assistance Service Center (TTASC) will provide assistance in completing the CVAT process in 60 days or less followed by ongoing implementation supports (e.g., assistance with developing a project dashboard, coalition coaching plan).

Please note that pages 12-15 contain templates for recording discussion notes that explain what led to choosing a particular assessment score. The notes may be used to clarify scores as needed, or simply to record observations. The worksheet is optional but encouraged.

Coalition Vitality Assessment Tool v2.0 USER’S GUIDE

Purpose. The Coalition Vitality Assessment Tool (CVAT) is an organizational assessment tool that can be used annually to identify the strengths and limitation of a community prevention coalition across four important domains:

The CVAT creates a workspace for coalition leaders and coordinators to assess the vitality and strength of their coalitions. A “perfect” CVAT score does NOT exist. The results will reflect a point-in-time assessment that can inform decisions about how to prioritize improvement efforts of the coalition and what training and technical resources can support these improvement efforts. For example, benefits of completing the CVAT process include:

Please note that pages 12-15 contain templates for recording discussion notes that explain what led to choosing a particular assessment score. The notes may be used to clarify scores as needed, or simply to record observations. The worksheet is optional but encouraged

Process and Timing. The figure below shows the recommended sequence of action to complete the CVAT process.

Domain 1. Coalition Element Coalition: Scoring Rubric
1 Point 2 Points 3 Points 4 Points
Limited to no capacity Concerns or Issues limit coalition effectiveness Sufficient capacity or capabilities to produce results Strong capacity or capabilities
Guiding Principles Vision & Mission No vision or mission statement exists. Members ad lib the vision and mission An outdated vision or mission statement exists. A current vision or mission exists, and 51% to 75% of members can articulate the vision and mission. A current vision or mission exists and at least 76% of members can articulate the vision and mission.
Coalition composition Required sectors Active participation by 3 or less required sectors. Active participation of 4 to 6 required sectors. Active participation of 7 to 9 required sectors. Active participation of 10 to 12 required sectors.
Demographic diversity & inclusiveness Demographic diversity does not reflect the community or priority populations as well as youth and parents relevant to the Action Plan. Demographic diversity reflects the community in general; does NOT reflect priority populations as well as youth and parents relevant to the Action Plan. Demographic diversity reflects community; gaps in representation of priority populations as well as youth and parents relevant to the Action Plan. Demographic diversity reflects community and priority populations as well as youth and parents relevant to Action Plan.
Youth participation No vehicle or mechanism exists to engage youth or develop leaders. Vehicle or mechanism exists to engage youth and/or develop leaders and is NOT used or supported at this time. A vehicle or mechanism exists to engage youth and develop youth leaders that provide input to the coalition. Youth serve as coalition members and equal contributors at the coalition meetings.
Coalition meetings (full group) Member roles No formal description of member roles and responsibilities and/or expectations. Use of some written descriptions for roles, responsibilities and expectations; information conveyed orally and as needed Written documentation of member role, responsibilities, and expectations; formal orientation / onboarding process followed Written documentation of member role, responsibilities, and expectations; formal orientation / onboarding process followed + mentoring and/or formal check-in process
Meeting frequency & duration Coalition meetings occur less than 3 times per year. Coalition meetings may not follow a regular schedule. Coalition meetings occur at least 4 times per year. Coalition meetings may not follow a regular schedule. Coalition meetings occur 5 to 7 times per year and follow a regular meeting schedule. Insufficient time may exist to finish business. Coalition meetings occur 8 or more times per year and follow a regular meeting schedule. Sufficient time exists to finish business.
Meeting organization No process or standard protocols in place to share in advance meeting agenda, prior meeting notes, or other documents. Process or standard protocols exist to share in advance meeting agenda, prior meeting notes, or other documents. Process not used or followed. Uniform process exists to share meeting announcements, agendas, and materials sent at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Process followed most of the time. Uniform process exists to share meeting announcements, agendas, and materials sent at least 10 days in advance of the meeting.
Meeting attendance Regular coalition meeting attendance less than 25%. No formal quorum used. Regular coalition meeting attendance represents 26% to 50% of total membership. Possible use quorum and attendance tracking. Regular coalition meeting and formal attendance tracking with at least 51% to 75% of total membership. Use of quorum may or may not exist. Regular meeting attendance exceeds 76% of the total membership. Mechanism for quorum exists.
No vision or mission statement exists. Members ad lib the vision and mission. An outdated vision or mission statement exists. A current vision or mission exists, and 51% to 75% of members can articulate the vision and mission. A current vision or mission exists and at least 76% of members can articulate the vision and mission.
Possible use quorum and attendance tracking. membership. Use of quorum may or may not exist.
Meeting feedback / climate No process exists to collect feedback about participant meeting experience. Informal (oral) and/or inconsistent process exists to collect feedback about participant meeting experience. Regular, written process exists to collect feedback about participant meeting experience. No formal process or protocols to review data by coalition leadership. Regular, written process exists to collect feedback about participant meeting experience; formal process exists and used by coalition leaders to review feedback / improve climate.
Committees, work groups, or action teams Formation Coalition does not use committees or work groups. Coalition uses groups. No formal protocols exist to organize participants or leadership. Coalition uses groups. Written guidelines or practices exist to form committees or work groups and leadership. Guidelines not always followed. Coalition uses groups. Written guidelines or practices exist to organize committees or work group and leadership in context of coalition structure.
Charge Coalition does not use committees or work groups. Committee charge defined in general terms, may or may not be written down, and may not clearly connect to Action Plan. Committee charge clearly defined with a scope of work (timeline, deliverables); gaps may exist in alignment with Action Plan Clear charge, scope of work, deliverables, timeline, and realistic to staffing. Alignment exists with Action Plan.
Level of support Coalition does not use committees or work groups. Any committee or work group does not receive any formal staff support; volunteer support uneven at best. Committee or work group receives an explicit level of commitment from staff or volunteers sufficient to deliver results.
Public participation (including youth) Coalition does not use committees or work groups. Public (non-coalition) members may participate. No formal guidelines or process. Committee or work group receives an explicit level of commitment from staff or volunteers; support may not be sufficient to deliver results.
Culture Partner engagement by coalition members Less than 25% of coalition members engage partners outside of coalition meetings or demonstrate interest to do so. 26% to 50% of the coalition members express interest in engaging partners or assist in this work; training & support needed and may or may not be available. 51% to 75% of coalition members willing and able to talk about coalition work with partners and stakeholders; additional training and support available. Public (non-coalition) members may participate. Written guidelines exist to explain roles, responsibilities, expectation, and decision-making.
Guiding Principles Vision & Mission No vision or mission statement exists. Members ad lib the vision and mission. An outdated vision or mission statement exists. A current vision or mission exists, and 51% to 75% of members can articulate the vision and mission. A current vision or mission exists and at least 76% of members can articulate the vision and mission.
Data-driven culture & approach Coalition work and decision-making based on anecdotal, unsubstantiated, or outdated information. Less than 25% of members use community and prevention data as reference. A few (3 to 5) champions exist. 26% to 50% of coalition members reference community and prevention data sets; group norm emerging. More than 50% of coalition members reference community and prevention data sets; group norm exists.
TOTAL SCORE COALITION DOMAIN
Domain 2.Leadership Elementent Leadership & Staffing: Scoring Rubric
1 Point 2 Points 3 Points 4 Points
Limited to no capacity Concerns or Issues limit coalition effectiveness Sufficient capacity or capabilities to produce results Strong capacity or capabilities
Coalition Chair(s) Clarity of role No formal, written description of leadership roles and responsibilities. No tools or processes to assess leadership efficacy. Limited formal, written description of leadership responsibilities. Leaders complete tasks without tools or processes. Clear documentation of roles, tools and processes exists. Coalition leader complies partially with responsibilities of the leadership role. Clear documentation of roles, tools and processes exists. Coalition leader complies fully with responsibilities of the leadership role.
Process and protocols No procedures or guidelines exist on leadership selection and term length. Procedures or guidelines exist on leadership selection and term length; coalition does not follow or use them. Procedures or guidelines exist on leadership selection and term length; coalition adheres to the greatest extent possible. Clear procedures or guidelines exist and followed for leadership selection, term length, and leadership succession planning.
Coalition Leaders (includes committee / work group leaders; NOT coalition staff) Prevention / Health Promotion Experience Less than 25% of leadership designees maintain up-to-date knowledge of prevention / health promotion field. 26% to 50% of leadership designees maintain up-to-date knowledge and working knowledge of prevention / health promotion field. 51% to 75% of leadership designees maintain up-to-date knowledge and working knowledge of prevention / health promotion field. At least 76% of leadership designees maintain up-to-date knowledge and working knowledge of prevention / health promotion field.
Collaborative Leadership Experience Less than 25% of leaders hold experience leading a community / volunteer groups. 26% to 50% of leaders hold experience leading a community / volunteer groups and can navigate group dynamics effectively. 51% to 75% of leaders hold experience leading a community / volunteer groups and can navigate group dynamics effectively. At least 76% of leaders hold experience leading a community / volunteer groups and can navigate group dynamics effectively.
Leadership development & succession Opportunities No leadership rotation in past 24 months or conversely high rates of turnover. Coalition addresses leadership replacement as needed; no formal plan or approach. Coalition leadership positions use term limits and produce regular openings; informal process to identify and develop potential leadership candidates. Coalition leadership positions open regularly (e.g., term limits) and process exists to deliberately develop leaders.
Selection No formal process exists. Group relies on volunteers or default options. Semi-formal process used on an as-needed basis. May or may not involve objective criteria. Formal process exists to select/elect leaders; may not be based on objective criteria or followed consistently. Formal process exists to select/elect leaders based on objective criteria and followed consistently.
Orientation / Onboarding No formal methods exist; each leader uses own, self-directed process. Informal leadership orientation process, varies based on other leaders and staff. Formal leadership orientation and onboarding process exists and followed. Formal leadership orientation, onboarding, transition plan, and mentoring available.
Youth leaders Coalition does not include youth members or a youth group. Youth not on coalition. Action Plan strategies affect youth; informal promotion to youth about future opportunities as members. Coalition members include youth or a youth group; informal process and pathway exists to develop youth leaders. Coalition members include youth; a clear process and pathway exists to develop youth leaders
Coalition coordinator Clarity of Role No formal job description exists that articulates roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and standards for performance. No explicit annual work plan performance. No explicit annual work plan. Formal job description exists that articulates roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and standards for performance. However, document does not reflect current work. Annual work plan may or may not exist. Formal job description exists that articulates current roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and standards for performance with 50% to 75% accuracy. Annual work plan exists in at least generalities. Formal job description exists that articulates current roles, responsibilities, deliverables, and standards for performance with regular process to update and amend. Annual work plan exists and updated.
Qualifications / Experience Coordinator does not maintain minimum credentials and/or experience to hold job. Coordinator maintains minimum credentials and experience for job. Gaps exist in technical competencies or knowledge important to make meaningful progress. Coordinator exceeds minimum credentials and experience for the job, maintains core competencies to perform at satisfactory level; may participate in continuing education. Coordinator exceeds minimum credentials, holds all core competencies and knowledge to perform duties, and pursues ongoing prof development and continuing education.
Level of Effort Staffing levels not sufficient to support coalition functioning; no or minimal effort to address disconnect (e.g., more volunteer help; revise plan). Staffing levels sufficient to maintain critical coalition functions at a reasonable level. Additional effort to address disconnects may or may not occur. Adequate staffing levels exist to support coalition and Action Plan. Efforts by coalition members to provide volunteer support or leverage partner resources. More than sufficient staffing levels exist to support coalition and Action Plan. Volunteer and partner resources aligned for optimal efficiencies.
Supervision No formal process exists to provide structured and regular feedback about job performance. Clear lines of supervision for coordinator may not exist. Annual review and/or immediate supervisor reviews occur without structure or regularity. May or may not produce a productive outcome. Annual review process and guidelines exist; immediate organizational supervisor available for reviews 2 to 4 times per year; peer mentors may or may not exist. Annual review process and guidelines in place for Coalition chair to review progress + monthly reviews by immediate organizational supervisor + connection with peer mentors.
Administrative support Level of effort Less than 5 hours weekly of regular access to administrative/fiscal support provided to coalition coordinator by coalition, partners / vendors, and/or sponsoring organization. 6 to 10 hours weekly of regular access to administrative/fiscal support provided to coalition leader by coalition, partners / vendors, and/or sponsoring organization; may or may not be sufficient level to support coordinator. 11 to 20 hours weekly of regular access to administrative/fiscal support provided to coalition leader by coalition, partners / vendors, and/or sponsoring organization; adequate level to support coordinator. 20+ hours weekly of regular access to administrative / fiscal support provided to coalition leader by coalition, partners / vendors, and/or sponsoring organization; sufficient level to support coordinator.
Alignment of skills to work Mismatch in competence or knowledge to perform work; high errors and/or level of supervision required Partial (50%) alignment between work tasks and required knowledge and competence. Must invest high level of quality control. Uneven productivity. General alignment (51% to 75%) between work tasks and required knowledge and competencies. Reasonable quality control required. Moderate productivity. Strong alignment (76% or above) of work tasks and required knowledge and competence. Minimal supervision required; high productivity and low error rate.
Domain 3. Action Plan Element Plan Development & Implementation Scoring Rubric
1 Point 2 Points 3 Points 4 Points
Limited to no capacity Concerns or Issues limit coalition effectiveness Sufficient capacity or capabilities to produce results Strong capacity or capabilities
Fundamental knowledge of process SPF Less than 25% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with SPF framework. 26% to 50% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with SPF framework. 51% to 75% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with SPF framework. At least 76% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with SPF framework.
Community planning Less than 25% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with community planning processes. 26% to 50% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with community planning processes. 51% to 75% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with community planning processes. At least 76% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with community planning processes.
Data access and use Data sources Coalition relies on the professional knowledge of the coordinator. Coalition relies on the professional knowledge of the coordinator and a subset of coalition members. Coalition coordinator and/or members developing written inventory of data sources. Written inventory exists, updated annually.
Data access Coalition relies on coordinator to facilitate access. Coalition relies on coordinator and the connections of a small set of coalition members to facilitate access. Coalition members and partners facilitate access to most relevant data sets; some gaps exist. Coalition members and partners facilitate access to the most relevant data sets. Process in place to close any “gaps” in access.
Access to data experts Coalition membership does NOT contain an expert on quantitative and/or qualitative data and methodology. Data experts may not be included or consulted. Coalition membership does NOT contain an expert on quantitative and/or qualitative data and methodology. Limited access to resources or experts. Coalition membership does NOT contain an expert on quantitative and/or qualitative data and methodology; resources or relationships exist to involve as needed. Coalition membership contains an expert on quantitative and/or qualitative data and methodology; or coalition maintains formal access (partnerships) to data experts.
Community needs assessment Process occurs irregularly and with limited or partial data sets; may rely heavily on opinions, anecdotal information, or qualitative information. Partial needs assessment process conducted (updated) every five years; does not include comprehensive data sets such as demographics, community indicators, population-based surveys, focus groups, and key informant interviews. Comprehensive assessment process conducted (updated) every five years, OR partial process occurs every three years using demographics, community indicators, population-based surveys, focus groups, and key informant interviews Comprehensive process conducted (updated) every three years using diverse data sets such as demographics, community indicators, population-based surveys, focus groups, and key informant interviews.
Coalition process to develop Action Plan Risk and protective factors Coalition applies general assumptions about most relevant risk factors based on literature from the field. Coalition applies general assumptions about most relevant risk factors based on literature from the field. Incomplete effort to identify community-specific risk and protective factors. Coalition defines clearly the relevant risk and protective factors by domain (e.g., individual, family, peer, school, community) for priority populations; factors not linked closely to data sets. Coalition defines clearly the relevant risk and protective factors by domain (e.g., individual, family, peer, school, community) for priority populations, and links to data sets.
Priorities Coalition does not clearly identify priority substances or populations – “universal” language. Coalition identifies priority substances OR priority populations – not (yet) a population-specific approach. Coalition identifies priority substances and priority populations; approach does not include specificity (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, geography). Coalition identifies priority substances and priority populations with specificity (age, race/ethnicity, geography) around which the Action Plan will focus.
Priorities align with community agendas Limited effort to understand how priorities correspond with broader strategic objectives in community. Priorities correspond only indirectly with strategic agendas of elected officials and/or partners (e.g., schools, hospitals). 1 coalition priority correspond directly with strategic agendas of elected officials and/or community partners (e.g., schools, hospitals). 2 or more priorities correspond directly with strategic agendas of elected officials and/or community partners (e.g., schools, hospitals).
Strategies The coalition does not include relevant strategies in its plan. The coalition includes vague and/or universal strategies; disconnects exist across Action Plan. Clear articulation of specific strategies. However, selected strategies not well integrated to produce the biggest impact. Clear articulation of specific strategies; integration to support multiple goals and objectives across the Action Plan.
SMART objectives The coalition does not include objectives in its Action Plan. Action Plan objectives incomplete across all criteria of “specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, and time-bound.” Action Plan objectives align with criteria of “specific, measurable, actionable, relevant, and time-bound.” Action Plan objectives align with SMART criteria AND align to support outcomes valued by other institutional / community partners.
Action Plan implementation process Resources No or insufficient resource plan exists to implement Action Plan. May assume coordinator will figure it out. Resource plan exists to implement Action Plan; must close up to 25% gap in funding/resources. Plan may be driven only by coordinator. A resource plan exist to cover 76% to 100% of implementation. Coalition uses a committee and/or group process to develop and update the resource plan. A resource plan exist to cover 76% to 100% of implementation using diversified funding sources. Use of a group process to develop and update the resource plan.
Quality assurance No process exists to assess the extent to which Action Plan implemented with fidelity. Coalition coordinator uses informal approach and methods to assess implementation fidelity. Coalition coordinator uses formal and systematic approach and methods – albeit limited in scope, to assess implementation fidelity. Action Plan and includes clear implementation standards, benchmarks, and QA methods to assess implementation fidelity.
Evaluation Coalition does not use any evaluation methods. Evaluation methods and processes emerging in coalition work. No formal evaluation underway. Coalition organizes and manages evaluation process for critical Action Plan strategies. Process behind schedule. Coalition organizes and manages evaluation process for critical Action Plan strategies. Evaluation process on-schedule.
Updates to coalition No standard, regular process to update coalition on planned v. actual progress for Action Plan. Coalition coordinator uses informal (e.g., oral) process to update coalition on planned v. actual progress for Action Plan. Coordinator uses systematic process and/or dashboard to update coalition on planned v. actual progress for Action Plan. A coalition group and coordinator use systematic process and/or dashboard to update coalition on planned v. actual progress for Action Plan. Share results with community.
TOTAL SCORE PLAN DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION DOMAIN
Domain 4. Sustainability Element Sustainability Scoring Rubric
1 Point 2 Points 3 Points 4 Points
Limited to no capacity Concerns or Issues limit coalition effectiveness Sufficient capacity or capabilities to produce results Strong capacity or capabilities
Fundamental knowledge of sustainability Coalition members Less than 25% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with sustainability planning and resource development. 26% to 50% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with sustainability planning and resource development. 51% to 75% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with sustainability planning and resource development. At least 76% of leaders hold knowledge about or experience with sustainability planning and resource development.
