The importance of quality implementation for research, practice, and policy
Executive Summary
The steps for implementing a program for children and youth
may seem straightforward: identify a need, hire staff and provide the service
or product to a target population. However, implementing programs that work
requires careful advance planning, the involvement of multiple stakeholders,
and a process that ensures accountability. When programs are implemented poorly,
it not only reduces the potential for helping children and youth in need, but
it wastes scarce public resources because poorly implemented programs are
unlikely to be very successful. In addition, when a program is implemented
poorly, we don’t know whether or not it works.
Research on quality program implementation has identified a
number of factors that can significantly improve implementation process to
increase the effectiveness of programs. This issue brief discusses some of the
fundamentals of quality program implementation that have been identified
through research and practice and that may be useful for practitioners,
policymakers and researchers alike.
This brief defines quality program implementation, and
highlights the importance of a high quality implementation, identifies 23
factors that affect implementation, discusses 14 steps in achieving quality
implementation (10 of which need to occur before a program starts), and notes
that responsibility for quality implementation is shared by key stakeholders.
The factors that can affect implementation quality range from societal,
community, program, practitioners, and organizational influences, as well as
the implementation process itself. The brief explains how implementation
should focus on core components, allowing adaptation of other aspects to suit
the population and setting.
1. Public policy
decisions should be based on evaluations of programs that have been implemented
with quality. Otherwise, the relative value and cost-effectiveness of
alternative programs cannot be determined.
2. Implementation
is important for all child and youth programs and increasing the quality of
implementation increases the chances that the program will yield its intended
outcomes.
3. It is possible
to adapt an evidence-based program to fit local circumstances and needs as long
as the program’s core components, established by theory or preferably through
empirical research, are retained and not modified.
4. High quality
implementation is the joint responsibility of multiple stakeholders who
typically include funders/policy makers, program developers/researchers, local
practitioners, and local administrators.
Although there are many factors that can affect quality of
implementation and multiple steps in the implementation process, success is
possible, resources are available to help select and implement evidence-based
programs effectively.
Introduction
Sometimes, program evaluations report no difference in
outcomes between persons given a program and those not given the program. Is
this because the program does not work, or because it was poorly implemented?
Achieving high quality program implementation is critical to achieving
anticipated outcomes, and researchers have made considerable progress in
clarifying its importance in the past several decades
This brief defines program implementation, highlights the
importance of high quality implementation, identifies key factors that affect
implementation, presents the steps involved in achieving quality
implementation, and specifies who has responsibility for quality
implementation. The last section describes some practical lessons that have
been learned about implementation through systematic research and practice.
The focus here is on evidence-based programs, although implementation is
relevant in all program operations and evaluations. Whenever any program is
being conducted, it is important to monitor the level of implementation that
has been achieved so its impact can be interpreted appropriately.
It is assumed that, for the general public welfare, societies
strive toward the fairest allocation of public resources to as many in the
population as possible. However, resources are always limited in some way.
Usually, important either-or decisions must be made. Should we support this
program or an alternative program? Should we introduce a new program or
continue with services as usual? These decisions should be made in reference
to how well a program has been implemented, in addition to evidence of the
program’s effectiveness.
Society experiences serious short- and long-term costs when
programs are poorly implemented. The money, resources, and staff time
associated with poorly implemented programs are not well spent because
poorly-implemented programs are unlikely to be very successful. The decision
making process regarding the fairest and most effective allocation of limited
social resources is also compromised when the potential impact of programs
cannot be determined because implementation is poor. Too often, interpretations
of evaluation findings are limited at best because the program was not
well-implemented. Poorly implemented programs can mislead decision-makers into
assuming that a program is ineffective when in reality the program might work
very well if it were well-implemented. In sum, a focus on implementation
advances research, practice, and policy, and leads to better services within
our communities, and better outcomes for children and youth.
Although various definitions of implementation exist, the one
presented by Damshroder and Hagedorn (2011) is used here: “Implementation
refers to efforts designed to get evidence-based programs or practices of known
dimensions into use via effective change strategies” (p. 195). Extensive
experience indicates that when evidence-based programs are attempted by a new
organization, in a new setting, or by new staff, they are not automatically
reproduced or replicated with the quality intended by the program developers. For
a variety of reasons, major changes can occur, so that the new program may not
be an accurate reproduction of the core components of the original version.
The gap between how a program is intended by its designers to
be delivered and its actual delivery in practice is referred to as
implementation variation. Implementation may vary from strict adherence to
program protocols as designed to subtle or major changes in program protocols. The
challenge is to implement a program with sufficient quality to obtain the
outcomes found in original trials. In other words, implementation exists along
a continuum and one can think of poor, medium, or high quality implementation. The
emphasis here is on high quality because implementation to this degree
increases the chances of obtaining the outcomes found in original trials.
Evidence for the importance of high quality implementation
has been obtained in multiple areas including education, mental health, health
care, technology, industry, and management (Durlak & Dupre, 2008; Fixsen,
Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Moreover, implementation is
important regardless of characteristics of the target population, the type of
program, and specific program goals.
Research clearly indicates that the quality of program
implementation is one critical factor associated with youth outcomes. For
example, one review of school-based prevention programs found that
implementation quality was the most important program feature associated with
reducing aggressive behavior (Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003). In many
cases, programs have failed to achieve their intended outcomes for youth when
implementation was poor whereas, in other cases, program impact was much higher
when there were reports of more effective implementation (Durlak & Dupre,
2008). In other words, participants may receive more benefits as a result of
better program implementation, or they may receive no significant benefit if
program implementation is poor.
Additional research findings indicate the importance of high
quality implementation. In reviews of bullying prevention programs (Smith,
Schneider, Smith, & Ananidou, 2004) and youth mentoring programs (DuBois,
Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002), authors have compared outcomes for
youth who had participated in programs that varied in the quality of their
implementation. Compared to participants in programs that were poorly
implemented, youth who had been in programs that had been implemented with
higher quality demonstrated two or three times as much benefit on outcomes such
as increased social competence and lower levels of bullying.
Still another example illustrates the importance of quality
implementation in affecting critical youth outcomes. In a large-scale review
of school-based programs involving over 200 studies and over a quarter of a
million youth, the benefits demonstrated by students receiving programs
associated with higher quality implementation were compared to those
participating in programs that were implemented with poorer quality (Durlak,
Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor & Schellinger, 2010). The former students
showed gains in academic performance that were twice as high as the latter
group; furthermore, the students in the better implemented programs also showed
a reduction in emotional distress (e.g., depression and anxiety) that was more
than double the reduction shown by the latter group and a reduction in levels
of conduct problems that was nearly double that of the latter group. In other
words, effective implementation can lead to larger gains for youth in several
important domains of adjustment. With poor implementation, you may get no or
just a small amount of change; with effective/high quality implementation, you
may get changes of larger magnitude. The above data indicate it is clearly
worthwhile to strive for high quality implementation.
Table 1.
Twenty-three Factors that Affect Implementation
Community-wide or
societal factors
1.
Scientific
theory and research
2.
Political
Pressures and Influences
3.
Availability
of funding
4.
Local,
State or Federal Policies
Practitioner
characteristics
5.
Perceived
need for the program
6.
Perceived
benefits of the program
7.
Self-efficacy
8.
Skill
proficiency
Characteristics
of the program
9.
Compatibility
or fit with the local setting
10.
Adaptability
Factors
related to the organization hosting the program
11.
Positive
work climate
12.
Openness
to change and innovation
13.
Integration
of new programming
14.
Shared
vision and consensus about the program
15.
Shared
decision-making
16.
Coordination
with other agencies
17.
Openness
and clarity of communication among staff and supervisors
18.
Formulation
of tasks (workgroups, teams, etc.)
19.
Effective
leadership
20.
Program
champion (internal advocate)
21.
Managerial/supervisory/administrative
support
Factors
specific to the implementation process
22.
Successful
training
23.
On-going
technical assistance
The importance of implementation quality is widely recognized in the medical field,
and drug treatment for medical conditions offers a useful analogy: The correct
drug must be given and in sufficient dosage to obtain the desired effect. Moreover,
there is always a need to monitor drug use because many patients do not follow
the prescribed drug regimen. When drug monitoring occurs, changes can be
quickly made so the effect of the drug can be accurately assessed. Otherwise,
the physician cannot determine if the use of a particular drug is having the
intended effect.
The same goes for any evidence-based program in the area of
human services. It is important to ensure an evidence-based program is
implemented with high quality in order to achieve the intended effects. This
means we must periodically monitor program implementation so we can make
adjustments as needed to help ensure high-quality implementation. For example,
an evidence-based program may be unsuccessful in one setting due to poor
implementation, but the same program may be successful in another setting when
it is implemented with quality.
In sum, implementation quality is important throughout the
entire range and nature of child and youth services, whether the goal is to
treat children with adjustment problems, prevent later problems, promote young
people’s personal and social development, increase students’ academic
performance, promote infant health, or prevent teenage pregnancy.
Of course, success is never guaranteed; if it were, then we
would always know what results would occur in every situation. The point is
that quality implementation is necessary to increase the chances of being
successful. In other words, “when it comes to implementation, what
is worth doing, is worth doing well.”
Factors
that Affect the Quality of Implementation
In order to understand the types of factors that influence
the quality of implementation of prevention programs for children and
adolescents, Durlak and DuPre (2008) conducted a systematic search of the
literature. They identified 23 factors that had received consistent support in
at least five different research studies. A list of these 23 factors, which
can be divided into five major categories, is contained in Table 1. Furthermore,
a consensus is present regarding the importance and wide applicability of these
potential influences. Other reviews that have focused on health care
(Greenhalph, MacFarlane, Bate, Kyriakidou & Peacock, (2005) child abuse and
neglect, and domestic violence programs for adults (Stith et al. (2006), or
both treatment and prevention programs for children and adults (Fixsen, Naoom,
Blasé, Friedman & Wallace, 2005), have independently identified many of
these same factors.
Table 2.
Brief Summary of 14 Steps
and Four Temporal
Phases Involved
in Quality
Implementation
Phase One: Initial
Considerations
Regarding the Host Setting
Assessment Activities
1.
Conduct a Needs and Resources
Assessment
2.
Assess the fit of the program with the
organization
3.
Conduct a Capacity/Readiness Assessment
Decisions
about Adaptation
4.
How Should Fidelity and Possible
Adaptations
be
Decided?
Capacity-Building
Strategies
5.
Obtain Explicit Buy-in from Critical
Stakeholders
6.
Build General/Organizational Capacity
7.
Recruit Implementation Staff
8.
Effective Pre-Innovation Staff Training
Phase Two: Creating a
Structure for
Implementation
Structural Features for
Implementation
9.
Create Teams Responsible for Quality
Implementation
10.
Develop an Implementation Plan
Phase Three: Ongoing
Structure Once
Implementation Begins
Ongoing Implementation Support
Strategies
11.
Technical Assistance/ Coaching/Supervision
12.
Monitoring On-going Implementation
13. Supportive Feedback
System
Phase Four: Improving
Future Applications
14. 14.
Learning from Experience
The relative importance of each factor and how different factors may interact to
influence implementation has yet to be clarified, but it is important to
consider their possible relevance in each situation. For example, some factors
exist at the societal or community level such as political pressures or policy
mandates, and the availability of funding; some are related to whether local
practitioners perceive a need for the program and recognize its potential
benefits, and other pertain to features of the organization conducting the
program such as its work climate, openness to change, and task-orientation.
Because the quality of implementation is so important to
program outcomes, it is essential to learn what is necessary to achieve this
level of implementation. There is now convergent evidence from implementation
science about how this can be accomplished. Several authors have independently
developed conceptual models or frameworks regarding how implementation can be
carried out effectively based on systematic research and practice in diverse
areas such as health care, education, mental health prevention, treatment for
adults and children, and management ( e.g., Damshroder et al. 2009; Fixsen et
al., 2005; Hall & Hord, 2006; Klein and Sorra 1996; Spoth, R., Greenberg,
M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004).
Meyers, Durlak and Wandersman (in press) synthesized this
literature and found there was consensus regarding 14 steps that were related
to quality implementation, and they created the Quality Implementation
Framework (QIF) to describe these steps. The QIF, which is divided into a
four-phase temporal sequence, and also contains information on the major goals
that should be accomplished at each step is presented in Table 2.
It is important to consider and effectively address each step
in the implementation process. For example, before implementation begins, it
is important to assess such issues as how well the program fits the setting, if
staff holds realistic expectations about what can be achieved, whether there is
genuine buy-in or acceptance for the new program, and how to train staff
effectively for their new roles. Once implementation begins, on-going
technical assistance is needed to help staff implement with quality. It is
also essential to develop and maintain a good monitoring and feedback system
during implementation (Steps 12 and 13 in Table 2). This is
because implementation often varies over time: sometimes quality
drops and other times it increases. Both types of changes have implications.
If implementation drops to too low a level after a good start, there is a need
to intervene quickly through professional development activities to improve
implementation. Such a drop may also signal a need to re-examine whether
commitment, support and enthusiasm still exist for the new program, and what
steps might be taken to rekindle the initial interest and support of the
organization and its staff.
Increases in implementation have been noted in longer and
complex programs in which it may take more than a year to achieve quality
implementation. Therefore, patience is required in estimating the true value
of some programs. Depending on how complicated and comprehensive a program is,
it may take up to 3 years before quality implementation can be achieved
(Goldstein, 2011). Therefore, one cannot assume that the level of
implementation displayed during the early stage of a program will be the same
as that achieved at the end of the program. A good monitoring and feedback
system is important so that practitioners receive positive feedback about the
good job they are doing, and that efforts to improve implementation can be made
quickly if needed.
As reflected by the Quality Implementation Framework,
systematic research and practice in implementation science have indicated that
quality implementation:
·
Is
a systematic process
of coordinated steps; quality implementation can be achieved with careful
planning;
·
Has
a temporal sequence; some things should be done before others; in fact, 10 of
the 14 steps should be addressed before the program begins; and
·
Requires
many different types of activities and skills that include assessment,
negotiation, collaboration, planning, and critical self-reflection.
In sum, the time and effort required of implementation should
not be rushed. Attempts to short-change the process or omit important steps can
undermine quality implementation.
The finding that at least 23 factors may affect
implementation and that the implementation process involves 14 steps can seem
overwhelming to those who want to conduct a new program. However, it is
important to keep two important points in mind:
1. There
are many examples of well-implemented programs. Success is possible.
2. Implementation
is a mutual responsibility shared by several groups (Wandersman, et al. 2008).
Solving the challenge of quality implementation requires the active
collaboration of four major groups of stakeholders: researchers/program
developers (or others who provide technical assistance), local practitioners,
funders, and local administrators.
The chances for quality implementation are enhanced when
multiple stakeholders work collaboratively and approach implementation in a
careful, systematic fashion over time. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Collaboration Among Multiple Stakeholders Leads to
Quality Implementation
Adaptation refers to changes made in a program when it is
implemented in a new setting. Whenever programs are conducted, there is the
issue of the extent to which they should be delivered as originally developed,
or adapted in some way. This is a very important issue because, when others
consider using a program, there is often a question in their minds that goes
something like: “Yes, I know that program X has been effective elsewhere, but
our situation here seems different. If we change the original program so it is
a better fit for our circumstances, will it still be successful?” As the
science of implementation has advanced, clarity regarding this issue has
emerged.
There is now agreement in implementation science that
whenever the core components of a program are known (i.e., the active
ingredients of a program that are primarily associated with its effectiveness),
these elements should be implemented without adaptation (see accompanying ASPE
Research Brief by Blase and Fixsen entitled Core Intervention Components:
Identifying and Operationalizing What Makes Programs Work). If all the
core components are not administered, then the program either will not work or
will not work as well as it could. Decisions as to what constitutes core
components are challenging as research has seldom isolated these components. Although
some program designers may identify core components based upon theory alone,
these assumptions are not always correct and could lead to an omission that is,
in fact, an active ingredient of the program. Decisions regarding core
components should be based upon empirical findings.
Beyond its core components, other aspects of the program can
be modified to suit the setting or the population served, and this often offers
possibilities for some adaptation to occur. In other words, fidelity and
adaptation are not necessarily mutually exclusive, either-or considerations,
and programs can be a blend of both fidelity and adaptation.
There are many different aspects to developing a program for
children or youth (e.g., home visitation, teen pregnancy prevention) that might
be adapted. For example, exercises or activities within a lesson may be
modified to suit the cultural background of the participants as long as they
fulfill the objective of the original lesson or the teaching point. Other
modifications might include changing the time at which the program is offered
or providing repeat sessions to better fit the needs of the clients. Depending
on the circumstances, some of these elements can be adapted to fit the new
setting, as long as the core components are delivered.
Decisions regarding adaptation should be made collaboratively
by the original program designer, or others who know the theory and central
operational features of the intervention, and those hosting the new program who
know their setting, the target population, and the local culture. Otherwise,
ineffective or even harmful adaptations might be made.
Collaborative working relationships are crucial for making
wise decisions regarding fidelity and adaptation (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Depending
on each unique circumstance, some changes that do not compromise the core
elements of the program can be made, but improving the organization’s ability
to help its clients should always be of central importance. In other words, an
organization’s primary motive for its actions should be to improve its services
by offering the most effective assistance to its clientele. Extrinsic reasons
for adapting programs such as political pressure, administrative fiat, and
grabbing available money are not associated with quality implementation. Similarly,
changing a program merely to save time, effort, or money is not wise. Under
these conditions, the intended outcomes may be compromised because the
program’s active ingredients are either omitted or not well-implemented
(Damshroder et al. 2009; Mihalic et al. 2008).
