There continues to be a gap in prevention outcomes achieved in research trials vs. “real world” practice. This article summarizes interim findings from a randomized trial testing Assets-Getting To Outcomes (AGTO), a two-year intervention to build prevention practitioners’ capacity to implement positive youth development-oriented prevention practices in 12 prevention coalitions in Maine. A survey of coalition members was used to assess change on individual practitioners’ prevention capacity between Baseline and one year later. Structured interviews with 32 program leaders (16 intervention, 16 control) were used to assess changes in prevention practices during the same time period. Change in prevention capacity over time between intervention and control did not differ, however in secondary analyses of only those assigned to the AGTO condition, AGTO users had evidenced greater improvement in their self-efficacy to conduct Assets-based programming and the frequency with which they engaged in AGTO behaviors. Non-users’ self-efficacy of AGTO declined. Interview ratings showed improvement in several key areas of performance among intervention programs. Improvement was associated with the number of technical assistance hours received. These results suggest that, after one year, AGTO is beginning to improve the capacity of community practitioners who make use of it.

Community practitioners can face difficulty in achieving outcomes demonstrated by prevention science. Building a community practitioner’s prevention capacity—the knowledge and skills needed to conduct critical prevention practices—could improve the quality of prevention and its outcomes. The purpose of this article is to: (1) describe how an intervention called Assets-Getting To Outcomes (AGTO) was used to establish the key functions of the ISF and present early lessons learned from that intervention’s first 6 months and (2) examine whether there is an empirical relationship between practitioner capacity at the individual level and the performance of prevention at the program level—a relationship predicted by the ISF but untested. The article describes an operationalization of the ISF in the context of a five-year randomized controlled efficacy trial that combines two complementary models designed to build capacity: Getting To Outcomes (GTO) and Developmental Assets. The trial compares programs and individual practitioners from six community-based coalitions using AGTO with programs and practitionersfrom six similar coalitions that are not. In this article, we primarily focus on what the ISF calls innovation specific capacity and discuss how the combined AGTO innovation structures and uses feedback about its capacity-building activities, which can serve as a model for implementing the ISF. Focus group discussions used to gather lessons learned from the first 6 months of the AGTO intervention suggest that while the ISF may have been conceptualized as three distinct systems, in practice they are less distinct. Findings from the baseline wave of data collection of individual capacity and program performance suggest that practitioner capacity predicts, in part, performance of prevention programs. Empirically linking practitioner capacity and performance of prevention provides empirical support for both the ISF and AGTO.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract