The Journal of PrimaryPreventiot~ Vos 1~ No. 3, 1996
Transferring Prevention Skills to Teams in Public Housing Communities Th6r~se van Houten, D.S.W. 1~3 Susan Hailman, M.Ed. 2 Claudette Ren6e Yanssaneh, M.Ed., 1 and Vernon Bowen, M.S. 1
Teams consisting of Public Housing Authority staff, public housing residents, and representatives of local organizations were trained in drug and violence prevention and community mobilization. The evaluation is based on a transfer of training framework. First, it examines the participant self-reported increases in skills and knowledge, and the intent to apply these skills and knowledge. Next, it describes how a subsample of teams implemented action plans developed during the training. Findings indicate that potential barriers and opportunities for application of the training should be considered prior to and during the training. Following the training implementation of the action plans depend to a large extent on the level of support, resources, and encouragement received from the home environment, as well as on the availability of further technical assistance or on-site training. KEY WORDS: drugs; training; public housing; prevention.
INTRODUCTION The major national information sources on substance abuse in the United States, such as the Drug Abuse Warning Network and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, do not provide specific data on illicit drug use among residents of public housing communities. However, evidence strongly suggests that many of these communities experience a serious concentration of illegal drug markets and high levels of IMacro International Inc., Calverton, Maryland.
2Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Roclotille, Maryland. 3Address correspondence to Th~r~se van Houten, Evaluation Director, Macro International Inc., 11785 Beltsville Drive, Calverton, MD 20705. 273
9
1996 HumanScOncesPress, Inc.
274
van
Houtm, Hzllmaa, Yansnneh, and Bowen
addiction and drug-related crimes (White House Briefing, February 1994). Moreover, the high incidence of co-factors for substance abuse, such as unemployment and health problems, among lower income populations also suggests that substance abuse is likely to be higher among public housing residents. To address these problems, the Public Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1988 (EL. 100-690) provides funds through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a variety of drug prevention and treatment programs in the public housing communities. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs)--organizational entities that oversee the expenditure of Federal and State funding for public housing--are the primary recipients of these funds. Since 1989, HUD has awarded 1,762 such grants for a total of $53 million (Drug Information and Strategy Clearinghouse, 1994). In 1992, HUD entered into an agreement with the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention ((::SAP), the lead Federal agency for substance abuse prevention, to pilot community drug prevention curricula for HUD drug elimination grantees through the Prevention in Housing Communities ~aining project. The curricula were designed for PHA administrators and grantee staff as well as those individuals who worked closely with them (e.g., drug prevention workers, other local service providers, law enforcement personnel, and tenant leaders). This paper reports on the results of the initial evaluation of 10 Prevention in Housing Communities "lkaining institutes. The focus of the paper is on the immediate and ongoing effects of the training, and on characteristics of the trainees and the environment that mitigate or strengthen these effects. Do such curricula succeed in engaging PHA staff and other community representatives in the training process, and thereby enable them to form a team and, as a team, to implement a prevention initiative in their communities? What factors (prior to, during, and after the training) impede or support the creation of such teams and the implementation of such initiatives?
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Prevention in Housing Communities "fi'aining project used the term "housing community" rather than "public housing project" not only to avoid the negative and pejorative connotation of the latter term, but also to emphasize the concept of community. A public housing neighborhood fits the definition of community in a number of ways. It fits the traditional definition of community as a locality, "a bounded physical space shared by people" (Chaffs and Florin, 1990). It also fits Chaffs and Florin's
Transferring Prevention Skills
275
concept of community as "a collection of social institutions and sectors that function within a locality" (including the Public Housing Authority whose institutional presence is a unique characteristic of the public housing community). And, in most cases, it fits the perception of propinquity in which members have a sense of belonging--this may or may not be territorial. From a systems perspective, the housing community forms an intriguing construct: in some ways, it is a closed community in that criteria to live there are based on government-determined means tests rather than on the free market economy. On the other hand, the physical and social boundaries often are more visible than in other neighborhoods. In some communities, members from the surrounding and larger community (e.g., cab drivers, social workers, and the police) hesitate to cross the same boundaries that are traversed freely by drug dealers and their customers. In many cities (e.g., New Haven, Connecticut and Cincinnati, Ohio), over 75 percent of those arrested on public housing property do not live there (White House Briefing, February 1994). The design of Prevention in Housing Communities Training is based on the assumption that in order to be effective, any drug prevention initiative must address these special characteristics of the public housing community and bring together people from within the community (PHA staff, resident leaders and others) as well as representatives from the larger community. The design weaves together theories and practices from several fields, most notably prevention, community development, and adult learning theories. It is also based on prior prevention curricula and training events developed by CSAP. The Environmental Model of Primary Prevention
The intent of the curricula was to train and enhance the skills of individuals (PHA staff, residents, and representatives of other key social institutions in selected public housing communities) to join together as ever-expanding teams to start creating their own solutions to substance abuse. This model of primary prevention stems from the environmental model of disease prevention and health promotion. In the classic disease prevention model, the environment generally encompasses the literal physical environment by which the disease agent infects the host. Thus, sanitation and pest eradication programs were successful in removing disease factors that facilitated the spread of diseases such as malaria. In substance abuse prevention, this type of environmental approach has included programs aimed at reducing access to drug dealers--measures including increased lighting, perimeter fencing, and police foot patrols.
276
van Houtm, I1.1hn..~; Yansmneh, and Bowea
This is also the approach used by many of the Drug Elimination Act grant recipients. Another environmental prevention approach aim,~at strengthening cultural and community factors that lessen the acceptance of substance abuse and the tolerance of associated community risk factors. The idea of environmental prevention by means of strengthening the commullity has its roots in several successful prevention program~ for cardiovascular disease. These program~ aimed at developing a coordinated effort among media, business, health professionals, government agencies, and other organiTations in order to reduce cardiovascular risk factors, to improve screening for at-risk residents, and to increase the community's understanding of risk factors and how to control them (Johnson and Softs, 1983). In community psychology, researchers such as George Albee (1982) suggest that substance abuse and poor mental health can be related to stressors in the environment~ and that these can be alleviated by increasing social networks, social competence, and community resources. Prevention specialists began to apply these ideas about community prevention to substance abuse in the 1980s. An early example was the STAR program in Kansas City. This program enlisted the school system, police, businesses, the media, and parents in a coordinated prevention program for middle school children. The city-wide program was evaluated and found to be effective in delaying or preventing the onset of substance abuse by adolescents (Pentz, Cormack, Flay, Hansen, and Johnson, 1986). The success of this and other community prevention programs was instrumental in CSAP's adoption of the community prevention model as an integral part of its program plan. In 1990, CSAP launched a grant program that funded 251 community partnerships. Each of these had to enlist the support of at least seven community organizations, including social service agencies, businesses, the criminal justice, recreation and education systerns, other government agencies, and representatives of other sectors of the community such as the faith community. The goal of the partnerships was to develop a comprehensive community-wide prevention system that integrates the prevention efforts of every sector in the community (Benard, 1989). Recognizing that most partnership members were not experts in prevention, nor possessed the knowledge and skills needed to implement community-wide prevention strategies, CSAP,, at the same time, initiated a community partnership training program. In designing this training program, CSAP benefitted from recent advances in training made by other sectors of the government, nonprofit organizations, and the business world.
Transferring ~z, vention Sldlls
277
Learning Theory and Its Application to Training Recent developments in training and transfer of learning are grounded in the findings of research on how people learn; how they retain what they have learned; and how, following the training, they apply (or transfer) what they learned in their home or work setting. Positive transfer of training iS defined as "the degree to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a training context to the job. For transfer to have occurred, learned behavior must be generalized to the job context and maintained over a period of time" (Baldwin and Ford, 1988, p. 63). When training iS used as a community prevention strategy, the setting where the changes are to take place changes from the work place to the community, but an underlying assumption iS that the principles of transfer of training remain the same. It is therefore important to understand the three main factors that affect transfer. (a) trainee characteristics; (b) the training itself; and (c) the environment where the transfer is expected to occur (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). A considerable amount of research has been done on all three factors (Broad, 1993; Broad and Newstrom, 1992). ~ainee characteristics include ability or skill, motivation and personality factors, and level of comfort with the desired change. It is essential that transfer be part of the training design. "'l]ransfer needs to be a forethought, not just an afterthought" (Ottoson, 1994, p. 21). "l]ransfer is maximized when the training design teaches trainees not only the applicable skills, but also the general rules and theoretical principles that underlie them; when trainees and trainers are co-learners; when the trainees have a say in the design; when the trainers use a variety of relevant stimuli and practical examples; when there is opportunity to practice; when trainees are given feedback about their performance; and, above all, when the design is culturally sensitive, relevant, and appropriate (Dolatte and Baytos, 1993; Gordon, 1992; Johnson and O'Mara, 1992). The transfer environment refers to climatic factors such as supervisory and peer support in the home, work or community setting, as well as constraints and opportunities to applying the learning in these settings. Site and Participant Selection
Participating public housing communities were Drug Elimination Act grantees located in the continental United States, and operated by Public Housing Authorities (excluded were public housing communities operated
278
vnn Houteu~ ~
YsmsRneh, and Bowen
by the Indian Housing Authorities). Each institute provided training for up to 10 public housing communities. Public Housing Authorities applied for training through a process by which they demonstrated that they could develop an initial team consisting of a PHA admini.strator, drug elimination grant staff, representatives from other drug prevention and social service agencies, law enforcement personnel, resident leaders as well as other relevant representatives from within or outside the housing community (e.g., the clergy, or the local governmen0. Although guidance was provided regarding team composition, the actual selection was made by participating PHA staff. Ten 5-day training institutes were conducted from June 1992 to November 1993 in the following sites: Washington, DC (the initial pretest site); Dallas, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; San Francisco, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Denver, Colorado; Hartford, Connecticut; Chicago, Illinois; Saddle Brook, New Jersey; and Hilton Head, South Carolina. "lhble 1 lists the States from which housing communities were selected for participation in
Table 1. List of Institutes by HUD Region; States Represented by the Participating Housing Communities: Number of Trainees per Institute; and, Curriculum Focus of Each Institute
Institute
HUD Region(s)
States Represented by Participating Homing Communities
Trainees N = 765
Curriculum Focus
Washington, DC
III
DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
77
[Pre-test]
Dallas, TX
VI
AR, LA, OK, "IX, NM
94
Atlanta, GA
IV
FL, GA
79
San Francisco, CA
IX, X
AZ, CA, WA, NV
96
Birmingham, AL
IV
AL, KY, MS, 'IN
67
Denver, CO
VII, VIII CO, IA, KS, Me, NM, OK
68
Drug prevention Drug prevention Drug and violence prevention Community mobilization Community mobilization
Hartford, CT
I
CT, MA
71
Chicago, IL
V
IL, IN, OH, WI
67
Saddle Brook, NJ
II
NJ, NY
53
Hilton Head, SC
IV
NC, SC
93
Drug prevention Drug prevention Drug and violence prevention Drug and violence prevention
Transferr/ng Prevention Skills
2"/9
each institute, the corresponding HUD region, the number of participants per institute, and the focus of the prevention curriculum used at the institute. In all, 765 individuals participated in the institutes, representing 89 communities. The Curricula and the 'I1-aining The Prevention in Housing Communities "l~aining project was based on a number of assumptions, including first and foremost the belief that communities that develop their own learning process related to substance abuse prevention will also develop ownership of both problems and solutious. There was, therefore, a pre-training community assessment to allow trainees to identify critical problems that needed to be addressed as well as local strengths and resources, and an emphasis on trainee-directed learning. Other basic tenets built into the design were: (a) a comprehensive approach to substance abuse prevention best addresses the complexity of the issues affecting a particular community--hence, a training focus that extended beyond substance abuse to other related community issues; Co) the collaborative efforts of multiple agencies and multidisciplinary teams offer the most promising approach to the challenges of substance abuse, violence and related community problems--hence, the emphasis on developing cohesive teams consisting of PHA staff and representatives of other community groups; and (c) cultural sensitivity and competency are key to developing successful intervention strategies--therefore, all aspects of the curriculum as well as trainer selection were culture-specific. This design was not new. It was based on the design used earlier by the CSAP community partnership training program in which each partnership sent up to 12 members to a 5-day training institute to be trained in prevention theory, assessment of community needs, action planning, community organizing, and other skills needed to return to their communities as cohesive, skilled, and knowledgeable teams. The Prevention in Housing Communities "l~aining project started in the summer of 1992 with a pretest of the existing CSAP model to see if the partnership model was appropriate for training teams from public housing communities. This first institute was held in Washington, DC, for representatives from 10 communities in HUD Region III. Following this pretest, trainers and trainees alike reported that such a 5-day institute did not suffice. It was difficult for trainers to focus on the unique and varied problems of each housing community without having any first-hand knowledge of the community. It was decided that for all subsequent institutes, the trainer assigned to each team would conduct a 2-day pre-training site
280
van Hoatea, Hallman, Yanssaneh, and Bowen
visit to the housing community tO witness first-hand the barriers and resources faced by local preventionists, to provide trainees with the skills and know-how to conduct a pre-training communityassessment, to allow trainees an opportunity to have input into the forthcoming training, to inform others in the communityabout what to expect and to elicit their support, and to let the trainees know what to expect. Initially, HUT) also proposed adding a technical assistance and followup component that would have permitted the trainers (or other technical assistance providers) to conduct follow-up visits to help the teams implement action plans developed during the training, strengthen existing networks, and elicit community support. These visits would also have provided an opportunity for on-site evaluation of the transfer and application of the training. Because of budget constraints, the followup component was curtailed and made available only through mechanisms external to the training contract. However, resources did allow for 12 followup evaluation site visits. In December 1992, all trainers proposed for the nine pilot institutes attended "a training of trainers" seminar which reviewed the goals and objectives of the projects and introduced the curricula that had now been revised for use with public housing communities. The trainers also received instruction in the pre-institute community assessment and site visit process. In all, 31 individuals were trained. From this pool of trainers, 10 were assigned to each institute. Criteria that were taken into account in selecting appropriate trainers included: the racial and ethnic composition of the team; the urban or rural nature of the housing community's setting; the dominant language and culture of the team; special needs identified by the team in their initial application. The first round of site visits was conducted in January 1993. The institutes were generally conducted 3 to 4 weeks following the site visits. Three different curricula were piloted: a basic drug prevention curriculum, one that emphasized drug and violence prevention, and one that focused on community mobilization. In addition, since these were pilots, the overall design evolved in response to feedback from trainers and trainees. Nevertheless, each institute followed a similar format. During the first day, after initial introductions, the teams reported the findings from the pre-training community assessments and identified the principal issues they wished to address. During the second day, the teams "mapped" risk and protective factors in their communities, developed a community vision, and began preparations on an action plan to address each of the identified community issues. Day three was devoted to cultural awareness and cross-cultural communication, as well as an open session in which the 10 teams exchanged ideas with each other. The fourth day addressed community resource develop-
Transferring Prevention Skills
281
ment, and community mobilization. Specialists presented workshops on different aspects of prevention (e.g., Federal drug prevention resources, drug intervention, church linkages, economic development, media relations). The teams split up so that at least one team member attended each of the workshops. In the late afternoon, the teams reconvened, and members reported on what they had learned, and its relevance to their home community. The fifth and final day began with a session on community mobilization and showed a film, "Eyes on the Prize," of the Montgomery bus boycott to exemplify how all sectors of a community could unite around a common issue and contribute to its resolution. The teams then completed their action plans; the final meeting consisted of a report by each team on their plan, with an opportunity for each team to publicly state its commitment to community prevention.
