MC˛ SWOT Analysis: December 2005 - January, 2006
|
Strengths |
Weaknesses |
Opportunities |
Threats |
|
Comprehensive wide ranging members Regular meetings Website Food (for lunch) **Board representation of community on mailing list Mini grants *Collaborative nature of group Networking speakers and events/activities – learning about programs in our community *One group/organization focusing on substance abuse and violence Structure Operating procedures Open-ended, fluent (discussions) Like the higher focus on the alcohol and tobacco aspect of ATOD Informative |
Lack of movement forward as an organization ** Level of participation decreasing (fewer people every month) Need to get everyone around one issue Need more action orientation in community Lack of visibility Need more "community" involvement More "active" presence Need time limited project to establish, work on , implement, evaluate, and move on (similar to NMU Model) Lack of recovering community involvement |
Growing awareness of problems such as amphetamines To stay course on the A & T of ATOD Specific presentations on A/Drug issues in community Summit of different (coalition) groups More media coverage on our issues Could work on projects on committee level Coalition could be seen as collective voice on issues Follow CMCA Model (SIG) More "active" promotion Collaboration Systems change Broad Environmental Impact Increase partnerships to produce greater impact Assess continuum of services (gaps/needs, etc.) Increase recovering community involvement and visibility |
*
"Competing" groups or organizations
Possible funding cuts ** Funding Negative publicity ** Attendance at meetings Increased substance abuse rates * Funding for substance abuse Tx uncertain Divisions * Duplication/overlapping yet isolated efforts reduce potential impact Lack of recognition of MC2 leadership role in the community |
Note: An * by an item denotes the number of additional responses to that response