ing this challenge lies in universal, community-based innovations (e.g., Holder, 2001).

Holder (2001, 2002) notes that there have been two different approaches to addressing substance-related public health goals—namely, the catchment and community-system approaches. In the catchment approach to prevention of substance-related problems, a community is viewed as a collection of target groups with adverse behaviors and correlated risks. Operationally this involves locating persons at risk, identifying their risk factors, and implementing interventions to reduce risk factors, often entailing education-based programs. Notably, there is little attention to social dynamics or organiza-tional-and systems-level factors influencing individual target group behaviors. Consistent with the emphasis on environmental influences and potential supports for youth development is the focus of the community-systems approach on the community at large, defined as a set of persons “engaged in shared, social, cultural, political, and economic processes” (Holder, 2002, p. 906). Thus a wide range of problems is collectively considered and the focus is on interventions that address a variety of aspects of the shared behavioral environment in a community. This focus is consistent with the idea of a comprehensive youth strategy recommended by Jamieson and Romer (2003) and others (e.g., Flay, 2002; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2002).

A recurring theme in the literature on community partnerships, particularly that concerning diffusion of evidence-based interventions, is the need for community intervention capacity-building, as a way to sustain quality imple-mentation of preventive and developmental competency-building interventions (e.g., Altman, 1995; Lerner, 1995; Morrisey et al., 1997). In this case, capacity building can be defined as efforts designed to enhance and coordinate human, technical and scientific, financial, and other organizational resources directed toward quality implementation of evidence-based, developmentally oriented, preventive interventions for youth (see Spoth et al., 2004). A lack of capacity for sustained intervention implementation is frequently cited as a primary reason for failures in community-based dissemination of interventions (e.g., Arthur, Ayers, Graham, & Hawkins, 2003; Feinberg, Greenberg, Osgood, Anderson, & Babinski, 2002; Goodman, 2000). This is particularly true in the case of school-based interventions (Gottfredson & Wilson, 2003; Hallfors, 2001). Especially problematic is the fact that efficacious school-based interventions are frequently unable to survive the withdrawal of grant funding (Adelman & Taylor, 2003).

It is fitting to close this chapter on prevention by highlighting the challenge of the necessary bridge building for an improved youth development strategy. Just as there must be a construction plan for building a viable bridge across a chasm or gorge, requiring careful integration of input from a diverse group of designers, planning for a comprehensive strategy to foster positive youth development and prevent youth substance-related problems necessitates a sustained, well-organized effort, with input from a range of community interventionists, scientists, and policymakers at the state and federal levels. One potential contribution to this larger planning effort is a design for universities and communities to partner together to foster a higher prevalence of capable and problem-free youth. However, the wide range of tasks for those involved in community–university partnerships, the many barriers to task accomplishment, and the limited resources available highlight the challenges to design implementation that lie ahead. The single most salient feature of this particular challenge is the apparent gap between necessary human, technical and scientific, and funding resources on the one hand and the limited resource availability on the other. Nonetheless, the salience of the resource gap underscores the potential benefits of efficient and effective capacity building, particularly that which is based in existing community, state, and national infrastructures for coordinated activities supportive of youth.