Evaluation Design Three evaluation questions are addressed in this paper. The first question asks about the immediate outcome of the training: If representatives
from public housing communities participate in 5 days of intensive training in community prevention techniques, will their level of self-perceived skills and knowledge increase and will they develop the intentions and confidence to appty these skills and knowledge back home? While this first question looks at intent to apply what had been learned, the second question concerns the actual application of what was learned: Upon their return home, to what extent do the trainees function as cohesive teams that implement the proposed prevention initiatives? The third question asks: What factors (before, during, and after the training) impede or support the implementation of the proposed community prevention activities? To answer the first evaluation question, post-institute questionnaires were collected from the trainees. The questionnaires were administered to all participants. During the first few institutes, they were handed out toward the end of the last training session. Because some respondents failed to complete the forms at that time, the forms were divided into two sections. On the first day, half of the questions were asked (i.e., questions on respondent demographics, on reasons for participating in the training, on prior prevention training and experience). On the final day, respondents were asked questions regarding satisfaction with the training, and their sense that they had benefitted through changes in skills, knowledge, and attitude. Responses are used to examine the relationship between trainee characteristics (e.g., motivation, education, and prior substance abuse prevention experience) and outcomes; to get the trainee reaction to the quality
282
van
Houtea, Hailman, Y~usaneh, and Bowen
of the training design (e.g., the curriculum content, the amount of practice time, the amount of feedback from the trainers, cultural sensitivity of the trainer, and the relevance of the examples); and to gather information on self-reported learning (i.e., changes in skills and knowledge, changes in attitude, increase in commitment). These are all believed to be essential correlates of effective training transfer (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). Responses are also used to look at differences in these immediate outcomes by team. To answer the latter two evaluation questions, followup evaluation site visits afforded an opportunity to collect qualitative data on whether the teams were able to work together following their return home; on the extent to which they were able to implement the action plans developed during the institute, and on factors aiding or limiting the implementation of these plans.
FINDINGS This section first describes the trainees' role in their housing communities, presents trainee demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, educational level and race/ethnicity), and reports on the trainees' prior experience with substance abuse prevention activities and their reasons for coming to the training. It presents the trainees' satisfaction with the training, and examines associations between trainee characteristics (demographics as well as pre-institute activities) and indicators of training success. Next, differences in immediate outcomes between teams are presented. This analysis is followed by an examination on the application of the learning in selected communities, and of the factors that aided or hampered these applications. Characteristics of the Trainees
The findings are based on the responses of the 674 individuals who completed the evaluation forms--an 88% response rate. Thirty-seven percent were PHA staff (either administrators, drug prevention staff, or police or security personnel); 28% were resident leaders; the remaining 35% included other service providers, law enforcement personnel, and other community representatives. In all, regardless of whether they were employed by the PHA or by other community organizations, 13% of all trainees were law enforcement personnel and 16% were substance abuse prevention and treatment providers. "Ihble 2 presents the characteristics of the respondents and significant associations between these characteristics. Fifty-seven per-
Transferring Prt,veutioa Skills
7.83
Table 7,. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Trainees (N =: 674) Sionificant Associations Between Characteristics
Selected n
%
Role (n = 699) PHA staff Residents Others
Characteristics
249 188 232
37 28 35
Gender (n = 659) Female Male
379 281
57 43
Sex and role
X2 (2, N ~: 657) = 50.78, p < .0130
61 179 243 132 42
9 27 37 20 6
Age and role Age and sex
X2 (8, N =, 657) = 37.58, p < .000 Z2 (4, N -- 649) = 73, p < .947
Age (n
=
Characteristics
Test of Significance
657)
< age 25 Ages 25 to 36 Ages 36 to 45 Ages 46 to 55 > age 55 Educational attainment < High school High school Some college College degree Graduate education
(n = 638) 55 9 Edue. and role 104 16 Edue. and sex 203 32 Edue. and age 166 26 110 17
RaceYethnieity (n = 623) African American 405 White 153 Hispanic 53 Native American 5 Asian American 7
65 25 8 1 1
Race Race Race Race
and and and and
roleb sex age educ.
X2 (8, N : 638) = 163.89, p < .0(30 X2 (4, N 630) = 20.79, p < .000 X2 (16, N = 632) -- 49.79, p < .000
X2 (4, X2 (2, X2 (9, X2 (8,
N --- 611) = 19.16, p N 603) = 4.72, p N 606) 25.66, p N 595) 16.32,p
< < <
Transferring Prevention Skills to Teams in Public Housing Communities Th6r~se van Houten, D.S.W. 1~3 Susan Hailman, M.Ed. 2 Claudette Ren6e Yanssaneh, M.Ed., 1 and Vernon Bowen, M.S. 1
Teams consisting of Public Housing Authority staff, public housing residents, and representatives of local organizations were trained in drug and violence prevention and community mobilization. The evaluation is based on a transfer of training framework. First, it examines the participant self-reported increases in skills and knowledge, and the intent to apply these skills and knowledge. Next, it describes how a subsample of teams implemented action plans developed during the training. Findings indicate that potential barriers and opportunities for application of the training should be considered prior to and during the training. Following the training implementation of the action plans depend to a large extent on the level of support, resources, and encouragement received from the home environment, as well as on the availability of further technical assistance or on-site training. KEY WORDS: drugs; training; public housing; prevention.
INTRODUCTION The major national information sources on substance abuse in the United States, such as the Drug Abuse Warning Network and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, do not provide specific data on illicit drug use among residents of public housing communities. However, evidence strongly suggests that many of these communities experience a serious concentration of illegal drug markets and high levels of IMacro International Inc., Calverton, Maryland.
2Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Roclotille, Maryland. 3Address correspondence to Th~r~se van Houten, Evaluation Director, Macro International Inc., 11785 Beltsville Drive, Calverton, MD 20705. 273
9
1996 HumanScOncesPress, Inc.
274
van
Houtm, Hzllmaa, Yansnneh, and Bowen
addiction and drug-related crimes (White House Briefing, February 1994). Moreover, the high incidence of co-factors for substance abuse, such as unemployment and health problems, among lower income populations also suggests that substance abuse is likely to be higher among public housing residents. To address these problems, the Public Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1988 (EL. 100-690) provides funds through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a variety of drug prevention and treatment programs in the public housing communities. Public Housing Authorities (PHAs)--organizational entities that oversee the expenditure of Federal and State funding for public housing--are the primary recipients of these funds. Since 1989, HUD has awarded 1,762 such grants for a total of $53 million (Drug Information and Strategy Clearinghouse, 1994). In 1992, HUD entered into an agreement with the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention ((::SAP), the lead Federal agency for substance abuse prevention, to pilot community drug prevention curricula for HUD drug elimination grantees through the Prevention in Housing Communities ~aining project. The curricula were designed for PHA administrators and grantee staff as well as those individuals who worked closely with them (e.g., drug prevention workers, other local service providers, law enforcement personnel, and tenant leaders). This paper reports on the results of the initial evaluation of 10 Prevention in Housing Communities "lkaining institutes. The focus of the paper is on the immediate and ongoing effects of the training, and on characteristics of the trainees and the environment that mitigate or strengthen these effects. Do such curricula succeed in engaging PHA staff and other community representatives in the training process, and thereby enable them to form a team and, as a team, to implement a prevention initiative in their communities? What factors (prior to, during, and after the training) impede or support the creation of such teams and the implementation of such initiatives?
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Prevention in Housing Communities "fi'aining project used the term "housing community" rather than "public housing project" not only to avoid the negative and pejorative connotation of the latter term, but also to emphasize the concept of community. A public housing neighborhood fits the definition of community in a number of ways. It fits the traditional definition of community as a locality, "a bounded physical space shared by people" (Chaffs and Florin, 1990). It also fits Chaffs and Florin's
Transferring Prevention Skills
275
concept of community as "a collection of social institutions and sectors that function within a locality" (including the Public Housing Authority whose institutional presence is a unique characteristic of the public housing community). And, in most cases, it fits the perception of propinquity in which members have a sense of belonging--this may or may not be territorial. From a systems perspective, the housing community forms an intriguing construct: in some ways, it is a closed community in that criteria to live there are based on government-determined means tests rather than on the free market economy. On the other hand, the physical and social boundaries often are more visible than in other neighborhoods. In some communities, members from the surrounding and larger community (e.g., cab drivers, social workers, and the police) hesitate to cross the same boundaries that are traversed freely by drug dealers and their customers. In many cities (e.g., New Haven, Connecticut and Cincinnati, Ohio), over 75 percent of those arrested on public housing property do not live there (White House Briefing, February 1994). The design of Prevention in Housing Communities Training is based on the assumption that in order to be effective, any drug prevention initiative must address these special characteristics of the public housing community and bring together people from within the community (PHA staff, resident leaders and others) as well as representatives from the larger community. The design weaves together theories and practices from several fields, most notably prevention, community development, and adult learning theories. It is also based on prior prevention curricula and training events developed by CSAP. The Environmental Model of Primary Prevention
The intent of the curricula was to train and enhance the skills of individuals (PHA staff, residents, and representatives of other key social institutions in selected public housing communities) to join together as ever-expanding teams to start creating their own solutions to substance abuse. This model of primary prevention stems from the environmental model of disease prevention and health promotion. In the classic disease prevention model, the environment generally encompasses the literal physical environment by which the disease agent infects the host. Thus, sanitation and pest eradication programs were successful in removing disease factors that facilitated the spread of diseases such as malaria. In substance abuse prevention, this type of environmental approach has included programs aimed at reducing access to drug dealers--measures including increased lighting, perimeter fencing, and police foot patrols.
276
van Houtm, I1.1hn..~; Yansmneh, and Bowea
This is also the approach used by many of the Drug Elimination Act grant recipients. Another environmental prevention approach aim,~at strengthening cultural and community factors that lessen the acceptance of substance abuse and the tolerance of associated community risk factors. The idea of environmental prevention by means of strengthening the commullity has its roots in several successful prevention program~ for cardiovascular disease. These program~ aimed at developing a coordinated effort among media, business, health professionals, government agencies, and other organiTations in order to reduce cardiovascular risk factors, to improve screening for at-risk residents, and to increase the community's understanding of risk factors and how to control them (Johnson and Softs, 1983). In community psychology, researchers such as George Albee (1982) suggest that substance abuse and poor mental health can be related to stressors in the environment~ and that these can be alleviated by increasing social networks, social competence, and community resources. Prevention specialists began to apply these ideas about community prevention to substance abuse in the 1980s. An early example was the STAR program in Kansas City. This program enlisted the school system, police, businesses, the media, and parents in a coordinated prevention program for middle school children. The city-wide program was evaluated and found to be effective in delaying or preventing the onset of substance abuse by adolescents (Pentz, Cormack, Flay, Hansen, and Johnson, 1986). The success of this and other community prevention programs was instrumental in CSAP's adoption of the community prevention model as an integral part of its program plan. In 1990, CSAP launched a grant program that funded 251 community partnerships. Each of these had to enlist the support of at least seven community organizations, including social service agencies, businesses, the criminal justice, recreation and education systerns, other government agencies, and representatives of other sectors of the community such as the faith community. The goal of the partnerships was to develop a comprehensive community-wide prevention system that integrates the prevention efforts of every sector in the community (Benard, 1989). Recognizing that most partnership members were not experts in prevention, nor possessed the knowledge and skills needed to implement community-wide prevention strategies, CSAP,, at the same time, initiated a community partnership training program. In designing this training program, CSAP benefitted from recent advances in training made by other sectors of the government, nonprofit organizations, and the business world.
Transferring ~z, vention Sldlls
277
Learning Theory and Its Application to Training Recent developments in training and transfer of learning are grounded in the findings of research on how people learn; how they retain what they have learned; and how, following the training, they apply (or transfer) what they learned in their home or work setting. Positive transfer of training iS defined as "the degree to which trainees effectively apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes gained in a training context to the job. For transfer to have occurred, learned behavior must be generalized to the job context and maintained over a period of time" (Baldwin and Ford, 1988, p. 63). When training iS used as a community prevention strategy, the setting where the changes are to take place changes from the work place to the community, but an underlying assumption iS that the principles of transfer of training remain the same. It is therefore important to understand the three main factors that affect transfer. (a) trainee characteristics; (b) the training itself; and (c) the environment where the transfer is expected to occur (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). A considerable amount of research has been done on all three factors (Broad, 1993; Broad and Newstrom, 1992). ~ainee characteristics include ability or skill, motivation and personality factors, and level of comfort with the desired change. It is essential that transfer be part of the training design. "'l]ransfer needs to be a forethought, not just an afterthought" (Ottoson, 1994, p. 21). "l]ransfer is maximized when the training design teaches trainees not only the applicable skills, but also the general rules and theoretical principles that underlie them; when trainees and trainers are co-learners; when the trainees have a say in the design; when the trainers use a variety of relevant stimuli and practical examples; when there is opportunity to practice; when trainees are given feedback about their performance; and, above all, when the design is culturally sensitive, relevant, and appropriate (Dolatte and Baytos, 1993; Gordon, 1992; Johnson and O'Mara, 1992). The transfer environment refers to climatic factors such as supervisory and peer support in the home, work or community setting, as well as constraints and opportunities to applying the learning in these settings. Site and Participant Selection
Participating public housing communities were Drug Elimination Act grantees located in the continental United States, and operated by Public Housing Authorities (excluded were public housing communities operated
278
vnn Houteu~ ~
YsmsRneh, and Bowen
by the Indian Housing Authorities). Each institute provided training for up to 10 public housing communities. Public Housing Authorities applied for training through a process by which they demonstrated that they could develop an initial team consisting of a PHA admini.strator, drug elimination grant staff, representatives from other drug prevention and social service agencies, law enforcement personnel, resident leaders as well as other relevant representatives from within or outside the housing community (e.g., the clergy, or the local governmen0. Although guidance was provided regarding team composition, the actual selection was made by participating PHA staff. Ten 5-day training institutes were conducted from June 1992 to November 1993 in the following sites: Washington, DC (the initial pretest site); Dallas, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; San Francisco, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Denver, Colorado; Hartford, Connecticut; Chicago, Illinois; Saddle Brook, New Jersey; and Hilton Head, South Carolina. "lhble 1 lists the States from which housing communities were selected for participation in
Table 1. List of Institutes by HUD Region; States Represented by the Participating Housing Communities: Number of Trainees per Institute; and, Curriculum Focus of Each Institute
Institute
HUD Region(s)
States Represented by Participating Homing Communities
Trainees N = 765
Curriculum Focus
Washington, DC
III
DE, MD, PA, VA, WV
77
[Pre-test]
Dallas, TX
VI
AR, LA, OK, "IX, NM
94
Atlanta, GA
IV
FL, GA
79
San Francisco, CA
IX, X
AZ, CA, WA, NV
96
Birmingham, AL
IV
AL, KY, MS, 'IN
67
Denver, CO
VII, VIII CO, IA, KS, Me, NM, OK
68
Drug prevention Drug prevention Drug and violence prevention Community mobilization Community mobilization
Hartford, CT
I
CT, MA
71
Chicago, IL
V
IL, IN, OH, WI
67
Saddle Brook, NJ
II
NJ, NY
53
Hilton Head, SC
IV
NC, SC
93
Drug prevention Drug prevention Drug and violence prevention Drug and violence prevention
Transferr/ng Prevention Skills
2"/9
each institute, the corresponding HUD region, the number of participants per institute, and the focus of the prevention curriculum used at the institute. In all, 765 individuals participated in the institutes, representing 89 communities. The Curricula and the 'I1-aining The Prevention in Housing Communities "l~aining project was based on a number of assumptions, including first and foremost the belief that communities that develop their own learning process related to substance abuse prevention will also develop ownership of both problems and solutious. There was, therefore, a pre-training community assessment to allow trainees to identify critical problems that needed to be addressed as well as local strengths and resources, and an emphasis on trainee-directed learning. Other basic tenets built into the design were: (a) a comprehensive approach to substance abuse prevention best addresses the complexity of the issues affecting a particular community--hence, a training focus that extended beyond substance abuse to other related community issues; Co) the collaborative efforts of multiple agencies and multidisciplinary teams offer the most promising approach to the challenges of substance abuse, violence and related community problems--hence, the emphasis on developing cohesive teams consisting of PHA staff and representatives of other community groups; and (c) cultural sensitivity and competency are key to developing successful intervention strategies--therefore, all aspects of the curriculum as well as trainer selection were culture-specific. This design was not new. It was based on the design used earlier by the CSAP community partnership training program in which each partnership sent up to 12 members to a 5-day training institute to be trained in prevention theory, assessment of community needs, action planning, community organizing, and other skills needed to return to their communities as cohesive, skilled, and knowledgeable teams. The Prevention in Housing Communities "l~aining project started in the summer of 1992 with a pretest of the existing CSAP model to see if the partnership model was appropriate for training teams from public housing communities. This first institute was held in Washington, DC, for representatives from 10 communities in HUD Region III. Following this pretest, trainers and trainees alike reported that such a 5-day institute did not suffice. It was difficult for trainers to focus on the unique and varied problems of each housing community without having any first-hand knowledge of the community. It was decided that for all subsequent institutes, the trainer assigned to each team would conduct a 2-day pre-training site
280
van Hoatea, Hallman, Yanssaneh, and Bowen
visit to the housing community tO witness first-hand the barriers and resources faced by local preventionists, to provide trainees with the skills and know-how to conduct a pre-training communityassessment, to allow trainees an opportunity to have input into the forthcoming training, to inform others in the communityabout what to expect and to elicit their support, and to let the trainees know what to expect. Initially, HUT) also proposed adding a technical assistance and followup component that would have permitted the trainers (or other technical assistance providers) to conduct follow-up visits to help the teams implement action plans developed during the training, strengthen existing networks, and elicit community support. These visits would also have provided an opportunity for on-site evaluation of the transfer and application of the training. Because of budget constraints, the followup component was curtailed and made available only through mechanisms external to the training contract. However, resources did allow for 12 followup evaluation site visits. In December 1992, all trainers proposed for the nine pilot institutes attended "a training of trainers" seminar which reviewed the goals and objectives of the projects and introduced the curricula that had now been revised for use with public housing communities. The trainers also received instruction in the pre-institute community assessment and site visit process. In all, 31 individuals were trained. From this pool of trainers, 10 were assigned to each institute. Criteria that were taken into account in selecting appropriate trainers included: the racial and ethnic composition of the team; the urban or rural nature of the housing community's setting; the dominant language and culture of the team; special needs identified by the team in their initial application. The first round of site visits was conducted in January 1993. The institutes were generally conducted 3 to 4 weeks following the site visits. Three different curricula were piloted: a basic drug prevention curriculum, one that emphasized drug and violence prevention, and one that focused on community mobilization. In addition, since these were pilots, the overall design evolved in response to feedback from trainers and trainees. Nevertheless, each institute followed a similar format. During the first day, after initial introductions, the teams reported the findings from the pre-training community assessments and identified the principal issues they wished to address. During the second day, the teams "mapped" risk and protective factors in their communities, developed a community vision, and began preparations on an action plan to address each of the identified community issues. Day three was devoted to cultural awareness and cross-cultural communication, as well as an open session in which the 10 teams exchanged ideas with each other. The fourth day addressed community resource develop-
Transferring Prevention Skills
281
ment, and community mobilization. Specialists presented workshops on different aspects of prevention (e.g., Federal drug prevention resources, drug intervention, church linkages, economic development, media relations). The teams split up so that at least one team member attended each of the workshops. In the late afternoon, the teams reconvened, and members reported on what they had learned, and its relevance to their home community. The fifth and final day began with a session on community mobilization and showed a film, "Eyes on the Prize," of the Montgomery bus boycott to exemplify how all sectors of a community could unite around a common issue and contribute to its resolution. The teams then completed their action plans; the final meeting consisted of a report by each team on their plan, with an opportunity for each team to publicly state its commitment to community prevention.
Evaluation Design Three evaluation questions are addressed in this paper. The first question asks about the immediate outcome of the training: If representatives
from public housing communities participate in 5 days of intensive training in community prevention techniques, will their level of self-perceived skills and knowledge increase and will they develop the intentions and confidence to appty these skills and knowledge back home? While this first question looks at intent to apply what had been learned, the second question concerns the actual application of what was learned: Upon their return home, to what extent do the trainees function as cohesive teams that implement the proposed prevention initiatives? The third question asks: What factors (before, during, and after the training) impede or support the implementation of the proposed community prevention activities? To answer the first evaluation question, post-institute questionnaires were collected from the trainees. The questionnaires were administered to all participants. During the first few institutes, they were handed out toward the end of the last training session. Because some respondents failed to complete the forms at that time, the forms were divided into two sections. On the first day, half of the questions were asked (i.e., questions on respondent demographics, on reasons for participating in the training, on prior prevention training and experience). On the final day, respondents were asked questions regarding satisfaction with the training, and their sense that they had benefitted through changes in skills, knowledge, and attitude. Responses are used to examine the relationship between trainee characteristics (e.g., motivation, education, and prior substance abuse prevention experience) and outcomes; to get the trainee reaction to the quality
282
van
Houtea, Hailman, Y~usaneh, and Bowen
of the training design (e.g., the curriculum content, the amount of practice time, the amount of feedback from the trainers, cultural sensitivity of the trainer, and the relevance of the examples); and to gather information on self-reported learning (i.e., changes in skills and knowledge, changes in attitude, increase in commitment). These are all believed to be essential correlates of effective training transfer (Baldwin and Ford, 1988). Responses are also used to look at differences in these immediate outcomes by team. To answer the latter two evaluation questions, followup evaluation site visits afforded an opportunity to collect qualitative data on whether the teams were able to work together following their return home; on the extent to which they were able to implement the action plans developed during the institute, and on factors aiding or limiting the implementation of these plans.
FINDINGS This section first describes the trainees' role in their housing communities, presents trainee demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, age, educational level and race/ethnicity), and reports on the trainees' prior experience with substance abuse prevention activities and their reasons for coming to the training. It presents the trainees' satisfaction with the training, and examines associations between trainee characteristics (demographics as well as pre-institute activities) and indicators of training success. Next, differences in immediate outcomes between teams are presented. This analysis is followed by an examination on the application of the learning in selected communities, and of the factors that aided or hampered these applications. Characteristics of the Trainees
The findings are based on the responses of the 674 individuals who completed the evaluation forms--an 88% response rate. Thirty-seven percent were PHA staff (either administrators, drug prevention staff, or police or security personnel); 28% were resident leaders; the remaining 35% included other service providers, law enforcement personnel, and other community representatives. In all, regardless of whether they were employed by the PHA or by other community organizations, 13% of all trainees were law enforcement personnel and 16% were substance abuse prevention and treatment providers. "Ihble 2 presents the characteristics of the respondents and significant associations between these characteristics. Fifty-seven per-
Transferring Prt,veutioa Skills
7.83
Table 7,. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Trainees (N =: 674) Sionificant Associations Between Characteristics
Selected n
%
Role (n = 699) PHA staff Residents Others
Characteristics
249 188 232
37 28 35
Gender (n = 659) Female Male
379 281
57 43
Sex and role
X2 (2, N ~: 657) = 50.78, p < .0130
61 179 243 132 42
9 27 37 20 6
Age and role Age and sex
X2 (8, N =, 657) = 37.58, p < .000 Z2 (4, N -- 649) = 73, p < .947
Age (n
=
Characteristics
Test of Significance
657)
< age 25 Ages 25 to 36 Ages 36 to 45 Ages 46 to 55 > age 55 Educational attainment < High school High school Some college College degree Graduate education
(n = 638) 55 9 Edue. and role 104 16 Edue. and sex 203 32 Edue. and age 166 26 110 17
RaceYethnieity (n = 623) African American 405 White 153 Hispanic 53 Native American 5 Asian American 7
65 25 8 1 1
Race Race Race Race
and and and and
roleb sex age educ.
X2 (8, N : 638) = 163.89, p < .0(30 X2 (4, N 630) = 20.79, p < .000 X2 (16, N = 632) -- 49.79, p < .000
X2 (4, X2 (2, X2 (9, X2 (8,
N --- 611) = 19.16, p N 603) = 4.72, p N 606) 25.66, p N 595) 16.32,p
< < <