The importance of quality implementation has been
well-documented, but achieving quality is a complex and demanding process. Nevertheless,
some useful lessons have been learned in implementation science:
Implementation is rarely perfect.
Some slippage inevitably occurs when programs are conducted in new settings
(Durlak & DuPre, 2008). This need not be a major concern as long as the
problems are recognized and being dealt with and implementation quality remains
high enough. There can be a variety of unanticipated implementation problems
that arise related to such things as changes in leadership and staff, sudden
budget re-authorizations, conflicts with transportation, scheduling, and
emergencies, and competing job pressures. Fortunately, good judgment and
guidance from implementation research and practice can help anticipate and deal
with the challenges that might occur. A good monitoring and feedback system
can help identify when problems may be hindering quality implementation and
fixes can be made to improve implementation (e.g., DuFrene, Noell, Gilbertson,
& Duhon, 2005; Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott, & Walton, 2003). To achieve
quality implementation, the process needs to be given sufficient time. Also,
public policy decisions should be based on evaluations of programs that have
been implemented with quality. Otherwise, the relative value and
cost-effectiveness of alternative programs cannot be determined.
Practitioners vary in their performance when implementing new
programs. It is important to monitor each practitioner’s performance
and offer additional professional development as needed. People have different
learning styles and learning curves; some can develop new skills quickly while
others require more time and practice. Some lose motivation over time and may
need professional development to rekindle enthusiasm. Others may simply not
care about implementing the program and may need stronger incentives to carry
out the program, or they may need to be replaced (Mihalic et al. 2008).
A pilot program is often a good idea.
Because doing something new requires time and practice to achieve mastery, it
may be a good idea to try a new program on a small pilot basis instead of
launching into a large-scale project. For example, the Teen Pregnancy
Prevention Program, administered by the Office of Adolescent Health, allowed
grantees the opportunity to use the first 12 months as a phased-in
implementation period. During this time, sites were encouraged to prepare for
program implementation, including conducting a pilot (Margolis, 2011). A pilot
program can help an organization “work out the kinks” regarding implementation
and plan more effectively for a later more extensive program (see Blase &
Fixsen and Embry & Lipsey briefs).
Don’t implement an evidence-based program on your own.
Advertisements demonstrating new products often carry the following admonition
in various forms: “Professionals were used. Do not try this at home.” This
caution also applies to the implementation of evidence-based programs. One of
the advantages of using an evidence-based program, compared to developing a new
program, is that others have used it before and in some cases, they have
developed strategies for overcoming obstacles and implementing the program
effectively. Drawing on the expertise of outside professional assistance and
experience is a key ingredient in quality implementation and successful
outcomes. Evidence-based programs often come with developed training and
technical assistance packages, fidelity guidelines, and monitoring processes. Indeed,
high quality implementation is the joint responsibility of multiple
stakeholders that typically includes funders/policy makers, program
developers/researchers, local practitioners, and local administrators.
There may be rare cases in which a brief and simple program
can be learned by reading a manual or participating in a short workshop or
on-line training session, but these are rare exceptions to the rule that
outside assistance is needed to achieve quality implementation. Moreover, it
is wishful thinking that a few simple “magic bullets” will achieve important
social goals.
Practitioners can find assistance in selecting and
implementing evidence-based programs in various ways. For example, there may
be a national replication office for a specific program. Other organizations
can provide materials, training, and guidance for several models and provide
information about consultants who are willing to provide professional
development services for various programs. Some examples of these resources
are provided in the Appendix of this report.
It is possible to adapt an evidence-based program
to fit local circumstances and needs as long as the program’s core components,
established by theory or preferably through empirical research, are retained
and not modified.
In sum, implementation is important for all child and youth
programs, and increasing the quality of implementation increases the chances
that the program will yield its intended outcomes. Many factors can affect
quality of implementation, and there are multiple steps in the implementation
process, so time and effort are essential to achieving quality program
implementation. However, success is possible, and resources are available to
help select and implement evidence-based programs effectively.
Blase, K. A., & Fixsen, D.L. (2013). Core
intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing “what works”.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Damschroder, L. J.,
Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C.
(2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into
practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science.
Implementation Science, 4, 50.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation
matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program
outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 41, 327-350.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R.
