Sustaining Evidence-Based Prevention Programs: Correlates in a Large-Scale Dissemination Initiative

Abstract

Over the past four decades, significant strides have been made in the science of preventing youth problem behaviors. Subsequently, policymakers and funders have begun to insist on the use of evidence-based programs (EBPs) as a requirement for funding. However, unless practitioners are able to sustain these programs beyond initial seed funding, they are unlikely to achieve their ultimate goal of broad public health impact. Despite its obvious importance, sustainability has received relatively little attention in prevention science until recently. Moreover, there have been few opportunities to study the correlates of sustainability in large-scale, multi-year initiatives involving multiple programs. The present study examined rates of sustainment of a wide range of proven-effective prevention and intervention programs; identified factors related to organizational support and readiness, program and implementer characteristics, and sustainability planning that distinguished sustained programs; and examined variability in these associations across classroom-based, community/mentoring, family-focused prevention, and family treatment program types within the context of a state-wide EBP dissemination initiative in Pennsylvania over 4 years. The majority of EBPs sustained functioning 2 years or more beyond their initial funding. In general, sustained programs reported greater community coalition functioning, communication to key stakeholders, knowledge of the program's logical model, communication with the trainer or program developer, and sustainability planning. In addition to these universal correlates, important program-specific correlates emerged as well. Implications for the technical assistance and support necessary to promote the sustainability of EBPs in nonresearch contexts are also discussed.

Adaptations in a Community-Based Family Intervention: Replication of Two Coding Schemes

“…For example, we suspect these findings would hold true across similar universal, multi-session, multi-component programs, although previous work examining predictors of sustainment does suggest there may be important implementation differences to account for across program type (Cooper, Bumbarger, & Moore, 2015). Because of the apparent robustness of these coding schemes across settings (and program type in the Moore et al, 2013) in our and previous studies (Hill et al, 2007;Moore et al, 2013), we believe that even if the proportions and intersections of adaptation types and reasons look different across program types, the validity of the coding schemes are likely to generalize.…”

Mixed Picture of Readiness for Adoption of Evidence‐Based Prevention Programs in Communities: Exploratory Surveys of State Program Delivery Systems

“…Several recent studies highlight the critical importance of readiness assessments in prevention program support systems (e.g., Cooper et al 2015; Flaspohler et al 2012; Harris et al 2012), particularly those entailing scientist-practitioner partnerships (Özdemir and Giannotta 2014). They also reveal gaps in the research on these readiness-related factors, including the need to better develop readiness measurements (Chaudoir et al 2013; Emmons et al 2012; Stamatakis et al 2012).…”

Toward Dynamic Adaptation of Psychological Interventions for Child and Adolescent Development and Mental Health

“…This includes a datainformed, collaborative, inclusive approach with high support for adaptation and implementation fidelity (Aarons et al, 2012). In addition, this not only requires the establishment and maintenance of strong relationships between implementation agencies and the program developer and an inclusive communication between key stakeholders (see Bumbarger & Campbell, 2012;Hurlburt et al, 2014;Panzano, Sweeney, Seffrin, Massatti, & Knudsen, 2012;Rhoades Cooper, Bumbarger, & Moore, 2013;Supplee & Metz, 2015) but also necessitates a discussion on how to create continuous feedback loops between implementation and evaluation research, policy, and practice . Relatedly, practice change requires modifications in everyday routines and activities of everyone who is involved in the intervention process: children, families, practitioners, researchers, and policymakers.…”