Institutionalizing community-based prevention through policy change

Abstract

This article summarizes the types of community policies that have shown effects on decreasing youth drug use, the contribution of community organization to policy change, and finally, the role of policy change on maintaining—or institutionalizing—community‐based prevention efforts. Two types of policy change are considered: those involving implementation and those related to applicable regulations. Implementation policies are those aimed at institutionalizing prevention programs, usually through raising funds, requiring standard implementation, and creating a formal non‐profit organization to implement programs. Regulatory policies include all formal laws, regulations, and ordinances aimed directly at decreasing drug use, for example, regulations which enforce the monitoring of drug‐free zones. Results of studies suggest that regulatory policies may show the most immediate effect on youth tobacco and alcohol use. Programmatic policies have the most potential for long‐term effects on use. Community organization appears to stimulate change in both types of policy. As yet unresolved is whether policy change can subsequently contribute to long‐term community prevention efforts. Recent research has identified several barriers to institutionalization of community prevention, including a) a lack of perceived empowerment by community leaders to continue prevention work; b) insufficient preparation of community leaders for adoption of evidence‐based programs; c) the notion of continuing an ineffective approach because of the costs already “sunk;” and d) a general perception that no proscribed evidence‐based approach will work because each community has its own unique needs. Furthermore, results suggest that policy change requires a two‐ to three‐year commitment by community leaders and a supportive social norm for prevention. Despite these barriers, several factors have emerged from case studies of community prevention which may expedite the movement of evidence‐based prevention from science into practice. Identification of a local "champion" for prevention, development of local resources to sustain prevention, feedback about prevention program effects and strategic use of supportive mass media are recommended to induce local policy change and institutionalize prevention in the community. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Translating research into prevention of high-risk behaviors in the presence of complex systems: definitions and systems frameworks

“…While it is important to ORIGINAL RESEARCH improve our understanding of formal systems, we must not forget that sometimes less formal systems can be incredibly powerful. As an example, Pentz has shown that changing social norms towards non-drug use promotes more rapid adoption of policies that are aimed at institutionalizing prevention programs compared to administrative voting on formal policy change [31].…”

“…Figure 5 depicts one example of how the interplay of pro-and anti-tobacco norms may influence policy resistance [31,66]. Policymakers may use Fig.…”

Effective Trauma Center Partnerships to Address Firearm Injury: A New Paradigm

“…Advisory boards were designed with the understanding that community-based approaches cannot occur without participation and intimate involvement and co-leadership of key community leaders and the preparation of these leaders to make evidencebased decisions. 39 The boards exemplified the partnership and were essential to maximize efficient use of limited resources, enhance community buy-in, reach target populations, and establish longlasting community ownership of firearm injury prevention programs. 31,40 Most communities recognize firearm injury as a well-known problem in urban settings, however, this does not necessarily extend to smaller communities.…”

Establishing support groups for HIV-infected women: Using experiences to develop guiding principles for project implementation

“…• To be a functional bridge, the bridge should assist travellers to get to their destination -the needs of the participants must be addressed to ensure the value and sustainability of change (Akerlund, 2000;Pentz, 2000).…”