D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social
and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal
interventions. Child Development, 82, 405−433.
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., &
Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A
meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-198.
DuFrene, B. A., Noell,
G. H., Gilbertson, D. N., & Duhon, G. J. (2005). Monitoring implementation
of reciprocal peer tutoring: Identifying and intervening with students who do
not maintain accurate implementation. School Psychology Review, 34, 74–86.
Embry, D.D., & Lipsey, M. (forthcoming). To boldly go,
where none have gone before: Using a practical toolkit for the development,
adaptation, and innovation for solving new human behavioral problems. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M.,
& Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the
literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida
Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI
Publication #231). Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/pdf/monograph_full.pdf
Goldstein, N. (2011, April). A federal perspective on
scale-up. Presented at the Emphasizing Evidence-Based Programs for Children and
Youth Forum, Washington, DC.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P.,
Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in health
service organizations: A systematic literature review. Oxford: Blackwell.
Greenwood, C. R.,
Tapia, Y., Abbott, M., & Walton, C. (2003). A building-based case study of
evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation, reading behavior, and growth
in reading fluency, K-4. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 95–110.
Hall, G. E., &
Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes (2nd
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Klein, K. J., &
Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of
Management Review, 21, 1055–1080.
Meyers, D., C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (in
press). The Quality Implementation Framework: A Synthesis of Critical
Steps in the Implementation Process.
Margolis, A. (2011, April). Replicating evidence-based
teenage pregnancy prevention programs-A case study. Presented at the
Emphasizing Evidence Based Programs for Children and Youth Forum, Washington,
DC.
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., &
Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs:
A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547-560.
Spoth, R., Greenberg,
M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community-university
partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for
evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5, 31–39.
Stith, S., Pruitt, I., Dees, J., Fronce, M., Green, N., Som,
A. et al. (2006). Implementing community-based prevention programming: A review
of the literature. Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 599-617.
Wandersman, A., Duffy,
J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., Blachman, M.,
Dunville, R., & Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention
research and practice: The Interactive Systems Framework for dissemination and
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181.
Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The
effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136-149.
1. Collaborative
for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). www.casel.org CASEL’s main
goal is to foster the implementation of evidence-based programming to enhance
academic, social, and emotional learning in preschools through high schools. In
doing so CASEL collaborates with program developers and consultants who offer professional
development services for schools interested in implementing effective school
programs. CASEL also has useful toolkits to help districts and schools select
evidence-based programs and plan for implementation
2. Safe and
Supportive Schools Technical Assistance Center. http://safesupportiveschools.ed.gov. This agency
helps schools select and conduct evidence-based programs; it provides general
assistance and puts schools into contact with various groups that support
different programs. The S3 TA Center’s Website (http://safesupportiveschools.ed.gov) includes
information about the Center’s training and technical assistance, products and
tools, and latest research findings, including links to searchable lists of and
information about evidence-based programs and programmatic interventions. In
particular, it includes a page on programmatic interventions at http://safesupportiveschools.ed.gov/index.php?id=32
3. FindYouthInfo. (http://www.findyouthinfo.gov) was created by
the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP), which is composed of
representatives from twelveFederal Departments and five Federal agencies that
support programs and services focusing on youth. The IWGYP promotes the goal of
positive, healthy outcomes for youth by identifying and disseminating promising
and effective strategies. Its website provides interactive tools and other
resources to help youth-serving organizations and community partnerships plan,
implement, and participate in effective programs for youth.
4. National Center
for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Website. (http://www.promoteprevent.org). The National
Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention's (National
Center) is another resource for states/districts/schools interested in
researching and implementing evidence-based programs. The National Center’s
overall goal is to provide technical assistance (TA) and training to school
districts and communities that receive grants from the U.S. Departments of
Education and Justice and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The National Center offers an array of products and services
that enable grantees to plan, implement, evaluate, and sustain activities
that foster resilience, promote mental health, and prevent youth violence and
mental and behavioral disorders.
5. Evidence-Based
Prevention and Intervention Support Center (EPIS Center). (http://www.episcenter.psu.edu/) The EPIS
Center is a project of the Prevention Research Center, within the College of
Health and Human Development at Penn State University. It provides support for
the implementation of 11 evidence-based programs with attention to providing
training and technical assistance, developing resources, helping programs
advocate in communities, and conducting research.
Source:http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/13/KeyIssuesforChildrenYouth/ImportanceofQuality/rb_QualityImp.cfm
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar