1. Participants  n = 77 trainees  Mean Age (SD) = 42 years (11.7)  72% European American, 22% Latino/a, 6% Other  21% Male, 79% Female  Attended one of 6 standardized Strengthening Families Program trainings with 7 different trainers (all associated with WSU Extension) during 2005  15 (20%) of trainees were no longer at their original agencies and we were unable to contact them Procedure  Facilitators completed surveys on the last day of training.  Follow-up interviews were conducted approximately six months after facilitators completed the training. Measures  The survey completed on the last day of the training included questions about  demographic information  beliefs about the program  confidence and enthusiasm  perceived community need for program  future plans to implement the program.  At the 6-month follow up interview facilitators were asked whether they had implemented a program since training. Background  Numerous individuals complete trainings to become facilitators of research-based prevention programs, yet many do not implement programs after training  Agencies that sponsor trainings support attendance with the expectation that trainees will implement programs  Funding is limited, so maximizing the likelihood that trainees will implement knowledge gained from training is important.  In order for agencies to improve efficiency, program trainings should  Target people who are most likely to implement the program upon completion of the training  Incorporate training techniques to make implementation easier Research on Training and Implementation  Several characteristics influence both training motivation and training effectiveness:  higher cognitive ability  learning orientation  confidence  perception of training as relevant and useful  Interviews with Strengthening Families Program (10- 14) trainees in Washington indicated that practical factors (including having a plan to implement) were also important factors (Hill et al., 2003) Determinants of Program Delivery after Standardized Training for an Evidence-Based Program ResultsMethod Selected References Brianne K. Hood and Laura G. Hill Hypotheses  Individuals who attend a training with one or more people from their area are more likely to have implemented the program 6 months after training  Individuals who have a specific plan to implement after training (e.g., program location and funding sources identified) are more likely to implement the program.  Practical factors will be as important or more important than motivational factors in predicting program implementation Contact Information Laura G. Hill Department of Human Development Washington State University PO Box 66452 Pullman, WA 99164 laurahill@wsu.edu Colquitt, J.A., Lepine, J. A., Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707. Hill, L.G., Sage, R., Betz, D., Koehler, C. & Parker, L. (2003, June). Implementation of a model program: A case study from Washington State. Poster session presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, "Research to Policy," Washington, DC, 2003. Krager, K. McLinden, D., & Casper, W.J. (2004). Collaborative planning for training impact. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 337-351. Mathieu, J. E. & Martineau, J. (1997). Individual and situational influences on training motivation. In J.K. Ford (Ed.).Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations, pp. 193 -223. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Factors associated with program implementation Conclusions  These data suggest that agencies should carefully select the individuals they pay to become trained – enthusiastic, confident facilitators who perceive a need for program will be more likely to implement  Agencies should set detailed plans for future programs before sending individuals to be trained  Although more expensive, it may be more cost effective to send a full implementation team to train 6 months after training  Of the 62 trainees (80%) we were able to contact, 35 (56%) had implemented a program within 6 months of training  Practical factors were as important or more important than motivation  A plan to implement program  Attending with a team  Demographic factors were not associated with program implementation MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS PRACTICAL FACTORS  Having a START DATE planned was the single most important difference between implementers v non- implementers  The total number of specific plans (e.g. budget, location, start date) was significantly correlated with program implementation (r =.32, p <.05) SPECIFICS OF PLANS TO IMPLEMENT Acknowledgments  This research was supported by NIDA grant 19758-01  Our thanks to WSU Extension trainers and trainees who took time to help with surveys and interviews