Community Psychology

History of Community Psychology

Community Psychology

The history of the field of community psychology tells the story of psychologists advocating for the utilization of social and behavioral sciences to enhance the well-being of individuals and their communities. Community psychologists actively promote the development of theories and engage in research to deepen our comprehension of human behavior within its social context. This field encourages the sharing of knowledge and expertise in community research and action, fostering collaboration among community psychologists, other social scientists, and the general public. A core principle of community psychology is the embrace of multicultural and pluralistic approaches, ensuring that preventive and social programs are attuned to the specific needs and aspirations of individuals from diverse cultural, social, and ethnic backgrounds.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code

The knowledge and research foundation of this discipline are intertwined with other fields like anthropology, sociology, and public health, and exhibit strong connections with cognitive, social, and developmental psychology. Community psychology employs a variety of research methods, including action research, case studies, sample surveys, diverse forms of observational techniques, epidemiological approaches, and natural experiments. The analytical toolkit encompasses a wide array of both quantitative and qualitative methods, along with participatory research techniques that emphasize the active involvement of research participants as collaborators throughout the research process. Community psychologists have pioneered research on numerous subjects, such as social support and social competencies, which have subsequently been expanded upon and explored by clinical, developmental, and social psychologists.

World War II and the 1950s

Profound social forces played a pivotal role in shaping the emergence of the field of community psychology. World War II served as a catalyst, heightening public awareness of the pressing domestic issues within the country and prompting innovations in mental health services. During this period, the media extensively covered the harassment faced by African Americans and women working in wartime factories on the home front. It became increasingly difficult for informed citizens to ignore the prevalent societal challenges such as poverty, racism, and sexism. This heightened awareness led some social scientists to recognize the pervasiveness of personal stress symptoms. Furthermore, there was growing consensus among researchers that social and environmental stressors erode individuals’ autonomy, their sense of justice, and personal dignity. The evaluation of the mental health of soldiers serving in the war revealed that factors like combat experience and prolonged stress contributed to the expression of symptoms associated with inadequate coping and mental illness. Concurrent with this realization that social factors significantly influenced mental health and illness was a prevailing sense of optimism in the United States following the allied victory in World War II.

The postwar era of optimism, coupled with a collective focus on social issues, created a fertile ground for conducting new types of research, especially in the country’s major metropolitan areas. These large-scale investigations delved into the relationships between community social conditions, cultural factors, and an individual’s mental health status in greater detail than ever before. It was increasingly evident that an individual’s social environment played a role in their experience of mental distress and the subsequent treatment they required. Private foundations like the Milbank Memorial Fund played a pivotal role by endorsing and funding these research activities, advocating for community-based approaches to mental health and illness within the mental health professions. Formal and informal discussions among professionals centered on the review of these findings, and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) prioritized the development of community-based approaches to mental health treatment and mental health promotion. The climate within the mental health professions was conducive to implementing these community-oriented approaches.

Simultaneously, as foundations and professionals were recognizing the value of community and preventive approaches to mental health, the public became increasingly frustrated with the state of mental health treatment. Public investigations and journalistic exposés, such as Albert Deutsch’s powerful newspaper accounts, shed light on the mistreatment and abuse of mental patients. More and more citizens became informed about the plight of mentally ill individuals who were, at that time, confined to large institutions. Local citizen groups began advocating for changes in mental health treatment and living conditions within these institutions, where individuals were isolated from their families and communities. During this period, the U.S. Congress, with support from NIMH and private foundations, established the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health to assess the state of the nation’s mental health. Its final report, “Action for Mental Health” (1961), called for a new community-oriented perspective in the treatment of the mentally ill.


The establishment of the field is often traced back to the Boston Conference on the Education of Psychologists for Community Mental Health, held in Swampscott, Massachusetts, from May 4-8, 1963, commonly known as the Swampscott Conference. It was at this conference that the term “community psychology” was coined, emphasizing prevention, policy research, and an active engagement with social issues. The role of the community psychologist was proposed as an alternative to the treatment-oriented and disease-focused approach of clinical psychologists, who primarily provided services to individuals after they had experienced severe and traumatic personal stress. The Swampscott Conference served as an explicit and affirmative response by the 39 psychologists in attendance to the growing national interest in community-based mental health work.

The widely disseminated report of the Swampscott Conference, supported by training grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), played a pivotal role in the development of the first doctoral community training programs. These training programs were primarily integrated into clinical psychology programs at six universities, including the University of Colorado (led by Bernard L. Bloom), Duke University (led by John Altrocchi and Carl Eisdorfer), the University of Michigan (led by James G. Kelly and Harold Raush), the University of Rochester (led by Emory Cowen), the University of Texas (led by Ira Iscoe), and Yale University (led by Murray Levine and Seymour Sarason). Additionally, three programs were established independently of clinical psychology at Boston University (led by Donald C. Klein and Herbert Lipton), George Peabody College (led by O. R. Newbrough, William Rhodes, and Julius Seeman), and New York University (led by Isidor Chein, Walter Neff, and Stanley Lehmann).

Following the Swampscott Conference, Robert Reiff of Albert Einstein Medical College was designated as the spokesperson for community psychologists. Reiff and the newly formed board of directors proposed the creation of a new division within the American Psychological Association (APA). This proposal was accepted, and in September 1966, the Division of Community Psychology (Division 27) officially became a part of the APA.

With the acceptance of community psychology as a distinct field within the larger psychological association, community psychologists began exploring ways to disseminate the knowledge and principles of community psychology. To facilitate scholarly communication, two journals were established: the American Journal of Community Psychology (founded by Charles Spielberger in 1973) and the Journal of Community Psychology (founded by Frederick C. Thorne in 1973).

Since its inception, community psychology has seen an ongoing debate about its relationship with clinical psychology and whether it should be considered a distinct and separate field. This divergence in perspective reflects various issues, including whether the primary focus should be on improving individual mental health or addressing broader social conditions at the community level. These differences represent ongoing debates within the field concerning research priorities and the emphasis on the individual versus the larger community or neighborhood. These differing emphases are likely to persist in the field’s development.


The mid to late 1970s marked a period of maturity and growth for the field of community psychology. This growth was evident in various ways, including the publication of several textbooks on community psychology. Additionally, community psychology topics made their debut in the prestigious Annual Review of Psychology. Faculty members overseeing doctoral training programs with shared curricular and training concerns came together to establish the Council of Community Psychology Training Directors, a group that now comprises 45 members who convene annually to coordinate doctoral training efforts in the field.

While the initial development of the field had been predominantly shaped by white males, the mid-1970s saw a shift as younger community psychologists, women, and individuals from diverse racial backgrounds began advocating for a closer examination of the impact of race and gender on the field itself. The Austin Conference, held at the University of Texas in April 1975, was a pivotal moment, bringing together doctoral students and recent Ph.D. graduates who were not only younger but also represented a greater diversity in their backgrounds. This marked a significant step toward broader representation and the inclusion of different voices within the Division of Community Psychology. This shift in participation also brought about a heightened focus on the influence of cultural and subcultural factors on health and illness.

Following the Austin Conference, participants began to establish systematic ways to promote informal communication among division members. One approach was the creation of a regional coordination network, facilitating forums for public discourse on theory, research, and practice. This network continues to operate successfully today. In 1978, at Michigan State University, Deborah Bybee, William Davidson, and Donald Davis initiated informal faculty-student sessions held off-campus to discuss training and professional issues. These sessions have evolved into student-driven regional gatherings known as eco-community conferences, fostering valuable informal exchanges among doctoral students interested in the field.

During this second decade, two major issues came to the forefront. The first revolved around community psychologists’ attitudes toward accreditation and licensing for the field. Some argued that accreditation would elevate the field’s status and offer more career options for newly trained community psychologists. In contrast, J. R. Newbrough of George Peabody College, in his 1979 Division 27 presidential address, contended that accreditation would prioritize the profession over the communities served by community psychologists and hinder interdisciplinary training. Newbrough advocated for community psychologists to be a resource for various self-help and community development initiatives instead.

Another issue gaining prominence among community psychologists was the desire to strengthen their connections with the communities in which they worked. Irma Serrano-Garcia of the University of Puerto Rico emphasized this during her later presidency (1992-1993). The earlier resistance to specialization in the field bolstered members’ commitment a decade later to increase community-based activities, as advocated by Serrano-Garcia.

While the field was actively addressing and debating these issues, it was also establishing a solid foundation in university training programs, including the establishment of new master’s and doctoral degree programs. During this period, in addition to publications in the primary journals, four more chapters on community psychology were published in the Annual Review of Psychology.


During the presidencies of Jean Ann Linney (University of South Carolina), Dick Reppucci (University of Virginia), and Edward Seidman (New York University) at the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA) from 1984 to 1989, the field took significant steps toward consolidating its identity. It became evident that the annual meetings of the American Psychological Association (APA) were too large for informal exchanges within the community psychology community. To foster more engagement with undergraduate and graduate students, citizens, and members from various disciplines, biennial conferences specifically focused on community psychology were organized. The inaugural conference was hosted at the University of South Carolina in 1987.

Community psychologists also embarked on a process to rename the Division in order to better reflect its open, action-oriented, and interdisciplinary nature. Following surveys of the membership, the Division was renamed the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA) in 1987. During this period, two more chapters on community psychology were published in the Annual Review of Psychology, providing continued coverage of the field’s development and diversity.

The vitality of the field prompted the society’s leadership to convene a conference in Chicago in 1988. Funded by the APA, this event brought together 80 participants to assess current research methods. A heightened emphasis was placed on developing methods that acknowledge how social contexts influence human behavior. Equally important was the focus on designing community programs that foster a direct and personal relationship between researchers and informants, as well as strengthening the policy connections of community research and action. Since the Chicago conference, community psychologists have been actively involved in expanding and innovating new approaches to inquiry.

The diverse activities of SCRA are reflected in its various committees and interest groups. Standing committees include the APA Program Committee, Cultural and Racial Affairs, Dissertation Award, Elections, Fellowship, International, Liaison to the Canadian Community Psychological Association, Membership, Nominations, Publications, Social Policy, and Women. Interest groups encompass aging, children and youth, community action, community health, disabilities, mutual support, prevention and promotion, rural school intervention, stress and coping, and undergraduate awareness.

Particularly since the 1980s, SCRA has facilitated active engagement among community psychologists representing different interests and perspectives. Furthermore, community psychologists in the United States have enhanced their connections with counterparts around the world. Many universities have become actively involved in establishing community psychology training programs in countries such as Argentina, Austria, Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, and South Africa. Additionally, there has been a surge in participation among practitioner-oriented community psychologists in recent years. This increased engagement of researchers, practitioners, and international representatives has transformed SCRA into a more dynamic organization than a purely academic, U.S.-focused entity. Increasingly, young individuals have found SCRA to be a validating organization for their personal and career interests as they pursue psychology as a science and profession with a clear research and action orientation focused on a wide range of community issues.


In conclusion, the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA) has evolved into a dynamic community of researchers and professionals dedicated to community action. Community psychologists within the SCRA have championed a diverse range of community and preventive interventions, leading to national recognition and widespread adoption of their programs. These initiatives encompass various domains, including interpersonal social problem-solving programs for young children, preventive interventions for individuals going through separation, heart disease prevention, and diversion programs for youth involved in the juvenile justice system.

For those interested in learning more about SCRA’s activities, programs, and membership, information is readily accessible on the internet through their website:

Community Psychology Theories

Community Psychology

Community psychology, as a field oriented towards addressing social problems, draws its theoretical foundations from its own research as well as the work of scholars in various fields, both within and outside of psychology. The nature of theories that have shaped community psychology is shaped by the types of problems it aims to tackle, the individuals it attracts, and the historical and societal context of the time. These theories often incorporate multiple levels of analysis, emphasize open systems, recognize reciprocal causality, value diversity, and advocate for social change.

In community psychology, theories tend to differ from classical theories that consist of logical statements and corollaries leading to precise research programs. Instead, they serve as guiding frameworks for action-oriented research. Regardless of the specific theory, a unifying theoretical inclination in community psychology is to avoid victim-blaming, cultural insensitivity, and overly interpretive perspectives. This overarching principle strongly influences the design of research and the interpretation of existing empirical knowledge.

Community psychology theories critically analyze social regularities and institutions, particularly their impact on the most vulnerable members of society. These theories are inherently dynamic and responsive to evolving social contexts, reflecting the field’s commitment to addressing pressing social issues and promoting positive change in communities.

Social Critique

As highlighted in Murray and Adeline Levine’s historical analysis in “Helping Children: A Social History” (2nd edition, 1992), there exists a correlation between the prevailing social ethos of a given era and the type of assistance offered in human services work. During periods characterized by political conservatism, explanations for human behavior tend to center on individual, biological, and internal psychological factors. Conversely, times marked by progressive social change tend to emphasize environmental and social contextual explanations.

In a broader sense, the political climate of a given era often shapes the nature of social science explanations for human behavior. This influence extends to what issues are deemed social problems and what kinds of social programs and policies are considered acceptable. Despite historical shifts in the prevailing social ethos, community psychology has consistently attracted individuals who favor theories that underscore the significance of environmental context and critical social analysis. This includes scrutinizing the methods and practices of psychologists.

In the field of community psychology, theories are expected to do more than just provide a framework for studying specific phenomena. They are also anticipated to offer an analysis of the roles and activities of psychologists, along with intervention approaches to address pressing social problems. This multifaceted perspective reflects the field’s commitment to understanding and addressing social issues within their broader sociopolitical context.

Scope of Theory

An APA-sponsored conference and subsequent publication on theory and method in community psychology (Tolan, Keys, Chertok, & Jason, 1990) identified five significant theoretical orientations within the field. These orientations encompass ideas borrowed from other areas of psychology (developmental, organizational, and behavioral) as well as theories that have originated within the community psychology discipline (ecological and empowerment).

Among these, the ecological analysis put forth by James G. Kelly and Edison J. Trickett has had a lasting impact on the field. This analysis introduced fundamental principles of social ecology, emphasizing concepts like interdependence, the cycling of resources, adaptation, and succession. These principles have served as a bridge connecting community psychology with other systems theories. Kelly’s work has also been instrumental in defining the field’s vision and objectives. It highlights the role of the community psychologist as a boundary spanner who collaborates with ordinary citizens and other professionals, utilizing diverse methods and epistemologies to address community issues effectively.

Rappaport’s papers in the American Journal of Community Psychology in 1981 and 1987 introduced the concept of empowerment to the field’s literature. This idea has since become a fundamental concept in community psychology, emphasizing individuals’ and communities’ capacity to influence and shape their own lives and environments. This empowerment perspective has been further explored in various publications, including a special issue of the American Journal of Community Psychology in 1995, edited by Perkins and Zimmerman.

Theoretical frameworks within community psychology encompass a wide range of topics, as research, intervention, and analysis are seen as interconnected activities. These frameworks include prevention, empowerment, individualism and collectivism, wellness, behaviorism, social cognition, and ecological analysis, among others. However, it’s important to note that the field does not rigidly separate theory from practice or research from intervention. As a result, theoretical influence can also be found in areas such as intervention strategies and tactics, stress theory, social support, citizen participation, life span and community development, social systems, research dissemination, policy analysis, the psychological sense of community, and the creation of alternative settings. All of these contribute to the rich tapestry of theoretical perspectives within community psychology.

Contextualism and Action Research

Community psychology emerged as a distinct field in the United States during the latter part of the 20th century, a period marked by significant social and cultural transformations. During this era, there was a strong interest in critical examination of environmental, sociopolitical, and cultural factors, including a critical evaluation of the practices and methodologies employed in psychology. One notable characteristic of the field has been its openness to action research, an approach that emphasizes the interplay between theory, data collection, and intervention, viewing them as iterative and mutually reinforcing rather than following a linear sequence. In this approach, social critique, intervention, evaluation, and empirical research are intertwined and inform one another.

Community psychology’s embrace of action research is grounded in its theoretical foundations, particularly the principle of contextualism. Contextualism posits that empirical research should ideally take place within the specific contexts to which its findings will be applied. Consequently, while laboratory experiments with convenience samples may be necessary in certain cases, they are considered a compromise compared to the preferred, albeit challenging, fieldwork. Community psychologists favor a range of methods for empirical data collection and analysis, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative approaches. This diversity of methods allows for a more comprehensive and contextually rich understanding of the phenomena under investigation, aligning with the field’s commitment to addressing the complexities of real-world issues.


Community psychology places a strong emphasis on collaboration with research participants throughout all stages of the research process. This commitment to collaboration has been profoundly influenced by historical events, such as the legislative changes and legal decisions that accompanied the U.S. African American civil rights movement. The field has consistently advocated for the rights and full involvement of cultural, ethnic, and social minority groups as legitimate stakeholders in policies, decisions, and research that directly impact their lives. This commitment to inclusion and participation has also extended to addressing issues related to changing role dynamics and gender-based stereotypes.

Professional Roles

The field of community psychology formally began to take shape with the establishment of a division within the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1966. This division eventually evolved into the independent Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA). The SCRA has been instrumental in promoting community psychology through its scholarly journal, the American Journal of Community Psychology, which has been in publication since 1973. Other journals that feature theoretical papers in the field include the Journal of Community Psychology and, more recently, the British Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. Beyond its presence in APA and the publication of academic journals, the SCRA holds its own biennial meetings and welcomes members from various backgrounds, including professionals, students, and community members who may not be psychologists.

The early founders of community psychology, many of whom had backgrounds in clinical or social psychology, shared a critical perspective on the conceptual frameworks, intervention methods, and professional roles prevalent in their respective fields, particularly regarding mental health. Their initial focus centered on the challenges of reaching underserved populations, particularly those who were socially marginalized. The community mental health movement, characterized by deinstitutionalization and the prevention of mental illness, played a pivotal role in shaping the field’s early priorities. Community psychologists sought to develop strategies for creating a human services system that could effectively reach economically disadvantaged and socially marginalized individuals. This quest for alternatives to traditional one-on-one therapeutic approaches led to the exploration of new ways to mobilize community resources, including volunteers, indigenous community members, and local citizens, with the aim of promoting mental well-being and preventing problems at the community level.

As the field expanded beyond a sole focus on mental health, research endeavors extended into various domains, such as education, law, juvenile justice, child welfare, domestic violence, healthcare, social support, citizen participation, self-help, mutual aid, community and neighborhood organization, social advocacy, and policy. It became widely accepted that different theoretical approaches were necessary, depending on the level of analysis (individual, small group, organizational, institutional, community), with an emphasis on identifying strengths rather than deficits at every level. This paradigm shift was significantly influenced by William Ryan’s influential book, “Blaming the Victim,” published in 1971, which highlighted the social processes through which well-intentioned professionals tend to blame individuals for their life challenges instead of analyzing the social systems and contexts that contribute to their difficulties. This line of thinking paved the way for a community psychology that emphasizes cultural relativism, diversity, ecological analysis, and the fit between individuals and their environments (Rappaport, 1977).

Sources of Help

In its early days, community psychology was closely associated with the community mental health movement and critical evaluations of long-term psychotherapy. Many psychologists participated in assessing the shortcomings of mental hospitals in meeting the needs of long-term mental patients, which led to the development of alternative community-based settings. Additionally, they examined the limitations of human services for economically disadvantaged individuals, which prompted the exploration of alternative sources of support and new roles for both citizens and psychologists in terms of helping, advocacy, and community organization. These observations sparked the development of various conceptual and theoretical approaches aimed at understanding why individuals without professional training, often working within their own communities, could be as effective, if not more so, than professionals in providing help.

Community psychology has remained open to a wide range of theoretical perspectives, including behavioral, environmental, and social systems theories, as well as models of self-help and mutual support. These approaches emphasize the effectiveness of community members working together to address various issues and challenges.

Public Health and Prevention

George Albee’s work, particularly his book “Mental Health Manpower Trends” (1959), emphasized that training enough mental health professionals to address the growing need for clinical treatment would be impractical. Instead, he advocated for a public health approach that prioritized preventing problems before they occurred. This perspective has remained a foundational principle of community psychology.

Early influences on the field included public health models of prevention and community psychiatry, notably the work of Gerald Caplan, a psychiatrist who distinguished between primary prevention (interventions aimed at an entire population to reduce the incidence of new cases), secondary prevention (detecting and treating problems early in their course or in a person’s life), and tertiary prevention (rehabilitation). These distinctions significantly influenced the theoretical development of community psychology.

Contemporary community psychology continues to adopt a public health model, although it has evolved into a practice known as “prevention science.” This approach often focuses on identifying individuals or circumstances at risk and aims to prevent specific diagnosable disorders by understanding hypothesized causal mechanisms. This approach is sometimes criticized for its narrow focus on specific disorders and causal mechanisms, rather than addressing broader social inequities, life circumstances, and living conditions.

Some community psychologists advocate for a more global approach that emphasizes wellness enhancement for all individuals, focusing on correcting social inequities without necessarily identifying specific mechanisms tied to particular disorders. This perspective emphasizes reciprocal effects, where neither the exact nature of a disorder’s expression nor the specific mechanism needs to be known to address obvious social inequities.

The field of community psychology encompasses a range of theories and approaches, with different orientations influenced by various disciplines, from the biomedical sciences to the social sciences and humanities. While the quest for a single unifying theory remains a challenge, community psychology continues to evolve and adapt to address pressing social issues and promote well-being in diverse communities.

Community Psychology Methods of Study

Community Psychology

Community psychology, from its inception at the Swampscott Conference, recognized the need for new research methods that would effectively study human behavior in social and cultural contexts and assess the impact of social interventions and social change. Traditional laboratory-based methods favored by psychologists were deemed inadequate for the complexities of community psychology research.

Six guiding principles underscore research in community psychology, although not all projects encompass each principle entirely. Nevertheless, most community psychologists regard these principles as ideals to aspire to. The principles are as follows:

  1. Research Embodies Social Values: Community psychologists believe that research in the social sciences reflects social values both in terms of topic selection and research approach. The framing of a research question is influenced by values and can direct attention toward specific factors and solutions. For example, asking “Why do some youths drop out of high school?” may focus on individual or family factors, implying responsibility rests with them. Conversely, asking “Why do some high schools have high dropout rates?” shifts the focus to school organization, quality of education, and institutional responsibility. Community psychologists often emphasize strengths and positive aspects of individuals, looking for strengths and competence rather than merely problems and deficits. This approach may involve understanding how adolescents navigate challenges and succeed in various domains, considering both positive and negative behaviors.
  2. Research Linked to Action: Community psychology promotes research that is closely linked to action. Researchers aim to generate practical solutions to address community issues, and their findings should have direct implications for policy and practice. The ultimate goal is to improve the well-being of individuals and communities through research-based actions.
  3. Collaboration Between Researchers and Participants: Collaboration is a cornerstone of community psychology research. Researchers work closely with community members, stakeholders, and participants throughout the research process. This collaborative approach ensures that the research is relevant, respectful, and responsive to the needs and perspectives of those directly affected by the issues under study.
  4. Complexity of Real-World Research: Research in community psychology acknowledges the complexity of real-world settings. Unlike controlled laboratory environments, real-world communities are multifaceted, dynamic, and subject to numerous influences. Researchers must navigate this complexity and adapt their methods to effectively capture the nuances of community life.
  5. Attention to Context and Multiple Levels of Analysis: Community psychology research recognizes the importance of context and considers multiple levels of analysis. Understanding social issues requires examining factors at various levels, including individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and societal levels. Researchers aim to uncover how these levels interact and influence behavior and well-being.
  6. Cultural Anchoring of Research: Cultural sensitivity is integral to community psychology research. Researchers acknowledge the cultural diversity within communities and ensure that their studies are culturally anchored. This approach involves respecting cultural norms, values, and practices and considering how they intersect with the research topic.

Research Embodies Social Values

Community psychologists widely acknowledge that research within the realm of social sciences is a reflection of social values, impacting both the selection of research topics and the chosen methodology. The influence of values becomes apparent during the initial formulation of research questions. To illustrate, consider the following pair of questions:

  1. “Why do some youths drop out of high school?”
  2. “Why do some high schools experience high dropout rates?”

The first question directs attention towards disparities in the backgrounds, skills, and motivations of youths who either complete or drop out of high school. Implicitly, it places responsibility for school dropout on the youths or their families. In contrast, the second question shifts the focus to aspects like school organization, funding, quality of education, and their capacity to engage students effectively. Here, the implied responsibility leans more towards the schools themselves. Consequently, these two questions imply distinct approaches to intervention for enhancing high school completion rates. For instance, the first question might lead to interventions like tutoring to address the skills deficit in youths, while the second could prompt actions such as curriculum modifications or school restructuring to foster better student-teacher relationships and clarify academic expectations. Different questions may yield alternative implied solutions.

Community psychologists are proponents of highlighting individuals’ strengths rather than their weaknesses. While some psychologists delve into understanding the specific pathways that can lead adolescents into trouble, exploring the causes of issues such as high school dropout, teen pregnancy, substance abuse, or delinquency, community psychologists may opt for a different approach. They might inquire how most youths, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, navigate the challenges of adolescence to emerge as competent and contributing adults. Competence in adolescence encompasses more than avoiding negative outcomes; it extends to excelling in academics, participating in extracurricular activities, contributing to families and communities, and occasionally engaging in some problem behaviors. One empirical question to consider is whether prioritizing the promotion of positive behaviors in adolescents is more or less effective than concentrating on the prevention of negative behaviors in fostering successful adulthood.

The key takeaway is not to pit one approach against the other in terms of correctness. A comprehensive understanding of adolescent development often necessitates considering both individual and contextual factors, strengths as well as challenges. The crux lies in recognizing that the formulation of specific research questions inherently involves social values, dictating what outcomes matter most and subtly shaping presumptions about which factors are likely to explain them. In this regard, community psychologists are more inclined than their counterparts in other branches of psychology to focus on individuals’ strengths and to explore dysfunctions within social environments rather than solely attributing them to individuals.”

Research Should Be Linked to Action

Community psychology places significant emphasis on research being fundamentally oriented towards advancing human welfare. In this regard, community psychologists often engage in the development and assessment of interventions aimed at preventing mental health issues, behavioral problems, or enhancing overall well-being. For instance, they have designed and evaluated initiatives to prevent depression in adults facing job loss, curb teen smoking through both strengthening youths’ abilities to reject substance involvement and imposing penalties on merchants who illegally sell cigarettes to minors, and promote the early development of children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. To execute these interventions effectively, community psychologists first conduct generative research to comprehend the processes underpinning the emergence of mental health problems or the achievement of positive outcomes. For example, a program focused on preventing depression among jobless individuals is grounded in research that demonstrates the link between job loss and depression. Additionally, community psychologists explore processes of social change that they may not directly initiate, such as the self-help movement or community-driven efforts to combat environmental hazards.

Some community psychologists delve into research with direct relevance to social policies. For instance, research illustrating that children attending childcare centers exhibit improved outcomes when educators possess strong education and training, maintain manageable group sizes, and ensure an appropriate adult-to-child ratio, can influence state regulations governing daycare facilities. Findings indicating that homeless families provided with subsidized housing exhibit the same level of stability as other impoverished families, regardless of individual challenges, suggest that policies aiming to expand the availability of affordable housing could diminish homelessness in the United States.

Community psychologists draw inspiration from Kurt Lewin’s model of action research (Field Theory in Social Research, New York, 1951), which encompasses a sequence of steps beginning with problem identification and research or data collection. This is followed by setting objectives and executing actions to attain them, then assessing these efforts, and ultimately refining the problem definition. Within this model, research leads directly to action, which, in turn, prompts further research. This framework proves particularly valuable when collaborating with small community organizations, enabling multiple cycles of activity and evaluation.

Furthermore, community psychologists uphold the notion that action can offer insights to refine theory. In this perspective, a community psychologist’s social intervention parallels a laboratory psychologist’s experimental manipulation of variables to comprehend their impact. While generative research often assumes a correlational nature, permitting the examination of associations among variables, it may fall short of establishing causal pathways. Conversely, experimental interventions provide opportunities to decipher causal relationships and test underlying theories.”

Research Should Involve Collaboration between Researchers and Participants

The Swampscott conference report outlined the community psychologist as a participant conceptualizer, someone who brings the conceptual and methodological tools of psychology to address community issues while actively engaging in social action alongside community members (Bennett et al., Community psychology: A Report of the Boston Conference on the Education of Psychologists for Community Mental Health, Boston, 1966). Collaboration in community psychology serves at least two vital purposes. Firstly, research benefits from the insights and viewpoints of research participants, including their identification of meaningful research questions. Secondly, interventions are more likely to be effective and enduring when participants take ownership of them. Over time, community psychologists have increasingly adopted a constructivist approach to knowledge, recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed, and different stakeholders may hold varying understandings of the same situation. For instance, a school-based intervention would involve stakeholders such as students, teachers, administrators, school board members, and parents, among others. Depending on the intervention, additional stakeholders may be included. For example, a program distributing free condoms in schools might also involve clergy, public health officials, Planned Parenthood service providers, and pharmacy owners. These stakeholders may have different priorities, such as youth protection from disease and unwanted pregnancies, the role of families and schools, moral considerations, intervention efficiency, disruption to the school day, and economic implications. While a psychologist brings a unique perspective informed by research literature and methodology, this perspective is distinct but not inherently superior to others.

Even in less controversial community interventions than distributing condoms in schools, research proves most valuable and informative when researchers collaborate with local stakeholders and participants to understand their perspectives when formulating research questions and integrating local insights into study designs. Research that disregards participants’ concerns often ends up unused.

Moreover, interventions exclusively designed by psychologists or imported from external sources may face local resistance, even when they align with the local culture. They are unlikely to garner the same level of commitment as interventions that participants contribute to designing. The process of designing and implementing an intervention can be empowering, yielding greater benefits than participating in an externally designed intervention.

However, it’s important to note that creating an intervention to achieve specific outcomes is challenging, and few interventions succeed on their first attempt. They often undergo multiple modifications and refinements before achieving success. Thus, it is sensible for intervention designers to draw from the research literature on similar successful interventions. Nonetheless, a tension may arise between maintaining fidelity to a proven intervention and adapting it to local circumstances with community ownership. Research by Blakely and colleagues, which examined 70 adaptations of seven well-documented interventions, found that modifications altering key elements of the original intervention reduced success rates, while additional adaptations to align with local contexts enhanced effectiveness (Blakely et al., American Journal of Community Psychology, 1987, 15, 253-268).”

Research in the Real World Is Complex

It’s evident that research conducted in real-world settings is often considerably more intricate than experiments in controlled psychological laboratories. In laboratory experiments, researchers typically manipulate a small number of variables, keeping all other influences on outcomes constant. Conversely, researchers investigating natural processes or interventions in authentic settings do not have the luxury of isolating just a few variables to study their effects. Community psychologists and other researchers have devised innovative approaches to address the ensuing challenges.

Some researchers employ qualitative techniques, opting for detailed descriptions of social phenomena in a limited number of individuals or settings instead of quantitative analysis across a broader sample. These methods, often borrowed from anthropology or sociology, encompass ethnography, extensive observation, and in-depth interviews, often involving various stakeholders. Observational designs, encompassing qualitative methods and more quantitative ones such as survey research, are particularly valuable when the researcher has limited or no control over the phenomenon under examination. Longitudinal designs, where researchers track the same group of individuals at multiple time points, are sometimes used to disentangle relationships among variables over time.

Community researchers can also conduct true experiments in real-world scenarios by randomly assigning individuals or settings (e.g., classrooms, schools, or even communities) to intervention and control groups. In many cases, the control group receives an alternative intervention, either for ethical considerations or to maintain their participation in the study. In principle, if the experimental group shows better outcomes than the control group, the intervention is deemed successful. However, drawing inferences is more intricate in practice. First, researchers must ensure that the intervention was actually delivered as planned to the experimental group; otherwise, any comparison becomes meaningless. Second, in real-life situations, individuals assigned to interventions may not attend or may drop out, potentially introducing bias. Researchers often compare all those invited to participate in both intervention and comparison groups to mitigate this bias, although more sophisticated solutions may be available. Third, individuals may complete the intervention but not the posttest, necessitating an understanding of the reasons behind missing data and whether estimations can be made to account for the gaps.

Advanced analyses offer additional insights. Follow-up data can help determine the permanence of intervention effects or whether interventions alter developmental trajectories, potentially having amplified effects over time. Researchers can strengthen their conclusions by investigating patterns of relationships among variables. For instance, if a theory posits that an intervention reduces college dropout rates by fostering closer faculty-student relationships, it’s crucial to investigate whether these relationships indeed form and whether students with closer ties are less likely to drop out. Additionally, programs are often subjected to cost-effectiveness analyses to gauge their effectiveness relative to other similarly priced programs.

Between experimental designs with high researcher control and observational designs with minimal control lie designs where the investigator retains some degree of control, at least over who is measured. Various ingenious quasi-experimental designs capitalize on naturally occurring variations to comprehend social phenomena. When researchers cannot randomly assign participants to a control group, they may identify similar individuals who haven’t been exposed to the intervention and study them as a comparison group. They might also uncover outcome measures extending far back in time before the intervention. If these outcomes (e.g., academic achievement, attendance, or dropout rates in an educational setting) remain fairly stable for years before the intervention and then undergo significant changes when the intervention is implemented, it may be possible to infer the intervention’s impact. However, making these inferences demands meticulous consideration of other potential explanations for the phenomenon, often termed rival hypotheses or threats to validity. Researchers must also contemplate whether the phenomenon is likely to manifest similarly in other social contexts.”

Research Must Attend to Context and to Multiple Levels of Analysis

Community psychologists place a central emphasis on grasping the intricate interplay between individuals and their environments. Environments, such as peer groups, schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, or society at large, can shape individual behavior, while individuals can either create new social environments or impact those they participate in. Moreover, environments can influence or condition the nature of relationships between other variables. For instance, the optimal level of parental control for healthy adolescent development may hinge on factors like neighborhood risk or the delinquency levels among the adolescent’s friends. Additionally, environments may function differently for individuals with varying characteristics; for instance, police might be more prone to arrest minority adolescents for the same offense as white adolescents, thereby creating distinct environments for these two groups. These systematic patterns are known as social regularities.

Psychologists typically excel in evaluating individuals rather than social environments. However, community and environmental psychologists have made significant strides in understanding the characteristics of social environments, particularly the most immediate, direct settings for human behavior, often referred to as microsystems by Bronfenbrenner. Research on broader and more diffuse settings, such as neighborhoods, and their impact on individual behavior has grown significantly, aided by novel methods like geocoding, which allows researchers to locate respondents within specific neighborhoods, followed by examinations of these neighborhoods through census data, surveys, or observational methods. While such research is still evolving, it holds great potential.

Neglecting to account for contextual effects can lead to misattributions of causality to individual characteristics. For instance, William Julius Wilson, in his book ‘The Truly Disadvantaged’ (Chicago, 1987), highlights that African Americans of any socioeconomic status are more likely to reside in areas characterized by concentrated poverty compared to their European American counterparts with similar socioeconomic status. If living in a impoverished neighborhood adversely affects employment opportunities (due to fewer job prospects or role models) or academic performance (due to underfunded schools, less motivated teachers, or a focus on remedial education), researchers who disregard neighborhood influences may wrongly attribute these effects to an individual’s race. Therefore, comprehending contextual impacts is crucial for discerning the level of analysis at which a particular effect manifests, and statistical techniques can aid in disentangling these effects.”

Research Should Be Culturally Anchored

Culture, encompassing values, norms, behaviors, and distinctive ‘blueprints for living,’ has garnered increasing attention from community psychologists and other scholars. This attention extends to variations among groups stemming from differing national origins or more nuanced factors like race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation (see Hughes, Seidman, & Williams, American Journal of Community Psychology, 1993, 21, 687-703). Earlier psychological research on cultural differences often compared groups, frequently subjecting African Americans or women to a white male standard, with any disparities interpreted as indicative of the inferiority of the non-standard group.

Community psychologists have wholeheartedly rejected this approach for various reasons. One of the field’s core values is an aversion to using any group’s attributes as a measure of worth. Supposedly objective categories, such as race, often hinge more on perceptions than objective criteria. There is as much diversity within particular groups (e.g., among Latin Americans from various countries of origin) as between them. The most intriguing questions may not concern inter-group comparisons but rather intra-group variations. Moreover, questions may differ between groups, addressing topics such as successful adaptation to a new culture for immigrants or the consequences of antigay hate crimes for LGBTQ+ individuals.

Some questions are applicable to multiple groups, but answers may differ. For instance, researchers have theorized that extended family, church, and informal support networks may hold greater significance for the mental health of African Americans compared to European Americans. One vital category of questions pertains to whether prevention and intervention programs proven effective for a specific group also benefit other groups, and how they can be adapted to ensure cultural sensitivity and efficacy. Researchers must be cautious to ensure that prevention programs, like parent training, do not inadvertently impose the researcher’s values on participants with different value systems.

Where similar questions are relevant across different groups, it is crucial to ascertain whether the underlying concepts and measurement methods are also comparable. If one group scores higher on a psychological symptom inventory than another, does that mean the first group genuinely experiences worse mental health, or are its members simply more inclined to acknowledge symptoms? Are mental health issues structured similarly across different groups?

Research is culturally grounded when it formulates questions that hold meaning for the studied group or groups, employs language that resonates with them, and employs measures tailored to the group. Collaborative efforts between researchers and participants can enhance the cultural appropriateness of research initiatives. Nevertheless, cultural grounding of research remains an ongoing challenge for community psychologists, as well as for psychologists more broadly.

In summary, while community psychology shares several methodological approaches with other branches of psychology, it distinguishes itself through particular emphases. Values play a central role in community psychology research, with core values encompassing the integration of research and action and participant collaboration. The intricacies of real-world research necessitate innovative designs and consideration of the social and cultural contexts within which participants reside.”

Community Psychology Prevention and Intervention

Community Psychology

In the 19th century, John Snow achieved a pivotal victory against the cholera epidemic in London by removing the handle of the Broad Street water pump. By disconnecting access to contaminated water, Snow executed a substantial and successful preventive measure against cholera. Remarkably, at the time, neither Snow nor anyone else possessed a profound understanding of the intricate cause-and-effect mechanisms at play.

Fast forward nearly a century to 1962 in Ypsilanti, Michigan, where a high-quality preschool program targeting impoverished African American children commenced. This program imparted fundamental cognitive skills and featured weekly home visits by trained educators. What set this program apart was its randomized allocation of children—half participating in the program and half undergoing the conventional preschool experience within their community. Over the course of more than two decades, the outcomes of early exposure to the program became strikingly evident. By primary school, program participants exhibited significantly lower levels of disruptive behavior, and as adolescents, they engaged in fewer violent acts and had reduced encounters with law enforcement. By age 19, these preschool program alumni boasted higher high school completion rates, lower arrest records, decreased enrollment in special education classes, and increased economic achievement.

Though distinct in nature, both instances serve as exemplars of effective preventive measures. In the cholera epidemic case, an infectious disease was the focal point, and John Snow’s impactful intervention prevented its spread, even in the absence of a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Conversely, the preschool program created a nurturing environment for vulnerable children during a critical phase of their lives, fundamentally altering their life trajectories. This not only improved their individual prospects but also yielded substantial societal benefits.

