Program Profile: PROmoting School-Community-University Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER)

This is a community-based program that was designed to address substance abuse and antisocial behavior. The program is rated Promising. Students in the schools that implemented the PROSPER model had statistically significant fewer conduct problems and lower lifetime illicit substance use, compared with students in control schools. However, there were no statistically significant impacts on driving after drinking alcohol or frequency of drunkenness.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals

PROmoting School-Community-University Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) is a partnership-based program delivery system that focuses on community-based collaboration and capacity building. PROSPER features a menu of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that generally have a successful track record for preventing risky behaviors in youths, promoting positive youth development, and strengthening families. Moreover, the PROSPER delivery model goes beyond implementing EBIs; it also includes ongoing local needs assessment, monitoring implementation quality, applying sustainability strategies, and evaluating intervention outcomes.

Program Components

The PROSPER model is designed to facilitate ongoing, proactive technical assistance to communities implementing school-based and family-focused EBIs to ensure that interventions are implemented properly, supported in the community, and can be sustained over time. To do so, the PROSPER model leverages the existing infrastructure of a land grant university’s Cooperative Extension System (CES), which serves scientific outreach functions in every state. PROSPER includes three tiers consisting of 1) local community teams, including a CES-based team leader, a representative from the public elementary/secondary school systems who serves as a co-leader, representatives of local human service agencies and other relevant service providers, and other community stakeholders, such as youths and parents; 2) prevention coordinators (PCs) connected with the land grant university’s CES; and 3) a management team made up of state-level university researchers and CES-based program directors.

Communities implementing PROSPER create small teams (8–12 individuals) that oversee the delivery of one school- and one family-focused EBI. These community teams select which EBIs to implement from a list of programs. The list of EBIs includes programs that focus on building youth competencies and preventing problem behaviors, supporting positive youth development, and improving family effectiveness. The family-focused program is selected for implementation in sixth grade and the school-based program is selected for implementation in seventh grade. The list of EBIs is determined by prevention scientists at the National PROSPER Network Organization. Each of the EBIs on the list had to have been formally evaluated and found to be effective. The community team is tasked with ensuring quality program delivery and management by tracking its progress through the four developmental phases (see Implementation Information). The state-level university team supports PCs and community teams by providing general oversight and conducting evaluation activities.

PROSPER community teams are supported by a prevention coordinator, who serves as a liaison between the community team and the state-level university team. The prevention coordinators, who are based at the CES, deliver ongoing technical assistance to the teams on topics such as program selection, delivery, monitoring implementation, assessing effectiveness, and promoting team sustainability. The technical assistance is provided through a variety of communication tools, including biweekly phone calls, onsite consulting, electronic correspondence, and community meetings.

Study

Spoth and colleagues (2013) evaluated the PROmoting School-Community-University Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) model in 28 communities in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Communities were paired and matched on school size and demographic location. Eligible schools included those with an enrollment of between 1,300 and 5,200 students. The communities were assigned to either the intervention group or a treatment-as-usual comparison condition. Of the 28 communities that participated, 14 were assigned to the control group and 14 to the intervention group. The intervention group was offered evidence-based interventions (EBIs) through the PROSPER model; the control group received no assistance or project support for prevention programming but were free to implement prevention programming that was normally provided in their school districts. The final sample of participating communities included two cohorts of sixth graders; 85 percent identified as white, 51 percent were female, and 31 percent received reduced-cost lunch.

The 14 intervention communities used the PROSPER partnership model to deliver a family-focused intervention in the sixth grade and a school-based intervention in the seventh grade. Each PROSPER site had a community team of 8 to 12 individuals. These teams selected EBIs from a menu of choices developed by project scientists. For the family-focused intervention, all 14 community teams chose the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 (SFP: 10–14). The intervention group was split into two successive grade cohorts (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2). In year 1, SFP 10–14 was offered to the families of Cohort 1 (sixth graders). During year 2, SFP 10–14 was offered to the families of Cohort 2 (sixth graders). SFP 10–14 consists of seven, 2-hour sessions for parents and youths conducted weekly. The program aims to reduce substance misuse and behavior problems during adolescence through improved skills in nurturing and child management by parents, and by improving interpersonal and personal competencies among youths.

For the school-based intervention, community teams again chose one from among three school-based EBIs to implement in the seventh grade. The first, All Stars, is a 13-session intervention addressing students’ perceptions of substance use and violence, and their abilities to make personal commitments to avoid negative behaviors. The second, Life Skills Training, is a 15-session intervention that develops peer-resistance skills and strategies for avoiding problem behaviors like substance misuse. The third, Project Alert, focuses on social influences across 11 sessions. Life Skills Training and Project Alert were each selected by four teams; the All Stars curriculum was selected by the other six. The school-based program also was implemented with Cohort 2 (seventh graders) the following year.

Data from students was collected via written questionnaires. Pretest assessments were conducted during the fall semester of sixth grade, in 2002, for the 28 communities. Posttest measures were conducted at the end of the seventh grade, following the implementation of the school-based intervention. The follow-up period occurred yearly until students reached 12th grade. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the differences between the intervention and control groups at the 12th grade follow up. The primary outcome of interest was substance misuse. Substances included alcohol, cigarettes, methamphetamine, ecstasy, marijuana, and inhalants; and the illegal use of prescription drugs, including Vicodin, Percocet, and OxyContin. Other outcomes of interest included the frequency of drunkenness and marijuana use, as well as driving after drinking. A longitudinal, multilevel model was applied to measure substance misuse outcomes and growth trajectories. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Study

Osgood and colleagues (2013) conducted a social-network analysis to study students’ connections with antisocial peers in their peer networks and influences, using the same sample (28 school districts in Iowa and Pennsylvania) as in Study 1 (Spoth et al. 2013). The goal of the study was to test whether the prevention programs could change students’ friendship networks in ways that reduce the potential for negative peer influence toward problem behavior (specifically substance use and delinquency).

The study analyzed the following three separate measures of antisocial behavior and attitudes: substance use, attitudes toward substance use, and delinquent behavior. Substance use was measured by participants’ responses to questions about smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, getting drunk, and using marijuana in the past month. Attitudes toward substance use were measured through participants’ responses to 22 questions, ranging from expectations of substance use to refusal to use substances. Finally, delinquent behavior was measured through a 12-item, self-report index of delinquent behavior. These measures were combined into a single composite variable labeled antisocial behavior.

The social-network analysis that was used measures the centrality of an individual’s network position. The concept of centrality relates to each person’s prominence or importance in the network, based on direct and indirect connections to others. Six types of centrality were used to define composite measures: degree centrality, closeness centrality, reach centrality, betweenness centrality, information centrality, and composite centrality. Students in the intervention and control groups were matched for comparison, based on peer social networks. Students were asked to name up to two of their best friends and five additional close friends in their current grade and school. Over 80 percent of the friends named were matched successfully to the class roster. The outcome variable of interest was the interaction between each person in the network’s centrality and their level of antisocial behavior, that is, how antisocial were the peers most central in the networks of each PROSPER youth. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Study

Spoth and colleagues (2015) evaluated the effect of PROSPER on adolescent conduct problems from 1 to 5 years after primary intervention components were delivered (or 1.5 to 6.5 years after the baseline assessment), using the same sample (28 school districts in Iowa and Pennsylvania) as in Study 1 and 2 (Spoth et al. 2013; Osgood et al. 2013).

Conduct problem behaviors were assessed using items from the National Youth Survey, specifically those items looking at the frequency with which the respondent reported engaging in each of 12 behaviors during the past year. The behaviors included both covert and overt types of conduct problem behaviors. There were four items about stealing or not paying for something; two items about truancy (including running away from home, and skipping school or classes without an excuse); two items measuring aggression directed at other people (such as beating up or causing someone injury); two items measuring destructive behavior directed toward damaging property; and two items concerning representative and potentially serious conduct problems in general adolescent populations.

Adolescents received 1 point for each behavior they reported, yielding potential scores of 0 to 12. Differences between the intervention and control groups were tested using the zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) model, which is an appropriate statistical analysis to use when there is an instance of a large number of zeroes in the measure of conduct problems. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

A cost analysis based on data collected from the original study, detailed by Crowley and colleagues (2012b), evaluated the cost for implementing PROmoting School-Community-University Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) for a maximum of 5 years. Analysis of the costs for implementing programs with the PROSPER model detailed the average costs of the “first day-of-implementation.” The average cost per family participating in the family intervention was between $278 and $348 daily, whereas the school-based intervention cost was between $9 and $27 per student. The average total cost of program delivery was between $311 and $405 per student served (Crowley et al. 2012b).<br><br> Sites looking to implement the PROSPER model can sign up for PROSPER–related trainings conducted by of the National PROSPER Network Organization’s trainers at Iowa State University. These trainings can be tailored to meet the needs of each state partnership, but also include content based on the developmental phase of the community teams. To receive training assistance, please visit the PROSPER Partnerships Web site for more information: https://prosper-ppsi.sws.iastate.edu/contact.<br><br> A brief overview of the training and training costs can also be found at the PROSPER Web site: https://prosper-ppsi.sws.iastate.edu/how-it-works/state-partnership-training.

