1. Laura Griner Hill & Louise A. Parker, Washington State University Procedure Mail surveys were sent to all 4H and Family Living faculty and staff, as well as to county chairs. All participants received a SASE and $2 token of appreciation with the survey. Responses were confidential. The survey procedure was approved by the Internal Review Board of Washington State University. Participants 109 (83%) of all eligible respondents returned surveys: 33 County chairs (82% of all county chairs) 34 Faculty (87%) 42 Program staff (76%) By program area: 60 4H(78%) 22 Family Living(82%) 10 Family Living/4H(90%) 17 Other (chairs)(90%) Measures Perceived need for prevention programming Perception of need for change in current CES programming practices Awareness of community needs Perceived role congruence Perception that delivery of prevention programs targeting specific issues is consistent with Extension’s role Resources Knowledge of risk & protective factors Perceived competence in interactive teaching methods Ability to identify/implement research-based programming Relationships with community organizations Barriers to implementation of prevention programming Resources for matching programming to community need Resources to conduct evaluations Adoption of prevention programming Attendance at one of several in-state Extension trainings for a research-based model prevention program (Strengthening Families 10-14) Background Hypotheses The county-based Cooperative Extension Service (CES) of land grant universities is a widely distributed national system, with personnel in nearly every county or parish of the United States (n counties = 3141) The historical mission of land grant universities includes outreach, and specifically the application of research-based knowledge to meet the needs of communities statewide CES personnel have a long history of collaborative work with community agencies in identifying community needs and delivering programs to meet those needs Although CES has traditionally developed and delivered its own curricula to youth and families, effective research- based programming is now available CES would appear to be a natural, in-place delivery system for research-based prevention programming nationwide CES effectiveness as a delivery system will depend on the extent to which CES personnel perceive community needs for prevention programming, believe in the need for CES to conduct research-based programming, and are competent and have resources to carry out prevention programming Perceived Need for Prevention Programming A majority (62%) of faculty and staff in 4H and Family Living program areas agree that “Traditional Extension activities may need to be supplemented by programs addressing specific topics (such as substance abuse or pregnancy prevention) in order to fulfill our Extension system’s vision for children, youth, and families.” The majority of Extension personnel perceive community needs for programming to address the specific issues of teen substance abuse, dropout, pregnancy, suicide, and aggression. Belief in the necessity for CES delivery of prevention programs and perception of community need were significantly (p <.05) associated with adoption of prevention programming. Strengths and Resources Most CES personnel perceive themselves as having high levels of knowledge about risk and protective factors (73%), and nearly all feel comfortable using interactive teaching methods (92%). A considerable number also feel able to identify (47%) and implement (49%) prevention programs. Perceived knowledge and competence were significantly related to adoption of prevention programming (p <.05). A majority (55%) of CES personnel reported extensive collaboration and coalitions with community agencies, and an additional 33% reported moderate levels of collaboration. 1.Infrastructure and strong relationships with community partners provide an ideal environment for CES delivery of prevention programming 2.Beliefs, attitudes, perception of community need, and knowledge of CES personnel predict adoption of prevention programming in Washington State 3. Resources for professional development and to support education about research-based programming can be effectively devoted to developing CES capacity as a delivery system for prevention programming Cooperative Extension Service as a Delivery System for Prevention Programming Results Summary and Conclusions Method Perception of community need for prevention programming, Knowledge of risk and protective factors Competence to identify and implement research-based programs Belief in value and need for CES prevention programming, & Perception of role congruence  will all be associated with adoption of prevention programming Research Questions To what degree do CES personnel in Washington State perceive a need for prevention programming in their communities? perceive their role as consistent with delivery of prevention programs? What are the strengths and resources of CES as a delivery system for prevention programming? What are the barriers to delivery of prevention programs? Role Congruence A substantial number, though not a majority, of Extension personnel feel that it is part of Extension’s role to provide programming that addresses the specific issues of teen substance abuse, dropout, pregnancy, suicide, and aggression. Barriers A strong majority (73%) reported having inadequate financial resources to match programming decisions to community needs. A smaller percentage (46%) reported that they lacked resources to conduct program evaluations. Perception of role congruence was not significantly associated with adoption of prevention programming Selected References Betts, S. C., Peterson, D. J., Marczak, M. S. & Richmond, L. S. (2002). System-wide evaluation: Taking the pulse of a national organization serving children, youth, and families at risk. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 4, 87-101. Molgaard, V.K. (1997). The extension service as key mechanism for research and services delivery for prevention of mental health disorders in rural areas. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25,515-544. Contact Information Laura Griner Hill PO Box 6236 Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164 laurahill@wsu.edu (corresponding author) Louise A. Parker 7612 Pioneer Way E. WSU Puyallup Research & Extension Puyallup, WA 98371-4998 parker@wsu.edu