More than a century after John Snow’s pioneering efforts in prevention, advances in our understanding of infectious diseases and our ability to safeguard populations through hygiene and vaccination have rendered prevention of infectious diseases routine in many parts of the world. Nevertheless, contemporary challenges in prevention are emerging. Presently, with HIV/AIDS and certain childhood infectious diseases like measles being notable exceptions, the targets of prevention programs have shifted from infectious diseases to chronic, recurrent, long-term disorders with developmental origins and protracted trajectories. These encompass issues such as substance abuse, academic underachievement, depression, behavioral problems, and educational setbacks. These problems possess intricate biological, psychological, and social underpinnings that intertwine throughout their development. The field of prevention draws some of its most compelling examples from public health, but the prevention of personal, social, and developmental challenges remains a shared objective across numerous disciplines, including education, criminal justice, psychology, psychiatry, and human development.

Risk and Protection across the Life Course

Considering prevention through the lens of human development across the lifespan is a valuable perspective. Every individual undergoes continuous transformation, encountering evolving risk factors and protective influences that ebb and flow over time. Moreover, at each stage of life, specific pivotal developmental milestones must be achieved, and neglecting these tasks can impede later development. In the early stages of life, these milestones encompass biological regulation, perception of the physical environment, and the cultivation of cognitive abilities. During infancy and early childhood, crucial objectives involve acquiring language proficiency and honing impulse control. As children enter school, the acquisition of literacy skills and the development of social competencies for peer interactions become paramount. With the onset of puberty and increased independence from parental guidance, new challenges linked to sexuality, substance use, and health decisions arise. Skills such as resisting peer pressure, resolving intricate interpersonal dilemmas, and pursuing objectives despite setbacks become increasingly vital.

However, human development and associated risks do not conclude with adolescence. As individuals transition from adolescence to adulthood, new critical junctures emerge. Decisions regarding career paths and the establishment of committed relationships take center stage. As the focus shifts toward the fundamental developmental tasks of parenthood, professional life, and sustaining intimate bonds, risks associated with divorce, job instability, or turbulent parent-child relationships become prominent. An essential aspect of risks in adulthood is that they often have repercussions not only for the individual but also for those with whom they share close relationships, including spouses, partners, or children. Even during middle adulthood and old age, fresh risks, whether anticipated or unforeseen, come into play. Towards the end of life, individuals face transitions and crises linked to illness and the loss of a spouse, bringing forth new risks along with opportunities for preventive measures.

The environments in which we live, such as family, community, and work settings, can offer both sources of risk and protective factors throughout our life journeys. In the early years, the biological and social contexts provided by parental caregivers profoundly impact the development of infants and young children. Subsequently, educational institutions become pivotal community settings for encountering both risk and protection. Later still, intimate relationships within families, homes, neighborhoods, communities, and workplaces exert substantial influence on life trajectories. Because the social environments essential for human development and well-being evolve throughout the lifespan, transitioning from clinics and nurseries in early life to schools and neighborhoods, and eventually to workplaces and family settings, the most suitable arenas for prevention efforts similarly shift.

Definitions of Prevention and Classification of Prevention Efforts

Some of the most remarkable and effective instances of large-scale prevention efforts revolve around combatting the spread of infectious diseases. A century ago, diseases like smallpox and influenza were the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. However, the implementation of hygienic practices and vaccination campaigns led to a substantial decline in these diseases by 1970, with smallpox even achieving global eradication due to these preventive measures. Advocates of prevention often argue that no major disease has ever been eradicated solely through treatment.

Efforts to classify prevention strategies provide a framework for organizing the field. One widely accepted classification system focuses on prevention efforts targeting the risk factors of entire populations rather than individual cases. This approach, initially proposed by the Commission on Chronic Illness in 1957, defines primary prevention as initiatives aimed at reducing the incidence (rate of new cases) of disorders or illnesses. To achieve primary prevention, it is necessary to understand the early origins of diseases or disorders and modify risk factors for populations to prevent the onset of illness. This aligns with the successful approach employed in public health efforts against infectious diseases. Secondary prevention encompasses all measures intended to decrease the prevalence (number of existing cases) within a population. It involves early and effective intervention once initial signs of the problem have been identified. Tertiary prevention, in contrast, is not concerned with preventing disorders but focuses on reducing disability and dysfunction associated with a disorder after it has already occurred. For example, efforts to decrease the disability resulting from a severe injury represent an instance of tertiary prevention. While this classification system emphasizes outcomes, it offers limited insight into the methods used to achieve these outcomes.

A more contemporary approach classifies prevention efforts based on their applicability to the broader population and their potential for widespread benefits. A universal preventive strategy is one that can be confidently extended to the general public, where the overall advantages outweigh any potential risks for program recipients. Examples include water purification and smoking cessation, where the benefits substantially outweigh the costs and risks, justifying universal implementation. Selective preventive strategies are suitable only for individuals whose risk of harm exceeds the average, justifying more resource-intensive interventions. For instance, annual mammograms for women or specialized safety equipment required for hazardous occupations are examples of selective preventive strategies. Indicated preventive strategies are even more focused, appropriate only for a narrow group of individuals who already exhibit strong indications of developing a problem, disease, or disorder. In such cases, targeted and potentially aggressive interventions may be warranted, given that the benefits outweigh the costs and risks, even if the intervention itself entails significant costs or risks. An example is suspending the driver’s license of someone with a long history of driving under the influence, where the intervention’s benefits may outweigh societal costs and risks.

In recent years, some researchers and community practitioners have argued for a broader perspective on prevention, emphasizing the promotion of health, mental well-being, and positive human development. They contend that the focus on negative outcomes in prevention overlooks the fact that effective promotion efforts can enhance individuals’ ability to cope with stress and adversity or resist future disorders. It is clear that efforts promoting social skills, academic achievement, and personal resilience in the face of challenges have intrinsic value. In some cases, promotion efforts may also have preventive effects, especially for individuals at risk of developing disorders. The distinction between prevention and promotion can be seen as a differentiation between means and ends. Promotion efforts have intrinsic value and can also serve as a means to prevent disorders. For example, a preschool program designed to enhance social problem-solving skills may not only have intrinsic value but also prevent the development of disorders in children particularly susceptible to future problems.

Strategies for Prevention Through the Life Course

Throughout the course of one’s life, individuals and families undergo continuous development, and the risks to their health and well-being fluctuate. During the early stages of life, many risk factors are rooted in biology and play a pivotal role in shaping an individual’s development. As life progresses, risks and vulnerabilities become more socially influenced, both in their origins and their consequences. Abilities such as language acquisition, impulse control, social integration, and caregiving involve a complex interplay of both biological and social factors.

Moreover, every individual’s life journey comprises crucial transitions or developmental milestones. These milestones include the commencement of formal education, entry into the workforce, the establishment of committed relationships, the birth of a first child, and retirement. While many of these transitions are considered normal and anticipated in society, they still carry inherent risks within the life course. Beyond these expected life transitions, numerous unforeseen or unplanned turning points can emerge in the lives of individuals and families, serving as significant sources of risk. Such turning points may involve events such as childhood illness or injury, expulsion or dropout from school, unplanned pregnancies, job loss, the dissolution of close personal relationships, experiences of grief or widowhood, or the loss of a parent or child.

In the following sections, we will explore a selection of prevention efforts that span the entire life course, addressing these various phases and their associated risks.

Prevention in Infancy and Early Childhood

During the early stages of life, many of the risks individuals face are rooted in biological factors, necessitating preventive efforts focused on safeguarding both the developing fetus and the health of the mother. Among the most critical preventive measures that can be initiated at the outset of life is the provision of high-quality prenatal and perinatal care. Regrettably, the availability of such comprehensive prenatal care is not universally accessible, highlighting the ongoing need to expand its reach. Research evidence overwhelmingly underscores that numerous health and developmental complications can be averted, while promoting healthy development, through the simple yet impactful provision of prenatal and perinatal care.

Moreover, this pivotal phase in the life course serves as an opportune moment for not only risk mitigation but also proactive support and education for expectant mothers and families. These efforts extend beyond mere medical care to encompass comprehensive maternal and infant well-being, ensuring that the foundational period of a child’s life is marked by optimal health and developmental prospects.

Efforts to enhance prevention in infancy and early childhood should not only prioritize healthcare accessibility but also include education and support systems that empower parents and caregivers to make informed decisions, create nurturing environments, and foster healthy development from the very start of a child’s life. This holistic approach to prevention is essential for maximizing the potential of every child and reducing disparities in health and development outcomes.


Immunization against infectious diseases shortly after birth represents another universal strategy with profound preventive benefits. Immunization stands as a formidable shield, safeguarding infants against a range of childhood diseases, including those like measles, which a century ago inflicted significant harm on the health and well-being of the population. Immunization aligns with the traditional public health prevention model, where a vaccine bestows lasting protection against specific physical illnesses. For instance, children who are not immunized against Type B influenza and meningitis may face enduring consequences, including brain-related issues that manifest as learning disabilities, psychological challenges, and behavioral disorders.

An exemplar of a successful prevention program aimed at promoting the well-being of infants during the prenatal and perinatal stages involves working with single teenage mothers. This program leverages home health visits conducted by public health nurses to ensure high-quality prenatal and perinatal care. During these visits, nurses not only emphasize the importance of proper prenatal care but also educate young mothers about the risks posed to their infants by factors like smoking, inadequate diet, and alcohol consumption. Furthermore, these visiting nurses provide valuable parent training and vocational guidance, supporting young mothers as they prepare to enter the workforce. Research findings demonstrate that this program yields tangible benefits, leading to improved maternal diets, reduced smoking during pregnancy among teenage mothers, decreased rates of premature deliveries, higher birth weights, and a decline in instances of child abuse. In essence, this prevention program harnesses the expertise of public health nurses to mitigate a wide spectrum of risks for both mother and infant while facilitating a smooth transition toward healthy development for both parties.

Prevention in Childhood

During early childhood, the path to successful development is marked by the emergence of new developmental milestones, notably the acquisition of language skills and the development of social and impulse control. As children transition from infancy to the preschool years, they are in the process of learning how to navigate and interact within their social environment, making language and social competence essential for their social development. Research underscores the efficacy of programs designed to enrich mother-child interaction, whether through home visits or participation in local parent-child developmental centers. These programs have been shown to yield a range of positive outcomes, including fewer behavioral problems in children, improved family management practices, and enhanced cognitive competence.

Upon entering primary school, children face a fresh set of developmental tasks and associated risks. The mastery of reading skills and the ability to foster positive peer relationships become increasingly pivotal during the elementary school years. Schools serve as crucial community settings where children are exposed to rewards and consequences, social role models, and opportunities for skill development. It’s also where they spend a significant portion of their waking hours. Preventive interventions aimed at bolstering the social competence of elementary school-aged children can significantly reduce behavior problems and enhance overall development. Additionally, if early developmental, health, or mental health issues manifest in elementary school children, school-based detection and early intervention become feasible. For instance, research has revealed that school-based programs teaching children social and interpersonal skills can mitigate early behavioral problems or impulse control issues while fostering improved cognitive problem-solving abilities.

This phase of childhood is marked by potential social transitions within the family, such as divorce, parental death, or severe family illnesses, which can pose substantial risks to the child’s well-being. Divorce, often accompanied by parental conflict, can represent a significant risk factor for children. Studies on various school-based programs have demonstrated the positive preventive impact of weekly sessions designed to help children understand their feelings about divorce and cope with related emotions like anxiety, anger, and interpersonal conflicts. Though less common, the death of a parent can also leave children vulnerable. Research suggests that family grief workshops followed by sessions with a family advisor can reduce school-related and behavioral problems among children who have experienced the loss of a parent.

The school environment serves as a social backdrop where a wide range of vulnerabilities in childhood can be addressed. School programs that aid children in mastering academic challenges and acquiring social skills for self-regulation have positive effects on both aggressive and introverted children. These programs can enhance cognitive competence, particularly in children displaying early signs of depression. While such school-based interventions may not yet be widely accessible, they hold substantial promise in the prevention of issues faced by at-risk children.

Prevention for Adolescents

As children transition from childhood to adolescence, the landscape of risks undergoes yet another transformation. The onset of puberty ushers in the need for adolescents to develop competent coping skills in dealing with their burgeoning sexuality. During this phase, it’s not just the risk of pregnancy but also the threat of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, that becomes a critical concern for young adolescents. Furthermore, substance and alcohol abuse emerge as significant risks with the potential for profound negative impacts on both development and health. Adolescence also introduces an array of other potential challenges, such as academic struggles, dropout tendencies, behavioral issues, and delinquent behavior.

A plethora of drug abuse prevention programs have been devised to curtail the likelihood of alcohol or substance abuse among early teenagers. An examination of these programs reveals that effective ones tend to encompass two core elements. Firstly, they encourage adolescents to adopt anti-drug attitudes during this crucial phase of development. Secondly, they incorporate classroom-based training to equip teenagers with the skills needed to recognize and resist peer and media influences that promote drug use. Typically, successful prevention programs involve classroom exercises, including role-playing scenarios to help adolescents practice resisting peer pressure to use drugs, coupled with real-life examples drawn from peers and other forms of classroom instruction. Research has demonstrated that it is indeed possible to reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and marijuana use among adolescents through the implementation of such programs.

Effective drug abuse prevention programs during adolescence do more than just mitigate the risks of substance abuse; they also empower young individuals to make informed choices, resist negative influences, and foster a sense of self-efficacy. These programs play a pivotal role in supporting healthy development during this pivotal phase of life, ensuring that adolescents are better equipped to navigate the complex challenges they encounter.

Prevention in Adulthood

As individuals transition into adulthood, they encounter a fresh set of developmental tasks and responsibilities. Adulthood is marked by significant milestones, including establishing committed relationships, navigating the complexities of childbearing and child-rearing, seeking gainful employment, and sustaining a successful work life. Additionally, adulthood brings new challenges and risks, such as the potential perils of poverty or the demanding responsibility of caring for ill or elderly family members.

Prevention programs have been thoughtfully designed and tested to assist adults in managing these critical life transitions and crises. For instance, programs aimed at teaching couples constructive ways to handle disagreements and enhance communication have demonstrated their ability to increase relationship satisfaction, reduce negative communication patterns, and lower the risk of divorce. Even in the event of divorce, these programs can help individuals navigate the resulting conflicts, which can otherwise have adverse effects not only on the children involved but also on the health and mental well-being of those undergoing the divorce process. Specialized workshops focusing on starting new relationships, effective child-rearing, single parenting, and addressing legal and financial issues have been proven to prevent depression and anxiety while fostering self-confidence and overall well-being.

Job loss is another unexpected life transition that can entail significant risks for individuals and families, including heightened family conflict, financial strain, depression, and anxiety. Prevention programs have been developed to equip individuals with job search skills and strategies for coping with setbacks in the job search process. These programs have been shown to increase reemployment rates among participants, reduce the risk of depression, and simultaneously lead to higher-paying job opportunities for those involved. By providing individuals with the necessary tools to navigate job loss and secure new employment, these prevention programs contribute to the well-being and stability of both individuals and their families during this challenging phase of life.

Prevention in Later Life

In the later stages of the life course, as the likelihood of chronic illness increases, family members often find themselves responsible for the care of an ailing parent or spouse. This caregiving role can present a continuous stream of stressors that caregivers must grapple with. Peer and professionally led support groups designed to assist family caregivers can play a crucial role in enabling individuals to share their challenging experiences, offer mutual support, and acquire effective coping strategies. Caregivers who engage in these programs often experience mental health improvements and gain a better understanding of community resources that can alleviate the burdens associated with caregiving.

As individuals approach the end of life, the loss of a spouse or a beloved family member can lead to extended periods of grieving accompanied by complex health issues. Prevention efforts can be impactful even in the context of elderly individuals nearing the end of their life journey. Mutual help programs that enable widows to share their experiences and provide mutual support have proven effective in preventing distress and depression. National networks of self-help groups for widows have been established, and research has demonstrated that participants derive significant benefits from their involvement in these support networks. These programs offer a lifeline of emotional support and camaraderie to those navigating the challenging terrain of bereavement during the later stages of life.