Technical assistance is an integral feature of the PROmoting School-Community-University Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) model and is used to develop and sustain program implementation. Specifically, the prevention coordinator’s position mainly supports the capacity of the local delivery infrastructures to sustain program implementation.

There are four developmental phases associated with the PROSPER model that support community teams and programs (Greenberg et al. 2014; Spoth and Greenberg 2011). The first phase is the organizational phase, which lasts 6–8 months and involves the formation of the partnership at the local level. This phase also includes recruiting key team members, administering training for the model, establishing the program goals that are based on the needs and resources of the local community, and working together as a team. The second phase (the operational phase) lasts 2–3 years. The major tasks include implementation of the chosen programs, applying a monitoring system to ensure implementation quality, and instituting sustainability training and planning.

The third phase, early sustainability, is linked to the second phase and focuses on sustaining the activities of the local community team. The duration of this phase is usually between program years 2 to 4, and it involves planning for sustainability and gaining local funding through proactive technical assistance.

The final phase, ongoing operations and sustainability, strengthens the internal and external functioning of community teams, maintains the quality of program implementation, and further develops local funds for ongoing support. More information on the implementation of PROSPER can be found at https://prosper.ppsi.iastate.edu/ 

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Crowley, D.M., Mark Greenberg, Mark Feinberg, Richard Spoth, and Cleve Redmond. 2012a. “The Effect of the PROSPER Partnership Model on Cultivating Local Stakeholder Knowledge of Evidence-Based Programs: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study of 28 Communities.” Prevention Science 13:96–105.

Crowley, Daniel M., Damon Jones, Mark Greenberg, Mark Feinberg, and Richard Spoth. 2012b. “Resource Consumption of a Diffusion Model for Prevention Programs: The PROSPER Delivery System.” Journal of Adolescent Health 50:256–63.

Flay, Brian R., Anthony Biglan, Robert Boruch, and Steven Schinke. 2005. “Standards of Evidence: Criteria for Efficacy, Effectiveness and Dissemination.”  Prevention Science 6(3):152–75.

Greenberg, Mark T., Mark Feinberg, Lesley Johnson, Daniel Perkins, Janet Welsh, and Richard Spoth. 2014. “Factors That Predict Financial Sustainability of Community Coalitions: Five Years of Findings from the PROSPER Partnership Project.” Prevention Science 16:158–67.

Greenberg, Mark T., Mark Feinberg, Sarah Meyer-Chilendki, Richard Spoth, and Cleve Redmond. 2007. “Community and Team Member Factors that Influence the Early Phase Functioning of Community Prevention Teams: The PROSPER Project.” Journal of Primary Prevention 28:485–504.

Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press. 

Spoth, Richard L., and Mark Greenberg. 2005. “Toward a Comprehensive Strategy for Effective Practitioner-Scientist Partnerships and Larger-Scale Community Health and Well-Being.” American Journal of Community Psychology 35(3/4):107–26.

Spoth, Richard L., and Mark Greenberg. 2011. “Impact Challenges in Community Science-with-Practice: Lessons from PROSPER on Transformative Practitioner-Scientist Partnerships and Prevention Infrastructure Development.” American Journal of Community Partnerships 48:106–19.

Spoth, Richard L., Max Guyll, Catherine Lillehoj, Cleve Redmond, and Mark Greenberg. 2007. “PROSPER Study of Evidence-Based Intervention Implementation Quality by Community-University Partnerships.” Journal of Community Psychology 35(8):981–99.

Spoth, Richard, Cleve Redmond, Scott Clair, Chungyeol Shin, Mark Greenberg, and Mark Feinberg. 2011. “Preventing Substance Misuse through Community-University Partnerships: Randomized Controlled Trial Outcomes 4½ Years Past Baseline.”  American Journal of Prevention Medicine 40(4):440–47.