Evidence-based programs will be useful to the extent they produce benefits to individuals on a socially significant scale. It appears the combination of effective programs and effective implementation methods is required to assure consistent uses of programs and reliable benefits to children and families. To date, focus has been placed primarily on generating evidence and determining degrees of rigor required to qualify practices and programs as “evidence-based.” To be useful to society, the focus needs to shift to defining “programs” and to developing state-level infrastructures for statewide implementation of evidence-based programs and other innovations in human services. In this article, the authors explicate a framework for accomplishing these goals and discuss examples of the framework in use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AladjemD. K., & BormanK. M. (Eds.). (2006). Examining comprehensive school reform.Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
2.
AshbyW. R. (1962). Principles of the self-organizing system. In FoersterH. V. & ZopfJ. G. W. (Eds.), Principles of self organization: Transactions of the University of Illinois symposium (pp. 255–278). London, England: Pergamon Press.
3.
BalasE. A., & BorenS. A. (2000). Managing clinical knowledge for health care improvement. In BemmelJ. & McCrayA. T. (Eds.), Yearbook of medical informatics 2000: Patient-centered systems. (pp. 65–70). Stuttgart, Germany: Schattauer Verlagsgesellschaft.
BarberM., & FullanM. (2005). Tri-level development: Putting systems thinking into action. Education Weekly, 24(25), 34–35.
6.
BeerM., EisenstatR. A., & SpectorB. (1990). Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158–166.
7.
BlaseK. A., FixsenD. L., NaoomS. F., & WallaceF. (2005). Operationalizing implementation: Strategies and methods.Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute.
8.
BryceJ., GilroyK., JonesG., HazelE., BlackR. E., & VictoraC. G. (2010). The accelerated child survival and development programme in West Africa: A retrospective evaluation. The Lancet, 375(9714), 572–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62060-2
9.
Chapin Hall Center for Children. (2002). Evaluation of family preservation and reunification programs.Chicago, IL: Author.
10.
ClancyC. (2006). The $1.6 trillion question: If we're spending so much on healthcare, why so little improvement in quality?Medscape General Medicine, 8(2), 58.
11.
DaneA. V., & SchneiderB. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3
12.
DobsonL., & CookT. (1980). Avoiding type III error in program evaluation: Results from a field experiment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, 269–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(80)90042-7
13.
DurlakJ. A., & DuPreE. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
14.
FixsenA. A. M. (2009). Scaling up educational programs: Barriers and facilitators from the perspective of state leaders.Portland, OR: School of Social Work, Portland State University.
15.
FixsenD., & BlaseK. (2009). Scaling up innovation[Webinar]. Chapel Hill, NC: SISEP Center.
16.
FixsenD. L., BlaseK., DudaM., NaoomS., & Van DykeM. (2010). Implementation of evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: Research findings and their implications for the future. In WeiszJ. & KazdinA. (Eds.), Implementation and dissemination: Extending treatments to new populations and new settings (2nd ed., pp. 435–450). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17.
FixsenD. L., BlaseK. A., NaoomS. F., & WallaceF. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 531–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731509335549
18.
FixsenD. L., BlaseK. A., TimbersG. D., & WolfM. M. (2001). In search of program implementation: 792 replications of the teaching-family model. In BernfeldG. A., D. P. Farrington & LeschiedA. W. (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 149–166). London, England: Wiley.
19.
FixsenD. L., NaoomS. F., BlaseK. A., FriedmanR. M., & WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network.
20.
FoxJ., & GershmanJ. (2000). The world bank and social capital: Lessons from ten rural development projects in the Philippines and Mexico. Policy Sciences, 33, 399–419. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1023/A:1004897409300
21.
GlennanT. K.Jr., BodillyS. J., GalegherJ. R., & KerrK. A. (2004). Expanding the reach of education reforms.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
22.
GreenT. (1980). Predicting the behavior of the educational system.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
23.
GreenhalghT., RobertG., MacFarlaneF., BateP., & KyriakidouO. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581–629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x
HallG. E., & HordS. M. (2011). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
HigginsM., WeinerJ., & YoungL. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1773
27.
HissR. G. (2004). Translational research—Two phases of a continuum. In National Institutes for Health and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Ed.), From clinical trials to community: The science of translating diabetes and obesity research (pp. 11–14). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
28.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2006).
JeraldC. (2005, August). The implementation trap: Helping schools overcome barriers to change (Policy Brief). Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
31.
KhatriG. R., & FriedenT. R. (2002). Rapid DOTS expansion in India. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80, 457–463.
32.
KleinJ. A. (2004). True change: How outsiders on the inside get things done in organizations.New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
33.
KutnerM., GreenbergE., JinY., BoyleB., HsuY., & DunleavyE. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
34.
MannaP. (2008, November). Federal aid to elementary and secondary education: Premises, effects, and major lessons learned. Commissioned paper for the Center on Education Policy's Project to Rethink the Federal Role in Elementary and Secondary Education. Available: http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=332
35.
MarzanoR., WatersT., & McNultyB. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
OnyettS., ReesA., BorrillC., ShapiroD., & BoldisonS. (2009). The evaluation of a local whole systems intervention for improved team working and leadership in mental health services. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), 1018.
40.
ProchaskaJ. M., ProchaskaJ. O., & LevesqueD. A. (2001). A transtheoretical approach to changing organizations. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 28, 247–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011155212811
41.
PutnamR. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
RittelH. W. J., & WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
43.
RosenheckR., NealeM., LeafP., MilsteinR., & FrismanL. (1995). Multisite experimental cost study of intensive psychiatric community care. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21, 129–140.
44.
SchoenwaldS. K. (2010). From policy pinball to purposeful partnership: The policy contexts of MST transport and dissemination. In WeiszJ. & KazdinA. (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 538–553). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
45.
SchofieldJ. (2004). A model of learned implementation. Public Administration, 82, 283–308.
46.
ScottC. (2008, September). A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the no child left behind act in five states.Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=175
47.
UlrichW. M. (2002). Legacy systems: Transformation strategies.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
VernezG., KaramR., MarianoL. T., & DeMartiniC. (2006). Evaluating comprehensive school reform models at scale: Focus on implementation.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
50.
WallaceF., BlaseK., FixsenD., & NaoomS. (2008). Implementing the findings of research: Bridging the gap between knowledge and practice.Washington, DC: Education Research Service.
51.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (1998). Watching the bottom line: Cost-effective interventions for reducing crime in Washington.Olympia, WA: Author.
52.
WeissI. R., KnappM. S., HollwegK. S., & BurrillG. (Eds.). (2002). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
53.
WensingM., WollersheimH., & GrolR. (2006). Organizational interventions to implement improvements in patient care: A structured review of reviews. Implementation Science, 1(1), 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1–2