Evidence of Effectiveness of Prevention

The effectiveness of prevention initiatives should be of paramount concern, not only for researchers but also for parents and community members. Whether you are a concerned parent seeking assurance about the effectiveness of a school program aimed at preventing drug abuse or a curious community member evaluating claims of a program focused on preventing juvenile crime, it is only natural to inquire about the actual effectiveness of prevention programs. Parents and community members should become discerning and discerning consumers of prevention programs, insisting on evidence of their efficacy. In the fervor of public advocacy or the intensity of debate, the importance of seeking evidence of effectiveness may sometimes be overlooked. However, in the long term, critical and discerning citizens who demand evidence of effectiveness are indispensable for the genuine and sustainable success of prevention efforts within communities.

Researchers have identified several common characteristics that successful prevention programs tend to share. Firstly, they are precisely targeted, informed by a deep understanding of the risks and challenges faced by the specific target group. Furthermore, these programs are designed to influence the life trajectories of those who participate in them. They aim for long-term, transformative change, redirecting individuals onto new developmental paths, opening up opportunities, altering life circumstances, or providing crucial support.

What kind of evidence should one consider when evaluating a prevention program? Undoubtedly, one of the gold standards for evaluating the effectiveness of prevention programs involves conducting randomized trials where both program participants and non-participants are followed over time to assess the long-term impact of the program. Although such studies can be costly and have been carried out for only a limited number of programs claiming to prevent health and human development issues, evidence from randomized trials is highly significant when evaluating the merit of a prevention program.

Another emerging source of evidence is meta-analysis, which involves the meticulous aggregation of findings from multiple studies. For instance, a recent meta-analysis of prevention programs examined 177 initiatives designed to prevent behavioral and social problems in children and adolescents. The analysis revealed that the majority of these programs yielded positive outcomes, often of similar or greater magnitude compared to interventions in other fields. This evidence is highly encouraging and stands favorably when compared to the standards generally accepted for medical and social interventions. It should instill considerable optimism regarding the effectiveness of prevention efforts. Many prevention programs can exert an impact on a spectrum of health, mental health, and developmental outcomes, and some of the beneficial results may not become evident until years later. For example, the preschool program described earlier had effects on school and occupational achievement, as well as criminal justice outcomes. Many of these favorable effects only became apparent several years after the conclusion of the preschool program, underscoring the critical importance of long-term follow-up in assessing prevention programs.

While the development and sustainability of effective prevention programs may pose challenges for both psychologists and citizens, their costs are often dwarfed by the social costs of issues like school dropout rates, drug abuse, depression, or delinquency. As concerns about healthcare costs continue to loom large, we are increasingly recognizing that for every challenge in the realms of development, health, and disability, someone is footing the bill through tax dollars, insurance premiums, or human suffering. Community-based prevention programs offer the promise of reducing costs to society while mitigating disability and human suffering.


History of Community Psychology:

  1. Action for mental health: The final report of the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health. (1961). New York: Basic Books.
  2. Bennett, C. C., Anderson, L. S., Cooper, S., Hassol, L., Klein, D. C., & Rosenblum, G. (Eds.). (1966). Community psychology: A report of the Boston conference on the education of psychologists for community mental health. Boston: Boston University Press.
  3. Iscoe, I., Bloom, B., & Spielberger, C. (Eds.). (1977). Community psychology in transition. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
  4. Levine, M., & Perkins, D. V. (1997). Principles of community psychology: Perspectives and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  5. Meritt, D. M., Greene, G. J., Jopp, D. A., and Kelly, J. G. (1998). A brief history of Division 27 and the Society for Community Research and Action. In D. Dewsbury (Ed.), Unification through division: Histories of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  6. Milbank Memorial Fund. (1953). Interrelations between the social environment and psychiatric disorders. New York: Author.
  7. Price, R. H., Cowen, E L., Lorion, R. P., & Ramos-McKay. J. (1988). Fourteen ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  8. Tolan, P., Keys, C. B., Chertok, E, & Jason, L. (Eds.). (1990). Researching community psychology: Issues of theory and methods. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Community Psychology Theories:

  1. E L. (1996). The ontogenesis of primary prevention: Lengthy strides and stubbed toes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 235-249.
  2. E. L. (1999). Psychological wellness: Some hopes for the future. In D. Cicchetti, J. Rappaport, I. Sandler, & R. Weissberg (Eds.). The promotion of wellness in children and adolescents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  3. Heller, K., Price, R. H., Reinharz, S., Riger, S., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Psychology and community change. Pacific Grove. CA: Brooks/Cole.
  4. Kelly, J. G. (1990). Changing contexts and the field of community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 769-792.
  5. Levine, M., & Perkins, D. V. (1997). Principles of community psychology: Perspectives and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Munoz, R., Snowden, L., & Kelly, J. (1979). Social and psychological research in community settings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  7. Orford, J. 0992). Community psychology: Theory and practice. Chichester. England: Wiley.
  8. Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M A. (Eds.). (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5). Special Issue.
  9. Price, R. H., Cowen, E. L., Lorion, R. P., & Ramos-McKay, J. (1988). Fourteen ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  10. Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  11. J., & Seidman, E. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of community psychology. New York: Plenum.
  12. Sarason, S. B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  13. E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding the theory of social intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 3-24.
  14. Tolan, P., Keys, C., Chertok, E, & Jason, L. (Eds.). (1990). Researching community psychology: Issues of theory and methods. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.
  15. E. J. (1996). A future for community psychology: The contexts of diversity and the diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 209-229.
  16. E. J.,. Kelly, J. G., & Vincent, T. A. (1985). The spirit of ecological inquiry in community research. In E. Susskind & D. Klein (Eds.). Community research: Methods, paradigms, and applications. New York: Praeger.

Community Psychology Methods of Study

  1. A. S. & Raudenbush. S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
  2. T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  3. Fetterman, D. M.. Kaftarian, S. J.. & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1966). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  4. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  5. Rappaport, J., & Seidman, E. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of community psychology. New York: Plenum Press.
  6. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
  7. Revenson, T. A., D’Augelli, A., French, S. E., Hughes. D. H., Livert, D., Seidman, E., Shinn, M., & Yoshikawa, H. (Eds.). (in press). Design issues in prevention and intervention research: Readings from the American Journal of Com-munity Psychology. New York: Plenum Press.
  8. Seidman, E. Hughes, D., & Williams, N. (Eds.). (1993). American Journal of Community Psychology, 21 (6).
  9. Shinn, M. (Ed.) (1996). American Journal of Community Psychology. 24 (I). Special issue on ecological assessment.
  10. Tolan, P., Keys, C., Chertok. E. & Jason, L. (Eds.). (1990). Researching community psychology: Issues of theory and methods. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.

Prevention and Intervention in Community Psychology

  1. Albee, G. W., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (1977). Primary prevention works. Vol. 6. Thousand Oaks: Sage. A collection of effective prevention programs.
  2. Commission on Chronic Illness. (1957). Chronic illness in the United States. Vol. 1. Published for the Commonwealth Fund. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(2). 115-152.
  4. R. (1987). An operational classification of disease prevention. In J. A. Steinberg & M. M. Silverman (Eds.). Preventing medical disorders (pp. 20-26). Rockville. MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
  5. K. (1996). Coming of age of prevention science: Comments on the 1994 National Institute of Mental Health-Institute of Medicine prevention papers. American Psychologist, 51, 1123-1128.
  6. P. J., & Haggerty. R. J. (Eds.). (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. Washington. DC: National Academy Press.
  7. Munoz, R. F., Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (1996). Institute of Medicine report on prevention of mental disorders: Summary and commentary. American Psychologist, 51. 1116-1122.
  8. NIMH Committee on Prevention Research. (1995, May). A plan for prevention research for the National Institute of Mental Health (A report to the National Advisory Mental Health Council). Washington. DC: Author.
  9. Price, R. H., Cowen. E., Lorion, R., & Ramos-McKay, J. (Eds.) (1988). Fourteen ounces of prevention. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.
  10. Reiss, D., & Price, R. H. (1996). National research agenda for prevention research: The National Institute of Mental Health Report. American Psychologist. 51(11), 1109-1115.
  11. I. (Ed.). (1997). Meta-analysis of primary prevention programs for children and adolescents: Introduction to the special issue. American Journal of Community Psychology. 25(2). 111-113.