Search

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.

Communities are increasingly being required by state and federal funders to achieve outcomes and be accountable, yet are often not provided the guidance or the tools needed to successfully meet this challenge. To improve the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes, the Getting To Outcomes (GTO) intervention (manual, training, technical assistance) is designed to provide the necessary guidance and tools, tailored to community needs, in order to build individual capacity and program performance. GTO is an example of a Prevention Support System intervention, which as conceptualized by the Interactive Systems Framework, plays a key role in bridging the gap between prevention science (Prevention Synthesis and Translation System) and prevention practice (Prevention Delivery System). We evaluated the impact of GTO on individual capacity and program performance using survey- and interview-based methods. We tracked the implementation of GTO and gathered user feedback about its utility and acceptability. The evaluation of GTO suggests that it can build individual capacity and program performance and as such demonstrates that the Prevention Support System can successfully fulfill its intended role. Lessons learned from the implementation of GTO relevant to illuminating the framework are discussed.

This article illustrates ideas for bridging science and practice generated during the Division of Violence Prevention's (DVP) dissemination/implementation planning process. The difficulty of moving what is known about what works into broader use is near universal, and this planning process pushed us to look beyond the common explanations (e.g., providers were resistant/unwilling to change practice) and think about the multiple layers and systems involved. As part of this planning process, the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) was developed and then applied to the fields of child maltreatment and youth violence prevention. Challenges for each of the three systems in the ISF are discussed as well as and action and research ideas to address the challenges. Also described are actions taken by DVP in response to the planning process to illustrate how a funder can use the ISF to bridge science and practice.

If we keep on doing what we have been doing, we are going to keep on getting what we have been getting. Concerns about the gap between science and practice are longstanding. There is a need for new approaches to supplement the existing approaches of research to practice models and the evolving community-centered models for bridging this gap. In this article, we present the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) that uses aspects of research to practice models and of community-centered models. The framework presents three systems: the Prevention Synthesis and Translation System (which distills information about innovations and translates it into user-friendly formats); the Prevention Support System (which provides training, technical assistance or other support to users in the field); and the Prevention Delivery System (which implements innovations in the world of practice). The framework is intended to be used by different types of stakeholders (e.g., funders, practitioners, researchers) who can use it to see prevention not only through the lens of their own needs and perspectives, but also as a way to better understand the needs of other stakeholders and systems. It provides a heuristic for understanding the needs, barriers, and resources of the different systems, as well as a structure for summarizing existing research and for illuminating priority areas for new research and action.