If they are to become standard practice, prevention programs have to be able to demonstrate sustained, high-quality implementation and to prove that they lead to better outcomes for children and families.

One innovative approach to this acid-test and to the vexing set of problems it can involve creates and supports community-based coalitions of key leaders. They plan and implement the programs and in the process harness the resources of their schools and agencies. See also: Communities that Care under US spotlight.

A variation of the coalition model is called PROSPER (Promoting School-community-university collaborations to Enhance Resilience) which is being developed in the US by Pennsylvania State and Iowa State universities with funding from the National Institute of Drug Abuse.

In the case of PROSPER, the science-to-practice continuum links three important US infrastructure systems: the land-grant university, the Cooperative Extension System (Outreach arm of Land Grant universities) and the public schools. With these connections in place, PROSPER’s goal is to demonstrate that science-based community empowerment can be a vehicle for high quality implementation and the long-term sustainability of prevention programs.

So far the findings have been encouraging. A randomized trial involving over 10,000 6th graders in 24 Pennsylvania and Iowa communities reported that by the end of 7th grade, fewer in PROSPER communities were using so-called gateway drugs (eg. cigarettes, alcohol) or illicit drugs (eg. heroin, cocaine, etc).

This slower rate of substance initiation among PROSPER kids was true for marijuana, inhalants, methamphetamines, and ecstasy. Youth in PROSPER communities were also less likely to have used drugs (marijuana and inhalants) in the last year compared to those in control communities who were not in PROSPER.

PROSPER youth reported that their parents were using more consistent and less harsh discipline; families were also spending more time together.

There are good indications in relation to longer-term sustainability, too. Implementation among the 14 intervention communities showed over 90% fidelity for both family- and school-based programs.

The progress of approximately 10,000 youth and their families is being followed to determine long-term impact. Data is also being collected on the effectiveness and sustainability of the community-based initiative and the community-university partnership.

Communities were matched on school district size and geographic location. They were then randomly assigned to community partnership intervention and “intervention as usual” comparison conditions, with seven districts each from Pennsylvania and Iowa in the intervention condition and an equal number in the control condition. All 28 agreed to participate prior to knowing which group they would be in, so it was possible to match them by school size and then randomize the intervention.

How PROSPER works

PROSPER community teams include representatives from Penn State Cooperative Extension, school district personnel, representatives from community service agencies, parents, youth, and other community members. University-level prevention scientists and Cooperative Extension specialists collaborate with a prevention coordinator who liaises between the university prevention group and the local teams. These arrangements ensure local buy-in, and quality program delivery.

The PROSPER team is led by an extension educator who ensures that programs are well-received within schools and communities, and properly implemented to assure maximum positive impact.

PROSPER offers participating communities a menu of already proven evidence-based programs. Partnership teams select one of three school-based programs for 7th grade students during the day: All Stars, Life Skills Training, or Project Alert. They also implement an extracurricular family-based program.

• This story by Daniel Perkins and Brian Bumbarger was first published in Prevention Action on October 23rd 2007