Coordinator No experience in fundraising and/or resource development. Limited experience and/or technical competencies in resource development and sustainability. Coordinator holds prior experience (successful or unsuccessful) and/or subset of core competencies necessary to support sustainability planning and resource development. Coordinator holds necessary knowledge, competencies, and experience to support sustainability planning and resource development.
Current Plan Existence No written resource development plan exists beyond fundamental information such as a current and/or multi-year program budget. A current and/or multi-year program budget exists; discussions occur irregularly and informally about future funding. A current and/or multi-year program budget exists with preliminary outlines of how the coalition will support priority work in the event of changes in resources (expansion, contraction). A resource development and/or sustainability plan or framework exists and identifies goals for growth, diversification, funding / resource opportunities, prospects and timelines.
Priorities / goals No sustainability priorities exist; primary focus may be to support a full- or part-time staff person. No formal coalition consensus process used; sustainability priorities may relate more to funding opportunities than to need and/or results. Coalition members hold a general consensus of sustainability priority actions without conducting a formal or extensive process. Data will support selection of priorities and help make the case. Coalition members use a data-driven process to select sustainability priorities (growth, contraction) and describe goals objectively (resource amounts, timing, and impact).
Diversity The coalition relies on one funding source that may be time-limited or vulnerable. The coalition relies primarily on one funding source that may be more stable and static (i.e., not growing). The coalition receives direct funding from multiple sources that account for up to 20% of the total budget + in-kind contributions from resource partners. The coalition receives direct funding from multiple funding sources that account for more than 21% of the total budget + in-kind contributions from resource partners.
Use of data to make case The coalition does not use data and/or results to make a case for resourcing Action Plan priorities. The coalition uses general and somewhat current data and/or results to make a case for resourcing Action Plan priorities. The data relates may not relate directly to the priority in question. The coalition uses general, current, and relevant data – including evaluation data, and/or results to make a case for resourcing Action Plan priorities. The data relates directly to the priority. The coalition uses specific, current, and compelling data – including evaluation data, and/or results to make a case for resourcing Action Plan priorities. Case statement may include cost-benefit, cost saving, and/or economic impact.
Process for financial reporting, resource development & sustainability Structure No formal group process or guidelines exist. Working assumption that coordinator will complete any work or “time-limited, grant funded” project. No formal group process or guidelines exist. Coordinator uses self-directed process in response to circumstances. Coalition relies on a small subset of coalition members that may convene as a group or offer individual support to the coordinator. Coalition convenes regularly a committee to advance sustainability and resource development work. Coordinator allocates time to support this work.
Frequency Coalition discusses funding when issues exist (e.g., end of grant). No systematic process exists to share financial reports / resource development plans. Coordinator may share information orally. Coalition uses systematic process to share financial reports / resource development plans at least 2 times per year. Coalition uses systematic process to share financial reports / resource development plans at each coalition meeting.
Partnership / innovation No interest in and/or capacity to pursue partnerships or other resource development activities. Willingness exists to explore new partnership and funding opportunities; follow-through driven by individual efforts (e.g., coalition member, coalition coordinator). Coalition open to explore opportunities with partners and/or engage in more entrepreneurial approaches (e.g., events, sponsorships, incorporation into operating budgets); informal guidelines exist driven mostly by coordinator and/or small number of coalition members. Coalition maintains guidelines and/or decision parameters to explore/screen funding opportunities with partners and/or engage in more entrepreneurial approaches (e.g., events, sponsorships, incorporation into operating budgets).
Annual appeals / online giving No process in place to conduct annual appeal or collect online giving. Building blocks exist to add online giving options and/or establish or strengthen annual appeals or flagship fundraising events (lead or as a partner). 1 to 4 years of experience in building coalition visibility and presence using online giving options and/or flagship events (lead or as a partner). 5+ years of experience in online giving, annual appeals, or flagship events (lead or as a sponsor); may be exploring or earning income through alternative revenue streams.
Level of effort Coalition members and/or coordinator commit less than 2 hours per month to research funding opportunities and/or cultivate prospects / partners. Coalition members and/or coordinator commit 2 to 4 hours per month to research funding opportunities and/or cultivate prospects / partners. Coalition members and/or coordinator commit 5 to 20 hours month to research funding opportunities and/or cultivate prospects / partners. Coalition members and/or coordinators commit at least 21 per month to research funding opportunities and/or cultivate prospects / partners.
Quality Assurance No process in place. Assume coalition coordinator or lead organization addressing any issues. Coalition coordinator discusses topics as needed. No formal guidelines in place to maintain quality assurance. Coalition conducts at least an annual reflection / review process to adjust/update sustainability and resource development plans. Coalition conducts quarterly progress checks and convenes an annual reflection / review process to adjust/update sustainability and resource development plans.

