INTRODUCTION
Coalitions are in vogue right now—more and more, funders are requiring that groups work together to solve a problem. “Coalitions are useful for accomplishing a broad range of goals that reach beyond the capacity of any individual member organization.”

However, the nature of coalition work as well as other alliances between organizations contains inherent challenges, including the issue of turf. The term turf refers quite literally to how the ‘property’ is divided up, who gets the recognition, and the resources- be they financial or political. And turf struggles effect not only those who ‘win’ or ‘lose’ but every participant and the very well-being of the coalition itself.

This paper builds upon the article "Developing Effective Coalitions: An Eight Step Guide" and responds to a concern repeatedly encountered in training on this approach, a concern generally described as among the hardest issues faced in collaborating: turf struggle.
Turf struggles are a common threat to coalition vitality. In fact, for some people, turf is seen as the largest barrier to coalition success. This paper offers a different, and ultimately more realistic perspective on dealing with issues of turf. Concerns about turf are natural and common within coalitions and should be acknowledged rather than ignored. Solutions to turf issues should aim to blend the pursuit of individual interests with the greater goals of the coalition.
Especially in the non-profit arena, groups have a deep belief in what they do, and connect that with their core identity.While that passion may introduce turf into the coalition, it is also the reason the group is willing to work with other organizations towards a larger goal.

Suggesting that members leave that passion behind, that the coalition is treated as hallowed ground, serving a higher purpose than the assumed narrow focus of the member groups, is generally both unrealistic and unsuccessful. Further, it can be somewhat condescending: implying that the work coalition members do in their own communities or agencies is
somehow less important than the ‘real work’ of the coalition. Needless to say, this will alienate some people. A successful coalition instead should be based on recognizing that people have conflicting agendas at times, and then creating an environment where coalition members feel comfortable acknowledging and discussing these issues, and also emphasizing the vision and outcome of the coalition as a whole.

Coalition leaders often ask participants to leave their individual “bias”—their
programmatic responsibilities and objectives—at the door, Such a sacrifice drains the coalition of its purposeand energy.