Value and Usefulness of a Collaborative Information Sharing Forum: Findings from the “Common Ground” Conference Evaluation Activities

• Published date: 01 July 2002
• DOI: 10.1177/002204260203200308
• Date: 01 July 2002
• Author: Natasha De Veauuse Brown
• Subject Matter: Article

© 2002 BY THE JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES 0022-0426/02/03 849-864

__________

Natasha De Veauuse Brown, M.P.H., has been conducting evaluation research since 1994 on HIV/

AIDS care and substance abuse treatment programs. She has prepared numerous evaluation reports

and technical manuscripts, and has served as chief writer/co-editor of a nationwide newsletter on

project findings and public health implications.

VALUE AND USEFULNESS OF A COLLABORATIVE

INFORMATION SHARING FORUM: FINDINGS FROM THE

“COMMON GROUND” CONFERENCE EVALUATION

ACTIVITIES

NATASHA DE VEAUUSE BROWN

To determine the value, usefulness, and impact of the “Common Ground, Common

Language, Common Goals (CCC): Bringing Substance Abuse Practice and

Research Together” conference, which was held April 2001 in Los Angeles,

participants were surveyed regarding the effectiveness of the conference overall,

the impact of the conference on attendees’ collaborative behaviors, and the quality

of the roundtable discussion sessions and other activities. Attendees of the two-

day conference included substance abuse treatment providers, researchers, policy

makers, and community representatives/activists. Based on evaluation findings,

participants felt the event provided an appropriate venue for taking the first steps in

establishing multidirectional lines of communication and candid knowledge

exchange between these diverse stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION

As evident in the literature, the substance abuse treatment delivery system is

most appropriately enhanced through cooperative planning, development, and

improvement processes that involve collective brainstorming and continuous,

ongoing feedback among its diverse stakeholders (i.e., treatment and other service

providers, clients and family/friends, community advocates and representatives,

researchers, policy makers, and grant makers (Brown, 2000; Lamb, Greenlick, &

McCarty, 1998). Even in today’s times of increasing rhetoric and journal articles