|
Model
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Implementation of an existing evidence-based program
|
High program fidelity
|
Program may not fit community needs, strengths, or capacities
|
|
Relatively high likelihood of achieving intended impact
|
|
Real-world implementation may differ dramatically from the way originally tested
|
|
Known resources and requirements for effective implementation
|
|
Lack of ownership in the program
|
|
Likely continued funding under federal and state supported evidence-based prevention
|
Few evidence-based programs have the capacity to provide technical assistance and training
|
|
|
An evidence-based program may not target outcomes relevant to community
|
|
Adaptation of an existing program to meet community needs
|
Ownership and high support from community and potentially high adoption
|
Key program components may be modified, thereby reducing outcomes
|
|
Program more relevant to ethnic, racial, or linguistic characteristics of community
|
Essential program components not always evident
|
|
Reasonably likely to achieve impact
|
|
|
Community-driven implementation
|
Can develop high community acceptance and ownership
|
Lengthy period to develop community awareness, common vision, and program
|
|
Potential for broader implementation across different organizations and institutions within the community
|
Potential for ineffectiveness or iatrogenic effects
|
|
Challenges in obtaining funding for sustaining a unique program
|
|
Opportunity to empirically evaluate the outcomes of programs accepted by the community and use quality improvement methods to enhance outcomes over time
|
