Prevention Science

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 47–53 | Cite as

Issues in Disseminating and Replicating Effective Prevention Programs

  • Delbert S. Elliott
  • Sharon Mihalic

Abstract

The new frontier for prevention research involves building a scientific knowledge base on how to disseminate and implement effective prevention programs with fidelity. Toward this end, a brief overview of findings from the Blueprints for Violence Prevention-Replication Initiative is presented, identifying factors that enhance or impede a successful implementation of these programs. Findings are organized around five implementation tasks: site selection, training, technical assistance, fidelity, and sustainability. Overall, careful attention to each of these tasks, together with an independent monitoring of fidelity, produced a successful implementation with high fidelity and sustainability. A discussion of how these findings inform the present local adaptation-fidelity debate follows.

dissemination replication fidelity prevention implementation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alexander, J. F., Pugh, C., Parsons, B. V., Sexton, T., Barton, C., Bonomo, J., Gordon, D., Grotpeter, J. K., Hansson, K., Harrison, R., Mears, S., Mihalic, S. F., Ostrum, N., Schulman, S., & Waldron, H. (2000). Functional family therapy. In D. S. Elliott (series ed.), Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book 3, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J., & Philliber, S. (2001). Who benefits most from a broadly targeted prevention program? Differential efficacy across populations in the teen outreach program. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 637-655.Google Scholar
  3. Backer, T. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for technology transfer. In T. Backer, S. David, & G. Soucy, (eds.), Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer (pp. 21-41). National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  4. Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., & Lewis, C. (1996). Prevention effects of the child development project: Early findings from an ongoing multisite demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 12-35.Google Scholar
  5. Blakely, C., Mayer, J., Gottschalk, R., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W., Roitman, D., & Emshoff, J. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253-268.Google Scholar
  6. Botvin, G., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S., & Botvin, E. (1990). Preventing adolescent drug abuse through a multimodal cognitive-behavioral approach: Results of a three-year study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 437-446.Google Scholar
  7. Botvin, G., Mihalic, S. F., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1998). Life skills training. In D. S. Elliott (series ed.), Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book 5, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  8. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), (2001). Finding The Balance: Program Fidelity and Adaptation in Substance Abuse. SAMHSA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, T., Haig, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R., Shagle, S., & Degirmenciogl, S. (1999). Comer's school development program in Prince George's County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 543-597.Google Scholar
  10. Cook, T., Hunt, H., & Murphy, R. (2002). Comer's School Development Program in Chicago: A Theory Based Evaluation, Evanston, IL. Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  11. Dusenbury, L., & Falco, M. (1995). Eleven effective components of drug abuse prevention curricula. Journal of School Health, 65, 420-425.Google Scholar
  12. Fagan, A., & Mihalic, S. (2003). Strategies for enhancing the adoption of school-based prevention programs: Lessons learned from the Blueprints for Violence Prevention replications of the Life Skills Training Program. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 235-253.Google Scholar
  13. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1989). Exploring effective and efficient preferential interventions: A component analysis of behavioral consultation. School Psychology Review, 18, 260-283.Google Scholar
  14. Gottfredson, D. (2001). Schools and Delinquency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  15. Gottfredson, D., & Koper, C. (1996). Race and sex differences in the prediction of drug use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 305-313.Google Scholar
  16. Gottfredson, D., & Koper, C. (1997). Race and sex differences in the measurement of risk for drug use. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13, 325-347.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, D., Emshoff, J., Jakes, S., & Blakely, C. (2000). ESID and dissemination research: A case study and critique of a change model's fidelity. TX. Texas A&M University, College Station.Google Scholar
  18. Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., Graczyk, P., & Zins, J. (2001). The study of implementation in school-based preventive interventions: Theory, research and practice. Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. Henggeler, S. W., Mihalic, S. F., Rone, L., Thomas, C., & Timmons-Mitchell, J. (2001). Multisystemic therapy. In D. S. Elliott (series ed.), Blueprints for Violence Prevention Book 6, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  20. Kam, C., Greenberg, M., & Walls, C. (2003). Examining the role of implementation quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 4, 55-63.Google Scholar
  21. Kotkin, J., & Tseng, T. (2003). Youth's cultural, racial blur. Honolulu Advertiser, Sunday, June 15, B–1, B–4.Google Scholar
  22. Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 313-345.Google Scholar
  23. Lochman, J., & Wells, K., (in press). Effectiveness of the coping power program and of classroom intervention with aggressive children: Outcomes at a one-year follow-up. Behavior Therapy.Google Scholar
  24. Mihalic, S., & Altman-Bettridge, T. (2004). A guide to effective school-based prevention programs, Chap. 11 and 12. In W. L. Turk (ed.), School Crime and Policing (pp. 202-253). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  25. Mihalic, S., Ballard, D., Michalski, A., Tortorice, J., Cunningham, L., & Argamaso, S. (2002). Blueprints for violence prevention, violence initiative: Final process evaluation report. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  26. Mihalic, S., & Irwin, K. (2003). From research to real world settings: Factors influencing the successful replication of model programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 307-329.Google Scholar
  27. Shore, L. (2000). Remarks by Lisbeth Shore. Annie E. Casey Conference on Replication, November, 2000, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  28. Wilson, S., & Lipsey, M. (in press). Are mainstream programs for juvenile delinquency less effective with minority youth than majority youth: A meta-analysis of outcomes research. Research on Social Work Practice.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Delbert S. Elliott
    • 1
  • Sharon Mihalic
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulder

Personalised recommendations