Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
DOI 10.1007/s10464-007-9149-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Qualitative Study of the Activities and Outcomes
of Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils
Nicole E. Allen Æ Kelly A. Watt Æ Jacob Z. Hess
Published online: 12 January 2008

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Efforts to promote systems change frequently
involve the creation of councils, coalitions, and other col-
laborative settings. However, research, to date, reports
limited empirical evidence that they achieve desired out-
comes (Roussos and Fawcett, Annu Rev Public Health
21:369–402, 2000). The precise nature of this evidence
base has received less attention. In particular, formal
investigations into council effectiveness (a) rarely highlight
the specific nature of collaborative efforts; (b) emphasize
fairly distal markers as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for effective-
ness; (c) focus largely on formative ‘‘outcomes’’ (e.g.,
action plan quality); and (d) utilize primarily quantitative
research approaches. The current study extends previous
research by employing a qualitative approach to investigate
the particular activities and proximal outcomes of 41
domestic violence coordinating councils. Study findings
suggest that councils engage in six primary activities:
discussing issues, sharing information, identifying weak-
nesses in the system’s response, providing training for key
stakeholders, engaging in public/community education, and
lobbying key stakeholders who are not council members.
Three proximal outcomes were consistently identified in
council efforts: the promotion of knowledge, relationships,
and institutionalized change. Attending more directly to
proximal outcomes and concrete activities in our research
has important implications for conceptualizing and
researching the effectiveness of councils and collaborative
settings.
N. E. Allen (&)
K. A. Watt
J. Z. Hess
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA
e-mail: allenne@uiuc.edu
Keywords Collaboration
Coordinating councils

Coalitions
Domestic violence
Intimate partner violence
Introduction
Efforts to promote systems change frequently require
collaboration among stakeholders from a wide array of
community sectors. Collaboration often involves the for-
mation of settings (e.g., coalitions, teams, and councils,
herein referred to as councils) to encourage communication
across stakeholders and joint action in response to complex
social issues (e.g., substance abuse, domestic violence,
etc.). In spite of the popularity of councils, researchers
have revealed numerous barriers to their success (Foster-
Fishman et al. 2001b) and reported limited empirical sup-
port for their effectiveness (Roussos and Fawcett 2000).
These questions are especially important given the resource
and time intensity of councils and the seriousness of the
issues they aim to address. Thus, ongoing confusion
regarding the outcomes of councils is particularly con-
cerning. To what degree, if at all, do councils provide an
optimal venue for the promotion of community change?
In response, some have called for attention to conceptual
and methodological obstacles in the literature on council
effectiveness (e.g., lack of control or comparison groups;
see Berkowitz 2001; Roussos and Fawcett 2000; Yin and
Kaftarian 1997, for reviews of methodological issues).
Expanding these discussions, we identify four issues in the
current research that in particular deserve attention: (a) the
emphasis on distal outcomes as the ‘‘gold standard’’ for
council effectiveness; (b) the over-reliance on formative
‘‘outcomes’’ including, for example, plan quality and
member satisfaction to gauge effectiveness; (c) the lack of
attention to the precise nature of collaborative activities
123
64
being pursued; and (d) the absence of qualitative approa-
ches to inquiry regarding council contributions.
Notably, research questioning council effectiveness has
focused largely on the extent to which these settings
achieve distal outcomes such as behavioral changes among
targeted community members (e.g., Lasker and Weiss
2003; Roussos and Fawcett 2000; Yin and Kaftarian 1997).
For example, Yin and Kaftarian (1997), in presenting a
model for evaluating community partnerships to reduce
substance abuse, indicate that ‘‘for the outcome evalua-
tions, the relevant aspect of the framework is that
successful community partnerships should show actual
changes in substance abuse behavior’’ (p. 294). Along
these lines, Roussos and Fawcett (2000) found many
studies that examined the extent to which collaborative
partnerships produced changes in community-wide
behavior (e.g., the percentage of community members
consuming recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables)
and more distant population-level outcomes (e.g., reduced
incidence of lead poisoning; reduced teenage pregnancy
rates). Unfortunately, when these kind of distal outcomes
are examined, councils demonstrate mixed results (Roussos
and Fawcett 2000).
While the extent to which councils achieve community-
wide behavior changes and/or population-level outcomes
are critical measures of merit and worth, an exclusive focus
on such distal outcomes may fail to reveal the more
nuanced changes these settings are well-positioned to
produce. Gray (1989, 1996) notes, for instance, that for
‘‘collective strategies,’’ it is important to examine shorter-
term outcomes, including whether agreements are reached
about how to proceed and whether initial action steps are
taken, because eradicating ‘‘social ills’’ takes a long time.
In light of this, it seems appropriate to direct more attention
to the proximal or intermediate outcomes by which these
settings stimulate community change.
Indeed, much of the current research on councils has
focused on formative ‘‘outcomes’’ (Kegler et al. 2000)
including, for example, the quality of council action plans
(e.g., Kumpfer et al. 1993) and member satisfaction (e.g.,
Kegler et al. 1998). However, such formative ‘‘outcomes’’
may not gauge the areas of change that councils are
well-positioned to facilitate. Thus, while such formative
‘‘outcomes’’ provide insight into council functioning, they
may not clarify the mechanisms, pathways or proximal
outcomes, by which councils foster change in their com-
munities (Lasker and Weiss 2003).
It is proposed here that a clear understanding of the
precise nature of council activities—what councils actually
do in practice—may better ground our collective evalua-
tions of their ‘‘merit and worth.’’ To illustrate, Kegler et al.
(2001) suggested that tendencies to favor distal outcomes
‘‘set the bar too high’’ in evaluating councils. One possible
123
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
interpretation of her comments is to suggest a potential
mismatch between evaluative expectations and the actual
activities of councils themselves. Given this, a closer
examination of the activities undertaken by these settings
may serve as a corrective to hone our understanding of the
types of outcomes we might reasonably expect from
councils. Indeed, such an investigation would be normative
for evaluation research, where it is common to link
expected outcomes to the particular activities in which
settings are engaged. Rather than ‘‘lowering the bar’’ for
outcome standards, we believe that doing so will set the bar
‘‘just right’’—as a measure of merit and worth that gauges
more fairly what outcomes councils are well-positioned to
achieve.
Naturally, investigating both proximal outcomes and
actual activities within councils calls for an expansion of
typical methodological approaches—echoing calls of sev-
eral previous researchers (Foster-Fishman et al. 2001a;
Cashman et al. 2001). Berkowitz (2001) tackles the issue
directly in suggesting that perhaps ‘‘evidence for positive
coalition outcomes is weak because we have gone about
seeking those outcomes incorrectly.’’ He goes on to posit
that ‘‘conventional evaluation may be too blunt and indis-
criminate a tool, unlikely to detect finer-grained successes,
or failures’’ (p. 223). Surprisingly, qualitative methods are
rarely employed in the study of councils (Foster-Fishman
et al. 2001a) even though they seem to be ‘‘natural settings
for qualitative study’’ (Cashman et al. 2001, p. 233). The
dynamic, complex nature of diverse individuals coming
together with aims of working together presents a chal-
lenge for research. A qualitative approach allows for an
in-depth examination of community members’ experiences
of councils. In particular, such an approach permits
investigation of both what is happening in the settings and
how people are thinking and talking about what is hap-
pening. In this way, research on the activities and outcomes
of councils can be grounded in the unique contributions of
those participating in the settings on a regular basis.
Current Study
The current study examined the collaborative efforts of 41
domestic violence coordinating councils to better understand
the nature of their activities and the types of outcomes they
were well-positioned to achieve. Given their attempt to
promote systems change across multiple community sectors
in the community response to domestic violence (i.e.,
criminal justice, human service, health care, general public,
business, etc.), this set of councils provides an excellent
opportunity to examine the potential of these settings to
facilitate community change. A particular strength of this
sample is that it includes multiple councils; in fact, nearly all
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
of the councils in one state participated in the research at the
time it was conducted. This allowed for an examination of
patterns in activities and outcomes across councils rather
than those in only a single case. Specifically, the current
study addresses the following research questions: (a) what
characterized the activities of these councils? and (b) what
outcomes were these councils well-positioned to achieve?
Methods
Participants
Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils
This study included 41 of 45 coordinating councils (91%) in
one Midwestern state. The councils varied in size from 8 to
116 members with an average of 39 members (mean
size = 39.17; SD = 25.19) and council age ranged from 7 to
192 months (16 years) with an average of 64 months
(5 years, 4 months). The organizations included within each
council varied: 100% of councils included representatives
from the local domestic violence programs, 100% from law
enforcement (e.g., police, probation officers), 88% from the
prosecuting attorneys office, 88% from batterers interven-
tion programs, 80% from the district court (e.g., a judge,
magistrate or clerk), and 78% from health care organizations.
In addition, some included legal aid (60%), mental health
services (59%), social services agencies (58%), child pro-
tective services (51%), religious organizations (46%), the
circuit court (42%), educational institutions (39%), and local
businesses (15%). Very few councils included a formal
domestic violence survivor representative (29%), although
many included members who had a history of victimization
(sometimes publicly acknowledged in the setting and
sometimes not). These councils were often lead by local
shelter programs, which often bring an orientation to the
grassroots and perspective of domestic violence survivors.
The majority of councils operated with little or no funding;
average funding across councils was approximately $9,500
yearly (Mean = $9447.44; SD = $20.240.52) with 14
councils reporting no funding at all. Those councils with funds
ranged widely from budgets of $2,300 to $93,000 yearly. In
addition, only 12 of 41 councils had a paid coordinator or staff
person.
Key Informants
The council member responsible for convening or chairing
each council (e.g., managing meetings, creating schedules)
was interviewed extensively regarding council character-
istics, activities, and history (e.g., council structure).
65
Usually, the key informant was a present or former chair of
the council (56%) or the individual primarily responsible
for council coordination (27%). In most cases, the key
informant was a council member who played a primary
role in the operation of the council and had a historical
perspective regarding the council’s functioning (he/she
must have been a council member for at least 1 year, or
since the council’s inception if it was formed less than 1
year ago; in two cases (5%) the key informants had been
council members for less than 1 year, but were current
coordinators). Key informants represented a variety of
organizations: 56% were employees of the local domestic
violence shelter program; 20% were prosecuting or assis-
tant prosecuting attorneys; 7% were victims’ advocates
from the sheriff’s or prosecuting attorney’s office; 7% were
council staff or directors; 5% were law enforcement; 2%
were probation officers; 2% were from community-based
organizations.
Procedures
Recruitment of Councils and Key Informants
A list of councils was compiled in collaboration with the
state coalition and local shelters throughout the state. To
begin the data collection process a recruitment letter was
sent to council leaders and/or the council convener (i.e., the
person who manages the council), informing them about
the purpose of the study and requesting the council’s par-
ticipation. If the leader or convener did not respond to the
letter, a phone call was made requesting participation and
answering any questions the convener or leader may have
had. In both cases, if the council leader/convener was
willing to participate, he/she was asked to indicate the most
appropriate person for the key informant interview (i.e.,
someone intimately familiar with the history and func-
tioning of the council and, ideally, a long-time member of
the setting). If the leader/convener was the most appro-
priate individual identified, an interview time was set for
his/her key informant interview. If not, the person identi-
fied by the leader/staff person was called to request his/her
participation and to set up an interview time if they were
willing to participate. Semi-structured interviews lasted
approximately one and a half hours.
Measures
Council Demographic and Descriptive Information
Information was collected regarding when the council was
formed, the resources with which it operated (staff and
123
66
funding) and which stakeholder groups were represented
on the council. To assess stakeholder representation
informants were asked about a variety of groups commonly
identified as key players in the community response to
domestic violence and ‘‘others’’ unique to a particular
council. Informants were asked about whether those groups
were ‘‘official’’ members, and also whether they were
‘‘active’’ members (e.g., were actively represented; par-
ticipated in council efforts).
Assessing Council Activities and Outcomes
Key informants were asked about specific areas of systems
change typically targeted in the community response to
domestic violence (e.g., enforcing mandatory arrest poli-
cies; increasing the accessibility and enforcement of orders
of protection; encouraging health care screening for
domestic violence). For each issue that councils addressed,
council leaders were asked to identify the specific activities
in which the council engaged to address the issue (i.e., Has
your council addressed the enforcement of mandatory
arrest policies? If yes, what activities has your council
engaged to address this issue?). Participants were also
encouraged to provide any ‘‘evidence’’ they had regarding
outcomes that had resulted from council efforts, including
their own observations and anecdotes about changes in the
community response to domestic violence (i.e., What evi-
dence do you have—anecdotal or otherwise—that your
council has accomplished this goal?). While particular
areas of systems change were asked about, key informants’
discussions of their activities to address these areas, and
their observations about what had changed as a result of
council activities, were entirely open-ended. Key infor-
mants were also provided with an opportunity to indicate
other areas they had addressed and to detail activities and
‘‘evidence’’ of change related to those.
Data Analysis
The current study employed a qualitative approach. This
strategy was appropriate given that the goal of the study
was to describe council activities and the domains in which
councils affected change. The experiences and observa-
tions of the key informants provide an important window
into the collaborative work of these settings. To examine
councils’ activities and outcomes, a content analysis was
performed (Berg 2004). Content analysis refers to a process
by which messages—in this case verbatim interview tran-
scripts—are analyzed to uncover common themes (Berg
2004). To begin this process, all transcripts were read by
the first author, and a set of initial themes were created,
123
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
which captured the range of activities in which councils
engaged and the types of outcomes they described.
Activities referred to the specific efforts in which councils
engaged to address issues of concern in their community.
Outcomes referred to the changes key informants described
as a resulted of their efforts, or what the activities achieved.
This initial set of themes was numerous (a total of 25
themes was identified) and captured a high level of detail
about the specific nature of council activities (e.g., fol-
lowing specific cases through the criminal justice system)
and outcomes (e.g., creating new positions, such as
domestic violence investigator). All interview transcripts
were coded by the first author using this framework. Fol-
lowing this initial coding, a set of second order themes that
more parsimoniously captured prominent council activities
and outcomes was developed collectively by all authors.
Using this second set of 11 themes, including both activi-
ties and outcomes, the second and third author
independently coded all transcripts to examine whether
each theme was present (yes or no) and to code verbatim
into relevant themes using QSR’s N5 qualitative software
program. Researchers discussed the reasons for their rat-
ings (yes or no) and made final consensus ratings for each
case by discussing and resolving coding discrepancies. All
analyses are based on final consensus ratings. Ultimately,
this analysis revealed six primary activities in which
councils regularly engaged and three outcomes that
emerged from their efforts.
Results
Council Activities
Six primary areas of activity were identified: (a) discussing
issues; (b) sharing information; (c) identifying weaknesses
in the system’s response; (d) providing or supporting
training of key stakeholders in the community response
(e.g., law enforcement, health care providers); (e) engaging
in public/community education; and (f) lobbying non-
member stakeholders.
While each of these activities captures unique aspects of
council efforts, it is important to recognize that they are
naturally related to each other. For example, the sharing of
information can lead to the identification of weaknesses in
the community response. For this reason, it was permissible
to code verbatim into multiple categories as appropriate.
Further, verbatim was only coded as relevant to a particular
activity or outcome when that activity was explicitly
described. For example, while it is likely that discussion
took place in the vast majority of councils, this was not
assumed; only those key informants that explicitly descri-
bed a process of discussion were included in this category.
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
See Table 1 for a summary of the proportion of councils
that described each activity and outcome. Below we
describe each activity and outcome and provide sample
verbatim to illustrate the meaning of each.
Discussing Issues
Not surprisingly, many councils provided a forum for
discussion of issues related to domestic violence and the
creation of a coordinated community response (85%).
Although councils served to ‘‘bring stakeholders to the
table,’’ it is important to note that talking about an issue did
not necessarily lead to action.
[The issue of orders of protection] was brought to our
council meetings continuously for the last three years;
discussions, very heated discussions, different kinds
of opinions, trying to resolve problems, trying to
address them to the appropriate people. (Council #6).
Sharing Information
About half of the councils (51%) used their regular meetings
times as venues for information sharing about members’
organizations and organizational roles. For example, in one
community, early in the work of the council, a portion of
each meeting was devoted to a particular stakeholder group
providing detailed information about their organization.
This information could include operating procedures, poli-
cies, and the barriers they face in their work. For example,
one key informant said:
It was hard for the [council] to identify services
particularly because they weren’t aware of what
others were doing. So they could examine their own
department but they weren’t quite sure how their
department linked with another department or how it
Table 1 Percentages of
councils reporting activities and
outcomes Engaging in these activities
Discussing issues
Sharing information
Identifying weaknesses in the system’s response
Providing or supporting training of key stakeholders
Engaging in public/community education
Lobbying non-member stakeholders
Identifying these outcomes
Increasing knowledge
Fostering relationships
Promoting institutionalized change
67
should. So…at every council meeting, someone does
an introduction and it’s usually about a half hour, it
explains what their department does, what areas they
handle, what areas they don’t handle that everybody
thinks they do, just kind of increased everybody’s
knowledge across the board. (Council #5).
Identifying Weaknesses in the System’s Response
The majority of councils (85%) used their time together to
formally or informally identify weaknesses in their sys-
tem’s response to domestic violence (including the
criminal justice, human service and health care sys-
tems)—a task that benefits from the presence and input of
all stakeholder groups. The identification of weaknesses
often seemed to be an outgrowth of the information
sharing that occurred in the context of council meetings.
For example, some councils systematically identified
gaps in the system by following specific cases or sce-
narios and reviewing current policies and practices step
by step. These processes revealed both strengths and
weaknesses in the community response and provided the
council with detailed information about where to focus
their efforts.
With the various membership [from] each area of
the whole process, from having each agency
explain their procedures, we were able to identify
weaknesses or areas that need to be addressed. It
certainly helps having individuals from the differ-
ent agencies. It helps put the pieces together.
(Council #18).
In some communities, following specific cases seemed
prohibitive because of concerns about confidentiality. In
order to address these concerns, councils often examined
how they would respond to fictitious cases or reviewed
anonymous cases.
% of councils
85% (35 of 41)
51% (21 of 41)
85% (35 of 41)
95% (39 of 41)
73% (30 of 41)
90% (37 of 41)
81% (33 of 41)
71% (29 of 41)
93% (38 of 41)
123
68
Councils focused on addressing a particular issue
within the community response (e.g., enforcing orders of
protection, strengthening sentencing practices). One
example of a collective effort involved three councils
working collaboratively with each other to address the
issuance and enforcement of orders of protection.
[Our goal was to understand]…what the barriers were
to appropriate implementation of personal protection
orders within our individual counties as well as what
we saw as overriding issues in the tri-county
area…We had focus groups in each of three counties
asking the question, ‘‘what are the barriers?’’ We came
up with a tremendous foundation of issues. The focus
group participants were just about everybody who had
anything to do with [orders of protection]…It was very
exciting…we came up with a lot of recommendations
and …set out to implement those recommendations.
(Council #6).
Providing or Supporting Training of Key Stakeholders
The vast majority of councils (95%) engaged in some effort
to provide or promote training opportunities related to
domestic violence. Training was provided to many key
stakeholders within the criminal justice system such as 911
dispatch, law enforcement, probation, and prosecuting
attorneys. Training was also provided to important stake-
holders outside of the criminal justice arena including child
protective services, clergy, human service providers,
schools, and health care providers.
There’s going to be a training for about 50 medical
professionals…[The purpose is] to do a combination
of domestic violence assessment, sexual assault
assessments and after hours emergencies, [for exam-
ple] if they did an assessment, who would they call…
(Council #45).
Engaging in Public/Community Education
Councils commonly engaged (73%) in public education
and community awareness activities regarding domestic
violence and available community resources.
Some councils took a multifaceted approach by engaging
in a variety of different efforts in many different settings.
[Our council has done] public service announce-
ments, brochures, pamphlets, victims’ handbook,
children’s coloring books, presentation seminars for
law enforcement personnel, probation, humane soci-
ety, [and] service agencies. (Council #14).
123
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
Councils’ public education and community aware-
ness activities were quite varied and included:
Organizing public events such as candlelight vigils or
community rallies; engaging the general public in ini-
tiatives to respond to domestic violence (e.g.,
collecting stuffed animals and clothing for children
who witness domestic violence); working with local
business to educate the community (e.g., having res-
taurant owners use paper placemats with information
about domestic violence); and using local media (e.g.,
circulating a community newsletter, writing a weekly
column in the local newspaper, sponsoring public ser-
vice announcements).
Lobbying Non-member Stakeholders
Most councils (90%) engaged in targeted lobbying
activities, particularly when key stakeholder groups,
such as prosecuting attorneys and probation officers or
judges, were unwilling to participate directly in council
efforts. Lobbying efforts typically included having one-
on-one meetings with, and sending letters and informa-
tion to, targeted stakeholders. For example, some
councils were particularly concerned with educating
judges and probation officers about which batterers’
intervention programs were complying with state rec-
ommended standards. One key informant detailed her
council’s efforts to address the implementation of these
standards:
Specifically, regarding batterer intervention espe-
cially…we took…[the] specific state standards these
intervention programs should be addressing and we
mailed…surveys to the local programs [to assess
what state standards they’re meeting; then] I devel-
oped a report as to what state standards they’re
meeting…We invited all the batterers programs to
[our council meeting]; two attended. We also drafted
a letter to all the local judges about which batterers’
programs are meeting state standards…just to give
them current knowledge that we only have one that
actually addresses battering specifically and meets
the state’s standards. (Council #15).
Finally, it is important to consider that no two coun-
cils were identical with regard to the set of activities in
which they engaged. While most engaged in some effort
to offer training to key stakeholders the set of activities
was not uniform. Thus, while examining themes across
councils illuminates commonalities across settings, it
is critical not to view the activities detailed here as
proscriptive.
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
Council Outcomes
Three themes consistently emerged regarding the domains
in which councils affected change. Councils seemed to be
effective at promoting: (a) knowledge; (b) relationships;
and (c) institutionalized change.
Increasing Knowledge
Key informants frequently indicated that councils pro-
moted knowledge both among council members and also in
those outside of the council (81%). For example, key
informants reflected on how members’ perceptions of each
other and of domestic violence had changed as a result of
working together. Members became more aware of each
others’ roles, perspectives and limitations and, in the pro-
cess, about the nature of the system’s response to domestic
violence as a whole.
I think understanding more about the individual
agencies. Um, those are things that have been iden-
tified by staff people…I feel like it’s helped me
understand more about their program and why they’re
not doing all the things I thought they should do for
our clients. I think part of that has been people are
just really more aware of what the limitations of other
agencies are…Again, I think that’s more of a thing
individual people have said have happened, some
marvelous thing has happened. (Council #10).
Council members and those responding to domestic
violence also gained knowledge about the complexities of
the issue. Such shifts in knowledge are not surprising given
the emphasis on the activities of sharing information,
identifying weaknesses in the community response, and
providing training and education.
Just in discussing these cases with the police officers,
their understanding, and being better educated about
the dynamics of domestic violence, and knowing
what to look for, things like that [have changed].
(Council #18).
Fostering Relationships
Key informants frequently discussed how councils pro-
moted relationships between stakeholders by increasing
level of contact and communication between agencies
(71%). Rather than rely on institutional stereotypes of ‘‘bad
cops’’ and ‘‘man-bashing advocates,’’ former ‘‘enemies’’
literally had a face, name, and a personality and, often,
good will to create change. In this context stakeholders had
69
to engage each other as more than stereotypical images.
This direct contact fostered communication and facilitated
understanding, trust, and rapport among stakeholders.
Sometimes I believe the biggest value of that task
force is getting [the shelter advocates and police] in
the same room at the same time and having them
realize that they are all real live people and not ogres
or idiots. (Council #11).
Interestingly, new relationships were described at mul-
tiple levels. Sometimes these relationships involved
personal linkages between individual members of councils
that enhanced the institutional response. Key informants
frequently reflected on what a difference this made in the
efficiency of their response to complex cases.
New friendships were formed and people really saw
where you were coming from, going through those
meetings…I’d say the fact that I can really call on
elected officials, the police. They’re approachable;
they’re not as defensive… I think we can talk more
freely about problems and nobody has to feel like
they are being cornered anymore. (Council #30).
Relationships were not confined to personal linkages; at
times they involved formal linkages between organizations
that did not previously exist to improve the community
response. For example, in one instance, a new interagency
linkage was created so that the sheriff’s office would
directly inform the magistrate’s (judiciary) decisions
regarding setting appropriate bond conditions for batterers
(e.g., no contact with the victim). Notably, this change is
very specific to the community where it was made. Specific
linkages in other communities were equally context-
dependent.
Promoting Institutionalized Change
Key informants often described how their councils pro-
moted some form of institutionalized change in their
communities (93%). For the purposes of this study, insti-
tutionalized change refers to those changes created in the
structure of the formal helping response (e.g., in policies
and procedures). Changes took the form of either altering
existing practices or creating new initiatives. For instance,
policies and protocols were designed for various systems,
including health care (e.g., medical screening tools and
protocols), child protective services, law enforcement,
prosecution, and the judiciary. Some communities intro-
duced new positions, including a domestic violence
investigator, domestic violence police officer, order of
protection coordinator, or victims’ advocate in the sheriff
or prosecuting attorney’s office. Some communities
123
70
introduced new forms to improve the collection and flow of
information. For example, new forms were generated for
(a) requesting orders of protection; (b) providing bond
information; and (c) sharing pertinent information with
child protective services.
Some of the institutionalized changes key informants
described were viewed as subtle, but important, shifts in
procedure, while other changes were described as more
dramatic shifts for communities. For example, one key
informant said:
One of the processing issues that we were very con-
cerned about is [that] arraignments could occur up to
a month after the arrest so there was an incredible
delay between the time of arrest and the case going
forward at all. Consequently, we have been able to
reduce the time between arrest and arraignment to a
five-day period…that was a very significant change.
(Council #11).
The amount of jail sentences, the amount of man-
dating to the batterers’ group, the amount of
probation…there is no comparison. We may have had
one a year before this. Now every domestic violence
case is tried. (Council #21).
Many councils focused on creating new policies and
protocols. These policies and protocols provided law
enforcement officials and human service and health care
providers with detailed information about how to proceed
with domestic violence cases.
[Our council] developed the best practices man-
ual…The manual has been distributed to…all staff in
both hospitals and the doctors and other private pro-
viders such as dentists, chiropractors. (Council #38).
Some councils created forms to improve the flow and
sharing of information between agencies. For example, one
created a form containing information necessary for the
magistrate to set an appropriate bond. The key informant
explained:
If anybody is arrested for domestic violence, stalking,
violation of a personal protection order or any kind of
assaultive [sic] crime, every month, for every arrest,
we’ve developed a form called a bond information
report and we detail in that report things that happened,
recommendations of the arresting officer, booking
officer, detectives, prosecutors, we get all those inputs
before a person is arraigned… so when the magistrate
sets the bond, they’ll know the circumstances, they’ll
know if this guy has a history of domestic violence,
they’ll know whether alcohol is involved, they’ll know
if the victim wants the party out of the house, we’ll have
all that done before the bond was set. That was lacking
123
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
before. The magistrate would set a cash bond with no
conditions and now we’re getting better bonds where
the defendant can’t contact the person, can’t go to the
house, all those kinds of things to protect the victim.
(Council #17).
Backdrop for Change
It is important to note that at times it is difficult to separate the
activities of the council from work occurring in the commu-
nity more broadly or the efforts of individual organizations or
offices (e.g., the local domestic violence shelter program or
prosecuting attorney’s office). Further, there was some evi-
dence that councils were not necessarily the primary venues
for change, but ‘‘backdrops’’ for community change (61%).
Chavis (2001) suggests that part of what is valuable about
coalitions is what they make possibly outside of the imme-
diate collaborative setting. This certainly seemed to be the
case for these councils and often seemed quite deliberate. This
was most clearly articulated by a convener from one of the
larger councils in the state. She said,
When you bring 65 some people to the table, and we
start discussing issues, those kinds of holes and gaps are
identified and then it’s not the council that takes on the
job of filling those gaps, it’s the individual people who
come to the table. And it’s amazing because they do.
Once a discussion is made about what needs to be done,
they meet separately on their own to do it…[For
example] we developed the children’s education com-
mittee, and as a result of that committee, there has been
a fabulous collaboration between [our local domestic
violence service provider] and [local foundation]…
[They created…] a program in [the schools in our
county] for third graders. So these are the kinds of
things. It isn’t what the council does. The council
doesn’t do these things. That’s not our mission. But it’s
providing the backdrop, the opportunity, for people to
get together to figure out how they can do the things that
they see that need to be done. (Council #6).
She further summarized their efforts by saying,
The exchanges and cooperation which occur on the
council, [create] opportunities [and] have a syner-
gistic effect, with each small improvement creating
opportunities for greater [change] in our county.
(Council #6).
This verbatim suggests that while councils may engage
in specific activities to stimulate a coordinated community
response in their communities, a critical role of the council
may be to create a forum for identifying issues, networking
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
among key stakeholders and generating ideas about how to
proceed, which then enables stakeholders to form new
partnerships and take action independent of the council
setting. In this study many councils served to stimulate the
occurrence of activities in the community that were inde-
pendent of the council setting.
Discussion
The current study suggests that councils may, indeed, play
an important role in improving the community response to
domestic violence—particularly as it relates to promoting
knowledge, relationships, and institutionalized change (i.e.,
changes in policy and procedure). Importantly, this study
highlights the intermediary outcomes by which councils
may foster community change and calls attention to the
context in which collaborative efforts occur. In this way,
the current study has critical implications for the way we
conceptualize and pursue research on council effectiveness.
Study findings suggest that councils engage in a variety
of activities aimed to promote community change,
including, for example, identifying gaps in the community
response to domestic violence and providing training
opportunities to a wide variety of stakeholders. Not sur-
prisingly, these activities were closely related to the
proximal outcomes consistently reported by key infor-
mants. For example, councils seemed well-positioned to
promote knowledge among key stakeholders; this may
result from the range of activities in which councils
engaged that aimed to affect knowledge, in particular (e.g.,
sharing information regarding each other’s organizational
roles and engaging in public education). Similarly, perhaps
by encouraging face-to-face contact, councils seemed well-
positioned to promote relationships among key stakehold-
ers, including, for example, overcoming historic hostility
among key stakeholders and fostering interagency linkages
and cooperation that did not previously exist. These find-
ings are consistent with observations made by Lasker and
Weiss (2003) that collaborative partnerships may play a
pivotal role in the generation of new knowledge and in the
formation of ‘‘bridging social ties,’’ or relationships that
cross community sectors.
Finally, councils appeared well-positioned to promote
institutionalized change; many councils illuminated
weaknesses in the system’s response (i.e., criminal justice,
human service, health care, child protective) and generated
solutions in their local communities. Importantly, efforts to
promote institutional change described by key informants
were often very specific to the needs of a given community.
While the creation of a coordinated community response
stipulates a variety of general issues that must be addressed
(e.g., improved arrest practices), councils seemed to
71
provide a forum where the unique manifestation of these
issues and their subsequent solutions within a given com-
munity could be revealed.
Beyond exploring the nature of activities and outcomes of
multiple domestic violence coordinating councils, this study
points to several critical issues for future research on council
effectiveness. Specifically, the current study (a) identifies
three proximal outcomes which can be systematically exam-
ined in future research; (b) proposes that councils may
influence distal outcomes indirectly via the proximal changes
they achieve and the ‘‘backdrop for change’’ they facilitate;
and (c) suggests that it is critical to consider the broader
community context in which councils are operating to
understand their ultimate affect on distal outcomes.
First, this study highlights three proximal outcomes ripe
for future investigation into council effectiveness: the
promotion of knowledge, relationships, and institutional-
ized change. Rather than emphasizing only distal outcomes
to assess council effectiveness or only formative ‘‘out-
comes’’ (e.g., the quality of plans), future research
questions could include: (1) How did members’ knowledge
change as a result of their engagement in a council? (2)
How did the nature of relationships among individual
members and organizations shift as a result of their council
involvement? (3) What changes in policy and practice have
emerged from council efforts? Examining movement in
these areas over time has the potential to more fully illu-
minate the intermediate outcomes that councils are well-
positioned to achieve.
Attending to such outcomes calls for an increased use of
longitudinal and mixed method designs where change in
each of these domains is assessed. Both perceived knowl-
edge (i.e., how knowledgeable stakeholders feel) and actual
knowledge (i.e., stakeholders’ knowledge of particular
issues (e.g., how to effectively identify the primary
aggressor in a police response) can be examined at multiple
points in time. Similarly, council members’ perceptions of
the quality of relationships among key stakeholders and
new organizational relationships (e.g., newly formed
organizational alliances or linkages) can be tracked over
time; further, the linkages between agencies and/or key
individual stakeholders can be examined using network
analysis at multiple points in time to examine how the
structure and density of networks evolve with the devel-
opment of councils (see Foster-Fishman et al. 2001c;
Singer and Kegler 2004, for cross-sectional applications of
this method). Finally, new policies and protocols can be
tracked as they are developed; importantly, the organiza-
tional processes by which such adopted policies are
actually implemented and their ultimate impact on survi-
vors and batterers must also be examined.
Second, proximal outcomes may indirectly influence
longer-term, or distal outcomes (e.g., a reduction in the
123
72
incidence of domestic violence). There was evidence for
councils providing a backdrop for community action by
stimulating change outside of the collaborative settings.
Thus, in our efforts to gauge the value of these settings, it is
important to recognize that they may not achieve distal
outcomes directly. In fact, the true strength of councils may
be their ability to stimulate the conditions under which
community change can occur. There is limited evidence,
for instance, that the amount (i.e., number of new policies
and practices in place) and duration (e.g., durable policy
changes) of change in environmental conditions may be
related to the extent to which longer-term outcomes are
achieved (Roussos and Fawcett 2000). Future research on
effectiveness should explore the dynamic processes by
which councils promote community change—a suggestion
consistent with Roussos and Fawcett’s (2000) own rec-
ommendation that researchers document systems, or
institutional, changes related to council efforts as inter-
mediate markers of the long process of achieving distal
outcomes. However, fully capturing indirect effects, or
councils as ‘‘backdrops for change,’’ may require inter-
viewing multiple council members about what new
initiatives they have pursued in the community or in their
own organizations as a result of their membership on the
council. This might help to track council ‘‘spin-offs’’ (e.g.,
efforts stimulated, but not enacted by the council) and to
examine the ‘‘synergistic effect’’ described by a key
informant in the current study.
Third, it is critical to consider the broader community
context in which councils are operating (Roussos and
Fawcett 2000). Community context may affect the work of
councils at multiple points in a collaborative process.
Attending to context may more fully reveal when and how
intermediate outcomes such as improved relationships
contribute to distal outcomes (or fail to do so). Councils are
not necessarily empowered to implement community
change (Gray 1996; Yin and Kaftarian 1997); instead, their
influence may manifest indirectly as they raise issues and
engage the right ‘‘players’’ to address needed changes,
create new relationships, increase awareness of issues, etc.
The extent to which councils’ efforts ultimately result in
change may depend on the presence of a local champion
for the issue (e.g., a persuasive leader from the local
shelter), the presence of a powerful stakeholder committed
to the issue (e.g., a chief judge or local mayor), local
resources to support the effort (e.g., local funding sources),
or broad public interest (e.g., stimulating the commitment
of political leaders). For example, a key leader (e.g., a chief
judge) with a personal interest in an issue may enact the
policies recommended by a council; indeed, the council
may play a pivotal role in developing the policy and edu-
cating and lobbying the key leader, but it is that leader that
ultimately makes implementation possible. As Kegler et al.
123
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
(2001) reflects, ‘‘perhaps, as some suggest, coalitions are
best suited to assessment and priority-setting—leaving
implementation to particular organizations or small groups
of organizations’’ (p. 231).
Given this, research on council effectiveness ought to
reflect both the unique contexts in which these efforts occur
and the unique ways in which these community-based
efforts unfold. As Rosenkoetter and colleagues (1995)
emphasize, it is important to look at councils’ structures
and goals individually ‘‘rather than with a standardized
template’’ (p. 277). As an alternative, an approach where
councils are examined ‘‘case by case’’ using conceptual
models (or logic models) tailored to the activities of par-
ticular councils (or sets of councils), may result in more
fine tuned conceptualizations of effectiveness and desired
outcomes. In doing so, the three proximal outcomes iden-
tified in this study may provide a framework for
community-specific investigations. For example, we may
ask in a particular community (or set of communities),
what are the critical shifts in knowledge, relationships and
institutions? To what extent have these emerged? To what
extent have these shifts stimulated additional changes?
What contextual factors affect the extent to which addi-
tional, or longer-term, changes occur?
It is important to recognize some of the limitations of
this study. First, this study relied on the self-report of key
informants. These informants may have been motivated to
identify activities or outcomes that have not actually come
to fruition to cast their councils’ efforts in a positive light.
This possibility was countered in part by asking very
specific questions about activities and about evidence that
the activities had resulted in some impact. Further, it is also
notable that 63% of key informants were domestic violence
advocates; traditionally, it is advocates who have been
critical of the systems response; given the priority they
place on victim safety this may make them less likely to
overstate the activities or achievements of the councils.
Second, given the limited resources to support this
project, interviews with key informants occurred at only
one point in time and with only a single informant. Thus,
while multiple councils were included in this study, only a
single perspective is provided into the activities/outcomes
of each council. Importantly, however, multiple council
members in each setting were surveyed and there is evi-
dence that key informant perceptions of effectiveness were
significantly related to members’ ratings (Allen 2006).
