Unpacking Prevention Capacity: An Intersection of Research‐to‐practice Models and Community‐centered Models

Abstract

Capacity is a complex construct that lacks definitional clarity. Little has been done to define capacity, explicate components of capacity, or explore the development of capacity in prevention. This article represents an attempt to operationalize capacity and distinguish among types and levels of capacity as they relate to dissemination and implementation through the use of a taxonomy of capacity. The development of the taxonomy was informed by the capacity literature from two divergent models in the field: research-to-practice (RTP) models and community-centered (CC) models. While these models differ in perspective and focus, both emphasize the importance of capacity to the dissemination and sustainability of prevention innovations. Based on the review of the literature, the taxonomy differentiates the concepts of capacity among two dimensions: level (individual, organizational, and community levels) and type (general capacity and innovation-specific capacity). The proposed taxonomy can aid in understanding the concept of capacity and developing methods to support the implementation and sustainability of prevention efforts in novel settings.

Creating teacher capacity in Early Childhood Education and Care institutions implementing an authoritative adult style

“…Capacity-building should focus on both the individual and organizational level simultaneously. When the innovation is anchored at the community level, it facilitates cooperation between institutions (Flaspohler et al 2008). Innovation-specific capacity deals with the individual and organizational readiness to implement an intervention.…”

Evaluation Protocol To Assess an Integrated Framework for the Implementation of the Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration Project at the California (CA-CORD) and Massachusetts (MA-CORD) Sites

“…A complete list of MIF constructs, their definitions, and their hypothesized level of influence is provided in Table 1. 30,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] Description of the MA-CORD and CA-CORD Interventions…”

“…Synthesis and translation system Efforts by scientific leadership to distill and disseminate research evidence to other stakeholders (e.g., developing and adapting an intervention to fit local contexts) 27,44 Support system Stakeholder efforts to build capacity for implementing and/or sustaining the intervention (intervention-specific training and coaching, coalition and/or other partnership development, and so on) 27,44 Delivery system Inner context, implementation processes, and other factors influencing implementation in the organizations/sectors in which the intervention is taking place 27,44 Level of analysis: delivery system Readiness for change Extent to which individuals responsible for implementation are psychologically and behaviorally prepared to make the changes necessary to implement the intervention. 45,98 Strongly influenced by management support and resource availability Implementation processes Practices, policies, structures, and/or strategies used to put an intervention in place and support its use 16 Implementation climate Extent to which individuals responsible for implementation perceive that participation in intervention activities is expected, supported, and rewarded by the delivery system in which they are located 67 Innovation-values fit Extent to which the intervention is compatible with professional or organizational mission and values 46 Innovation-task fit Extent to which individuals responsible for implementation perceive intervention activities as compatible with local task demands (e.g., work processes and preferences) 15 Intervention champion An individual that promotes the intervention within the delivery system 21 …”

Capacity Building and Empowerment: A panacea and a challenge for agency-university engagement

“…Most of the capacity building literature includes taxonomies of capacity building (see Flaspohler et al 2008), conceptualizations of capacity building (see Arnold 2006;Fawcett et al 2003;Wandersman et al 2006) and discussions of the various dimensions of capacity building (see Chaskin 2001;Crisp et al 2000;Lord & Hutchison 2003;Nye & Glickman 2000;Ristau 2001). Based on previous research and review of the literature, we developed an empowerment approach to capacity building designed to assist communities in either promoting social change and/or engaging agency staff and program recipients in the process of program planning, implementation and evaluation (Fawcett et al 2003;Fetterman 2001;Fetterman & Wandersman 2005).…”

“…Based on reviews of the capacity building literature (see for example Flaspohler et al 2008), literature on community-university engagements (such as Rubin 2000) and field notes taken during the last three years of the CCBMDR's technical assistance and consultation for capacity building, we offer the following principles to promote capacity building from an empowerment perspective.…”