A University-Community Partnership Initiative to Strengthen Substance Use Treatment

Background and Purpose: University-community partnerships are becoming increasingly important to address complex social problems despite limited resources. This is particularly true in the area of substance use disorders, as many state agencies and university partners try to work together and leverage resources to address this growing challenge. Little is known, however, about how to design these university-community partnerships and the types of impacts that can be achieved through their implementation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a three year funded university-community partnership initiative aimed at supporting and enhancing services at county-level substance use treatment agencies in one state. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1)What types of process and product innovations emerged for the treatment agencies? 2)What types of process and product innovations emerged for the university partner?

Methods: This mixed-method study was conducted over the course of three years. A six-member university team provided monitoring and technical assistance to 19 substance use treatment agencies implementing 25 different substance use-related projects funded through a competitive grant process. Data on agency product and process innovations were collected through quarterly progress reports submitted to the university team by the agencies. Progress reports were qualitatively analyzed using MaxQDA to identify how many agencies reported product/process innovations in the following categories: staffing, policies/procedures/technology, partnerships, training and media products, and client services. Subcodes were also created for different types of product and process innovations that emerged. University team accomplishments were tracked using a team curriculum vitae and technical assistance logs for each team member.

Results: Of the 19 total agencies, 12 had staffing innovations (e.g. hired new staff or used existing staff to implement new programs) and 17 agencies enhanced or established partnerships with other organizations in their communities. Seventeen of the 19 agencies instituted new policies, procedures or technology upgrades (e.g. developing new referral forms or ordering new equipment). Fourteen agencies provided training or other professional development opportunities for staff (e.g. supervision hours or new training topics). Finally, 11 agencies provided direct services to clients through new programs (e.g. SBIRT initiatives). During this same period, the university team provided 1,430 hours of technical assistance. The team also produced 5 peer-reviewed publications, 17 conference presentations, 8 practice briefs, and 14 webinars.  

Conclusions and Implications: The number of product and process innovations that emerged through this university-community initiative demonstrate how beneficial the partnership was for both the university and the substance use treatment agency partners. The university team was able to use project data to disseminate lessons learned through a variety of scholarly outlets that fit with existing university reward structures related to scholarly productivity. The treatment agencies were also able to achieve tangible improvements in organizational functioning and service delivery. Findings of this study have important implications for the design and implementation of these initiatives along with the importance of mixed-method strategies for researchers to document their value.