Prevention Guidelines: Developing a Strong Structure and Identity
To ensure successful prevention activities, planners can monitor the organizational structure of programs in development. According to Guidelines and Benchmarks for Prevention Programming, once conceptual issues and a solid framework determining the scope of the effort are in place (see Alert 17), the next step is to analyze and define how the prevention effort relates to the system as a whole. This alert is the second in a series focusing on prevention planning and programming guidelines.
Consider the following questions of prevention programs in development:
Who are the key players? What are their roles and responsibilities?
Although prevention efforts may seem like excellent ideas with evidence of previous effectiveness, the involvement of key players throughout planning and implementation is essential to program success.
For example, research shows that well-implemented substance abuse policies in schools may help prevent drug and alcohol problems among students. Yet effective implementation requires the leadership of key decisionmakers in the school system, the cooperation of teachers and other school staff, and the endorsement of parents and students. If any of these groups resists the change, the effort can be defeated.
For prevention planners to develop a sound organizational structure for activities, they must incorporate community-wide participation from the beginning. In particular, emphasis should be placed on the active involvement of key decisionmakers in the planning and execution of the effort and implementers in planning and decisionmaking.
How do developing prevention efforts build on, and support, related prevention efforts?
To avoid duplicating efforts, program staff can consider the array of other efforts that are occurring or are planned at national, State, and local levels. By taking a "systems approach" that connects various parts within the same system, the prevention community can maximize program effectiveness by building on other efforts and creating a cohesive solution to the community problem.
For example, a public awareness campaign alone is not likely to have a major effect on impaired driving. However, when it is used as an adjunct to an enforcement campaign, the combined efforts have been shown to be extremely effective.
Can prevention programs realistically carry out goals with intended personnel and resources?
The likelihood of success increases if there is communication, organizational cooperation, and effective compromises among various participants. Organizational issues are less overwhelming if the overall effort is broken down into smaller, more manageable components.
To illustrate, a local law enforcement agency might decide to mount a campaign to reduce underage drinking. Because of a limited budget and strained personnel resources, the agency might be capable of only a very limited effort. By enlisting local community leaders, the media, high schools, youth clubs, and parenting groups to help discourage minors from purchasing alcohol, prevention efforts can be enhanced and have a greater impact on target populations.
In addition, as a large-scale effort is subdivided, more opportunities are created for active participation by a larger number of people. This may result in a broader and more lasting change if the community itself is involved in the decisionmaking and other leadership functions.
Source: Adapted by CSAP from Guidelines and Benchmarksfor Prevention Programming (1997). 57 pp.
SMA 95--3033.
To receive a complimentary copy of this PreventionAlert, call SAMSHA's National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) @ 1-800-729-6686, TDD 1-800-487-4889 (for the hearing impaired.)
PREVENTIONAlert is supported by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and may be copied without permission with appropriate citation. For information about PREVENTIONAlert, please contact CSAP by phone (301) 443-0581 or e-mail gensley@samhsa.gov