Participants

1
Diffusion of a Model Program A Case Study from
Washington State
Laura Griner Hill, Rayna A. Sage, Drew L. Betz,
Christian Koehler, Louise A. Parker
Background
Results
Method

• Participants
• Adoption Study
• 109 (83) of 133 WSU Cooperative Extension county
  chairs, faculty, and program staff responded to
  survey
• Dissemination Implementation Study
• 208 facilitators of SFP have been trained through
  WSU, representing CES and 44 different community
  agencies.
• 42 of individuals representing 65 of agencies
  responded to implementation survey
• Measures
• Predictors of Adoption
• Survey items assessed perception, knowledge,
  competence, and belief in value of and need for
  CES to engage in prevention programming
• Indicator of Adoption
• Attendance at one of several in-state Extension
  trainings for SFP 10-14
• Dissemination
• Number of facilitators trained 1999-2003
  (determined through inspection of training
  records)
• Number of programs conducted and families
  served through CES-sponsored collaborations
  (determined through survey responses)
• Implementation
• Program Characteristics
• Barriers to implementation

• Adoption
• 15 CES personnel (11) have attended trainings
  for SFP.
• Belief that CES may need to supplement
  traditional Extension activities with
  research-based prevention programming, perception
  of community need for prevention programming,
  knowledge of risk and protective factors, and
  self-reported competence to identify and
  implement research-based programs were
  significantly related (p lt .05) to adoption of
  SFP.

• Diffusion of Best Practice Programs
• Numerous programs designated Best Practice or
  Model programs are currently being disseminated
• We know little about the process of their
  diffusion in the real world how model programs
  are actually adopted, disseminated, and
  implemented outside the context of effectiveness
  research.
• Such information can provide direction for
  designing systematic diffusion efforts.
• Diffusion of SFP in Washington State
• Two Cooperative Extension (CES) faculty from
  Washington State University, educated as
  facilitator trainers by the original Iowa SFP
  10-14 program developers, have conducted
  facilitator training sessions for CES personnel
  and their community partners from late 1999
  through May 2003
• We present an overview of two studies. In the
  first, we examined predictors of the adoption of
  SFP by CES personnel. In the second, we tracked
  the dissemination and implementation of the
  program throughout the state.

Dissemination

• 39 programs tracked in 11 (28) counties
• 261 families served 213 families graduated
  (82 retention rate)

• 208 facilitators trained in 30/39 (77) WA
  counties
• Presence of SFP-trained CES staff or faculty in
  a county was significantly related to
  implementation of a program in that county (p lt
  .001)

Hypotheses Research Questions

• Adoption
• Perception of community need, knowledge about
  risk and
• protective factors, perceived competence to
  identify and
• implement research-based programming, and
  belief in the
• need to implement prevention programs will be
  associated
• with adoption of SFP by CES personnel
• Dissemination
• How many facilitators have been trained through
  CES?
• How many programs conducted?
• How many families served?
• Implementation
• What was the average program cost?
• What community agencies supported the program?
• What were the major barriers to program
  implementation?

• Implementation
• Program costs averaged 1326 (range 0 -
  4200)
• 75 of facilitators were paid an average of
  14.20/hour
• All programs offered free meals and child care
• Main Reasons for Not Implementing after
  Training
• Lack of funding
• Lack of time
• Difficulties recruiting families
• Lack of action plan
• Lack of complete implementation team

• Agency Sponsors
• Schools (62)
• Churches (19)
• Family Support Centers (13)
• Substance Abuse Centers (6)
• Youth Services (6)
• Most Common Barriers to Effective Implementation
  
• Mixed-language groups
• Families attending with children extending beyond
  the programs targeted ages

Summary and Conclusions

• General attitudes and beliefs about prevention
  programming, as well as perceptions of individual
  competence, are significantly related to adoption
  of a model program. Systems-level intervention
  to increase 1) awareness of need and 2) abilities
  to identify best practice programs should
  increase adoption and implementation rates.
• Presence of CES staff and faculty trained in
  the model program significantly increased
  likelihood of program implementation in a county.
  CES can serve as an effective delivery system
  for prevention programs.

• Most people who attended training did not go on
  to conduct programs.
• Trainers should encourage people to attend in
  teams and to formulate specific action plans for
  implementation before leaving the training.
• Training that includes sample budgets (with
  suggestions for in-kind donations) and strategies
  for obtaining funding may also increase
  implementation rates

Selected References
Contact Information Laura Griner Hill PO Box
6246 Department of Human Development Washington
State University Pullman WA 99164 laurahill_at_wsu.ed
u
Molgaard, V.K. (1997). The extension service as
key mechanism for research and services
delivery for prevention of mental health
disorders in rural areas. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 25,515-544. Rogers, E.
(1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York
Free Press. Spoth, R., Redmond, C. Shin, C.
(2001). Randomized trial of brief family
interventions for general populations Adolescent
substance use outcomes four years following
baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 69(4), 627-642.