1. 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 Procedure Adoption study Mail surveys were sent to all 4H and Family Living faculty and staff, as well as to county chairs. All participants received a SASE and $2 token of appreciation with the survey. Responses were confidential. Dissemination & Implementation study Records of trainings were examined. Mail surveys were sent to all past trainees for whom we had contact information. Additional information on training and program implementation is being collected prospectively in an ongoing effort to track SFP 10-14 in Washington. Background 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. 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 program’s targeted ages Diffusion of a Model Program: A Case Study from Washington State Results Summary and Conclusions Method Selected References Laura Griner Hill, Rayna A. Sage, Drew L. Betz, Christian Koehler, & Louise A. Parker 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 <.001) Hypotheses & Research Questions Dissemination 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 <.05) to adoption of SFP. 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 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. 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? 39 programs tracked in 11 (28%) counties 261 families served; 213 families “graduated” (82% retention rate) Contact Information Laura Griner Hill PO Box 6246 Department of Human Development Washington State University Pullman WA 99164 laurahill@wsu.edu 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