Coalition Vitality Assessment Tool v2.0 – Discussion Notes Template

On pages 12-15, you will find a tool to help you document notes from your self-assessment discussion.

Evidence supporting score Suggestions for improvement?
Domain 1: Coalition
Guiding Principles Vision & Mission
Coalition Composition

• Required sectors

• Demographic diversity & inclusiveness

• Youth participation

Coalition Meetings (full group)

• Member roles

• Meeting frequency & duration

• Meeting organization

• Meeting attendance

• Meeting fdbk / climate

Committees, work groups, or action teams

• Formation

• Charge

• Level of support

• Public participation (including youth)

Culture

• Partner engagement by coalition members

• Data-driven culture & approach

Evidence supporting score Suggestions for improvement?
Domain 2: Leadership
Coalition Chair(s)

• Clarity of role

• Process and protocols

Coalition Leaders (includes cmte / work group leaders; not coalition staff)

• Prevention / Health Promotion Experience

• Collaborative Leadership Experience

Leadership development & succession

• Opportunities

• Selection

• Orientation / onboarding

• Youth leaders

Coalition Coordinator

• Clarity of Role

• Qualifications / Experience

• Level of Effort

• Supervision

Administrative Support

• Level of effort

• Alignment of skills to work

Evidence supporting score Suggestions for improvement?
Domain 3: Action Plan
Fundamental knowledge of process

• SPF

• Community planning

Data access and use

• Data sources

• Data access

• Access to data experts

• Community needs assessment process

Coalition process to develop Action Plan

• Risk and protective factors

• Priorities

• Priorities align with community agendas

• Strategies

• SMART objectives

Action Plan implementation process

• Resources

• Quality Assurance

• Evaluation

• Updates to coalition

Evidence supporting score Suggestions for improvement?
Domain 4: Sustainability
Fundamental knowledge of sustainability

• Coalition members

• Coordinator

Current Plan

• Existence

• Priorities / goals

• Diversity

• Use of data to make case

Process for financial reporting, resource development & sustainability

• Structure

• Frequency

• Partnership / innovation

• Annual appeals / online giving

• Level of effort

• Quality Assurance