Third, key informants were reflecting on the ‘‘life’’ of
their council—that is, the activities they reported were not
limited to a given time period. This may have resulted in
memory effects where recent events were over-emphasized
or less salient events were missed entirely. Still, key
informants often used annual reports and other resources to
organize their thoughts about the work of their councils.
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 41:63–73
Finally, this study does not clarify the extent to which
any given council achieved the outcomes that emerged. In
fact, a quantitative examination of the perceived effec-
tiveness of these councils indicated they were not viewed
as uniformly effective in meeting their goals by member
and leaders (see Allen 2005, 2006). Thus, the current study
does not suggest that all councils promoted knowledge,
relationships, and institutionalized change, but that this set
of outcomes emerged as particularly relevant.
In conclusion, this study articulates a framework regarding
the general activities and outcomes of councils that can guide
future investigations. First, councils seem well-positioned to
impact stakeholders’ knowledge of the issues at hand (e.g.,
domestic violence, substance abuse) and the nature and
quality of the local community response to such issues.
Second, councils seemed well-positioned to promote rela-
tionships among key stakeholders, both at the individual and
organizational level. Third, councils may facilitate needed
institutionalized changes such as the development of new
protocols and introduction of new positions. Future research
on council effectiveness should (a) focus on the extent to
which they are achieving proximal outcomes, including
changes in knowledge, relationships and institutions; (b)
consider the multiple pathways by which proximal outcomes
lead to distal outcomes (or fail to do so); and (c) evaluate
council effectiveness with attention to the unique contexts in
which they operate and the context-specific changes they are
trying to promote.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the domestic
violence survivors and advocates, criminal justice officials, mental
health practitioners, healthcare providers, clergy and community mem-
bers who participated in this study. This study was made possible in part
with funding from the Department of Psychology at Michigan State
University and a STOP grant from the Michigan Domestic Violence
Prevention and Treatment Board (MDVPTB) to the Prosecuting Attor-
ney’s Association of Michigan (PAAM), Grant Number 98-WF-NX-
0026 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice. The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers, Cris
Sullivan, Jorge Ramirez, Elaine Shpungin, Adriana Umana Taylor, and
Edelyn Verona for their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.
References
Allen, N. E. (2005). A multi-level analysis of community coordinating
councils. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 49–63.
Allen, N. E. (2006). An examination of the effectiveness of domestic
violence coordinating councils. Violence Against Women, 12(1),
46–47.
Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social
sciences (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Berkowitz, B. (2001). Studying the outcomes of community-based
coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2),
213–227.
73
Cashman, S. in Butterfoss, F., Cashman, S., Foster-Fishman, P.,
Kegler, M., & Berkowitz, B. (2001). Roundtable discussion and
final comments on ‘‘studying the outcomes of community-based
coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2),
229–239.
Chavis, D. M. (2001). The paradoxes and promise of community
coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2),
309–320.
Foster-Fishman, P. G. in Butterfoss, F., Cashman, S., Foster-Fishman,
P., Kegler, M., & Berkowitz, B. (2001a). Roundtable discussion
and final comments on ‘‘studying the outcomes of community-
based coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology,
29(2), 229–239.
Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson,
S., & Allen, N. E. (2001b). Building collaborative capacity in
community coalitions: A review and integrative framework.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–261.
Foster-Fishman, P. G., Salem, D. A., Allen, N., & Fahrbach, K.
(2001c). Facilitating interorganizational exchanges: The contri-
butions of interagency alliances. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 29(6), 875–905.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaboration: Finding common ground for
multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Gray, B. (1996). Cross-sectoral partners: Collaborative alliances
among business, government and communities. In C. Huxman
(Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Kegler, M. in Butterfoss, F., Cashman, S., Foster-Fishman, P., Kegler,
M., & Berkowitz, B. (2001). Roundtable discussion and final
comments on ‘‘studying the outcomes of community-based
coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2),
229–239.
Kegler, M. C., Steckler, A., McLeroy, K., & Malek, S. H. (1998).
Factors that contribute to effective community health promotion:
A study of 10 Project ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina.
Health Education and Behavior, 25(3), 338–353.
Kegler, M. C., Twiss, J. M., & Look, V. (2000). Assessing community
change at multiple levels: The genesis of an evaluation
framework for the California Healthy Cities Project. Health
Education and Behavior, 27(6), 760–779.
Kumpfer, K. L., Turner, C., Hopkins, R., & Librett, J. (1993).
Leadership and team effectiveness in community coalitions for
the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse. Health
Education Research, 8(3), 359–374.
Lasker, R. D., & Weiss, E. S. (2003). Broadening participation in
community problem solving: A multidisciplinary model to
support collaborative practice and research. Journal of Urbana
Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 80(1),
14–47.
Rosenkoetter, S. E., Shotts, C. K., Streufert, C. A., & Rosnekoetter, L.
I. (1995). Local interagency coordinating councils as infrastruc-
tures for early intervention: One state’s implementation. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 15(3), 264–280.
Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative
partnerships as a strategy for improving community health.
Annual Review Public Health, 21, 369–402.
Singer, H. H., & Kegler, M. C. (2004). Assessing interorganizational
networks as a dimension of community capacity: Illustrations
from a community intervention to prevent lead poisoning. Health
Education and Behavior, 31(6), 808–821.
Yin, R. K., & Kaftarian, S. J. (1997). Introduction: Challenges of
Community-Based Program Outcome Evaluations. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 20(3), 293–297.
123