Sustaining the Utilization and High Quality Implementation of Tested and Effective Prevention Programs Using the Communities That Care Prevention System

  • Abigail A. FaganEmail author
  • Koren Hanson
  • John S. Briney
  • J. David Hawkins
Original Article


This paper describes the extent to which communities implementing the Communities That Care (CTC) prevention system adopt, replicate with fidelity, and sustain programs shown to be effective in reducing adolescent drug use, delinquency, and other problem behaviors. Data were collected from directors of community-based agencies and coalitions, school principals, service providers, and teachers, all of whom participated in a randomized, controlled evaluation of CTC in 24 communities. The results indicated significantly increased use and sustainability of tested, effective prevention programs in the 12 CTC intervention communities compared to the 12 control communities, during the active phase of the research project when training, technical assistance, and funding were provided to intervention sites, and 2 years following provision of such resources. At both time points, intervention communities also delivered prevention services to a significantly greater number of children and parents. The quality of implementation was high in both conditions, with only one significant difference: CTC sites were significantly more likely than control sites to monitor the quality of implementation during the sustainability phase of the project.


Community coalitions Adoption Implementation fidelity Dissemination Sustainability 



This work was supported by research grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA015183-03) with co-funding from the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agencies. The authors gratefully acknowledge the on-going participation in the study and data collection efforts of the residents of the 24 communities described in this paper.


  1. Altman, D. G. (1995). Sustaining interventions in community systems: On the relationship between researchers and communities. Health Psychology, 14, 526–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Brown, E. C., Briney, J. S., Oesterle, S., & Abbott, R. D. (2010). Implementation of the Communities That Care prevention system by coalitions in the Community Youth Development Study. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Olson, J. J. (2002). Community key informant survey. Seattle, WA: Social Development Research Group, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  4. August, G. J., Bloomquist, M. L., Lee, S. S., Realmuto, G. M., & Hektner, J. M. (2006). Can evidence-based prevention programs be sustained in community practice settings? The Early Risers’ advanced-stage effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 7, 151–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, L. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2010). Determinants of community coalition ability to support evidence-based programs. Prevention Science, 11, 287–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dariotis, J. K., Bumbarger, B. K., Duncan, L. G., & Greenberg, M. (2008). How do implementation efforts relate to program adherence? Examining the role of organizational, implementer, and program factors. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 744–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. David-Ferdon, C., & Hammond, W. R. (2008). Community mobilization to prevent youth violence and to create safer communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, S1–S2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prevention Science, 5, 47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagan, A. A., Arthur, M. W., Hanson, K., Briney, J. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (in press). Effects of Communities That Care on the adoption and implementation fidelity of evidence-based prevention programs in communities: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0226-5.
  11. Fagan, A. A., Brooke-Weiss, B., Cady, R., & Hawkins, J. D. (2009a). If at first you don’t succeed … keep trying: Strategies to enhance coalition/school partnerships to implement school-based prevention programming. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 387–405.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagan, A. A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (2008). Bridging science to practice: Achieving prevention program fidelity in the Community Youth Development Study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 235–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fagan, A. A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (2009b). Translational research in action: Implementation of the Communities That Care prevention system in 12 communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 809–829.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagen, M. C., & Flay, B. R. (2009). Sustaining a school-based prevention program: Results from the Aban Aya sustainability project. Health Education and Behavior, 36, 9–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feinberg, M. E., Greenberg, M. T., Osgood, D. W., Sartorius, J., & Bontempo, D. (2007). Effects of the Communities That Care model in Pennsylvania on youth risk and problem behaviors. Prevention Science, 8, 261–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feinberg, M. E., Jones, D., Greenberg, M. T., Osgood, D. W., & Bontempo, D. (2010). Effects of the Communities That Care model in Pennsylvania on change in adolescent risk and problem behaviors. Prevention Science, 11, 163–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
  18. Flewelling, R. L., Austin, D., Hale, K., LaPlante, M., Liebig, M., Piasecki, L., et al. (2005). Implementing research-based substance abuse prevention in communities: Effects of a coalition-based prevention initiative in Vermont. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1261–1267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griner Hill, L., Maucione, K., & Hood, B. K. (2006). A focused approach to assessing program fidelity. Prevention Science, 8, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gruen, R. L., Elliott, J. H., Nolan, M. L., Lawton, P. D., Parkhill, A., McLaren, C. J., et al. (2008). Sustainability science: An integrated approach for health-programme planning. Lancet, 372, 1579–1589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hallfors, D., Cho, H., Livert, D., & Kadushin, C. (2002). Fighting back against substance use: Are community coalitions winning? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 237–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hallfors, D., & Godette, D. (2002). Will the “Principles of effectiveness” Improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Education Research, 17, 461–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities that care: Action for drug abuse prevention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 951–976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., Egan, E., Brown, E. C., Abbott, R. D., et al. (2008). Testing Communities That Care: Rationale and design of the Community Youth Development Study. Prevention Science, 9, 178–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., Fagan, A. A., et al. (2009). Results of a type 2 translational research trial to prevent adolescent drug use and delinquency: A test of Communities That Care. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 163, 789–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M. J., Scherer, D. G., & Hanley, J. H. (1997). Multisystemic Therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 821–833.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, K., Hays, C., Center, H., & Daley, C. (2004). Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: A sustainability planning model. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalafat, J., & Ryerson, D. M. (1999). The implementation and institutionalization of a school-based youth suicide prevention program. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 19, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58, 457–465.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lillehoj, C. J., Griffin, K. W., & Spoth, R. (2004). Program provider and observer ratings of school-based preventive intervention implementation: Agreement and relation to youth outcomes. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Melde, C., Esbensen, F.-A., & Tusinski, K. (2006). Addressing program fidelity using onsite observations and program provider descriptions of program delivery. Evaluation Review, 30, 714–740.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polizzi Fox, D., Gottfredson, D. C., Kumpfer, K. L., & Beatty, P. (2004). Challenges in disseminating model programs: A qualitative analysis of the Strengthening Washington DC families program. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 7, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Printz, R. J., Sanders, M. R., Shapiro, C. J., Whitaker, D. J., & Lutzker, J. R. (2009). Population-based prevention of child maltreatment: The US Triple P system population trial. Prevention Science, 10, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ringwalt, C., Hanley, S., Vincus, A. A., Ennett, S. T., Rohrbach, L. A., & Bowling, J. M. (2008). The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in the nation’s high schools. Journal of Primary Prevention, 29, 479–488.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ringwalt, C., Vincus, A. A., Hanley, S., Ennett, S. T., Bowling, J. M., & Haws, S. (2011). The prevalence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula in US middle schools in 2008. Prevention Science, 12, 63–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rohrbach, L. A., Grana, R., Sussman, S., & Valente, T. W. (2006). Type II translation: Transporting prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 29, 302–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saul, J., Duffy, J., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Wandersman, A., Flaspohler, P., et al. (2008a). Bridging science and practice in violence prevention: Addressing ten key challenges. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saul, J., Wandersman, A., Flaspohler, P., Duffy, J., Lubell, K., & Noonan, R. (2008b). Research and action for bridging science and practice in prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 165–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scheirer, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 320–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shediac-Rizkallah, M. C., & Bone, L. R. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice, and policy. Health Education Research, 13, 87–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Clair, S., & Feinberg, M. (2007). Substance use outcomes at eighteen months past baseline from the PROSPER community-university partnership trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 395–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spoth, R. L., Rohrbach, L. A., Hawkins, J. D., Greenberg, M., Pentz, M. A., Robertson, E., et al. (2008). Type II translational research: Overview and definitions. Fairfax, VA: Society for Prevention Research.
  46. Stevenson, J. F., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Community-level collaboration for substance abuse prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 23, 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tibbits, M. K., Bumbarger, B., Kyler, S., & Perkins, D. F. (2010). Sustaining evidence-based interventions under real-world conditions: Results from a large-scale diffusion project. Prevention Science, 11, 252–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2003). Community intervention and effective prevention. American Psychologist, 58, 441–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zakocs, R. C., & Guckenburg, S. (2007). What coalition factors foster community capacity? Lessons learned from the Fighting Back initiative. Health Education and Behavior, 34, 354–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abigail A. Fagan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Koren Hanson
    • 2
  • John S. Briney
    • 2
  • J. David Hawkins
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Social Development Research GroupUniversity of Washington School of Social WorkSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations