Transcript Ain’t No Mountain High Enough

Ain’t No Mountain High
Enough
Climbing the Peaks of Program
Excellence
Facilitators:
Christina Borbely
Kerrilyn Scott-Nakai
Produced and Conducted by the Center for Applied Research Solutions, Inc. for the
California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
SDFSC Workshop-by-Request
March 22, 2006 Ventura County
Authored by Christina J. Borbely, Ph.D.
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Technical Assistance Project
Trail Map
• Why Are We Doing This
– Value
– Opportunities
• Opportunity for Recognition
• Advanced Program Essentials
– Program Essentials
– Key Considerations
• Advancing Program Through Evaluation
– Methodology: Design & Instrumentation
– Data Plan & Analysis
– Reporting
Why Are We Doing This?
• The Value of Advancing Programs
• Opportunities for Advancing Programs
Value
• Replicating innovative strategies
– Fill in gaps
– Integrate latest science and/or practice
• Making contribution through dissemination
– Participate in science-service dialog
– Advance the field
– Provide effective program to others
Opportunities
• Expansion
– Demonstrate need/value of new or additional
funding
– Bolster capacity to sustain programming
• Recognition
– Validation from field
– Potential for supplemental support/resources
– Publications
Opportunity for Recognition
Validation from the Prevention Field:
• Service to Science
• NREPP
• Exemplary Programs
National Registry of Effective
Prevention Programs (NREPP)
NREPP is coordinated by the Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention (CSAP) under the federal Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
NREPP is:
“a system designed to support informed decision making
and to disseminate timely and reliable information about
interventions that prevent and/or treat mental and
substance use disorders.”
http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/template.cfm?page=nre
ppover
Original NREPP Designations
• A program will be considered “Model” if the NREPP review team
appointed your program as an effective program, and an agency
agrees to participate in CSAP’s dissemination efforts. Model
programs also provide training and technical assistance to
practitioners who wish to adopt a program in order to ensure that the
program is implemented with fidelity.
• A program is considered “Effective” if it is science-based, and
produces consistently positive patterns of results. Only programs
positively effecting the majority of intended recipients or targets are
considered effective.
• A program will be considered “Promising” if it provides useful and
scientifically defensible information about what works in prevention,
but has yet to gather sufficient scientific support to standards set for
effective/model programs. Promising programs are sources of
guidance for prevention practitioners, although they may not be as
prepared as Model programs for large-scale dissemination.
Evidence-Based Programs
●Conceptually Sound and Internally Consistent
●Program Activities Related to Conceptualization
●Reasonably Well Implemented & Evaluated
Promising Programs
●Some Positive Outcomes
Effective Programs
•Consistently Positive Outcomes
●Strongly Implemented & Evaluated
Model Programs
●Available for Dissemination
●Technical Assistance Available
from Program Developers
NEW NREPP: Eligibility Criteria
• Open submission; review based on alignment of
intervention with NREPP priorities
• SAMHSA's three Centers -- the Center for Mental Health
Services, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention,
and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment -- will
establish priorities for the types of interventions to be
reviewed and highlighted on NREPP.
• Priorities will be established and provided to the public
annually through notices on the NREPP Web site.
• These priorities based on dialogues with treatment and
prevention stakeholders as well as with SAMHSA's
Federal partners
NEW NREPP: Review Criteria
“the sole requirement for potential inclusion
in the NREPP review process is for an
intervention to have demonstrated one or
more significant behavioral change
outcomes.”
NEW NREPP: Review Process
• A trained Ph.D.-level evaluation specialist works with
applicants to assure that adequate materials have been
submitted before initiating an NREPP review.
• The evaluation specialist serves as collaborator in the
application process and liaison to the reviewers.
• A scientific review of the intervention is conducted by two
independent Ph.D.-level reviewers.
• Completed review summaries, including descriptive
components, reviewer ratings, and explanations are
provided to the applicant for approval before they are
posted on the NREPP Web site.
NEW NREPP: Application Process
Application materials include one or more of the
following types of documents:
• formal evaluation reports,
• published and unpublished research articles,
• narrative sections of grant applications,
• training materials, and
• implementation or procedural manuals.
• concise summary of the intervention that
includes the intervention name, a description of
its main components, the population(s) targeted,
and the behavioral outcomes targeted.
The Exemplary Program Awards
• The Exemplary Program Award is designated by CSAP
• The Exemplary Awards program recognizes prevention
programs in two tracks: Promising Programs—those that
have positive initial results but have yet to verify
outcomes scientifically, and Model Programs—those that
are implemented under scientifically rigorous conditions
and demonstrate consistently positive results.
• The Exemplary Awards recognize prevention programs
that are innovative and effective and that successfully
respond to the needs of their target populations, both as
Promising Programs and Model Programs.
Exemplary Program Award:
Review Process
• A multifaceted procedure is used identify and select Promising
Programs to receive an Exemplary Substance Abuse Prevention
Program Award annually. All nominated programs submit to a threelevel review process.
• First, state agency personnel and national organizations submit their
formal nominations.
• Applications are then reviewed by experts in the field of substance
abuse prevention and former Exemplary Substance Abuse
Prevention Program Award winners.
• Finally, the National Review Committee reviews and scores the top
applications according to eight criteria and recommends those that
merit an Exemplary Substance Abuse Prevention Program Award.
Final selections are made jointly by NASADAD, CADCA, and
SAMHSA/CSAP.
Exemplary Program Award
Application Process
• Applications for the Innovative Programs may be obtained
from State Alcohol and Drug Agencies, the NASADAD/NPN
Web page (www.nasadad.org) and office.
• Applicants must submit their application to their national
nominating organization (see application appendix) for sign-off.
Applicants should then return the original signed, completed
application (including cover sheet) and three copies to the
NASADAD/NPN central office in Washington, D.C. For more
information about the application process, call or write:
NASADAD/NPN
808 17th Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Attention: Exemplary Programs
Web page: www.nasadad.org
E-mail: [email protected]
(202) 293-0090, Fax (202) 293-1250
Exemplary Program Award
8 Review Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Philosophy
Background and need (program planning)
Goals and objectives
Population(s) to be served
Activities and strategies
Community coordination
Evaluation
Program management
Service to Science
• Service to Science is a national initiative
supported by SAMHSA/CSAP to enhance
the evaluation capacity of innovative
programs and practices that address
critical substance abuse prevention or
mental health needs.
http://captus.samhsa.gov/northeast/special_
projects/service_to_science/main.cfm
Service to Science Academy
• Designed to enhance capability of communitybased prevention strategies, programs or
practices that demonstrate effectiveness.
• Each Academy is customized to support the
needs of the groups/organizations and programs
accepted to attend,
• Emphasis on the development of a strong
evaluation and/or research design.
• Participants receive training and technical
assistance helping them move along the
evidence-based continuum
Service to Science Academy:
Eligibility Criteria
1. Primarily focused on ATOD prevention, but may also
address the prevention of violence, HIV/AIDS, STDs,
etc. Expected outcomes or areas of focus include, but
are not limited to, efforts to decrease high-risk behaviors
by children or adults; eliminate use of illicit drugs; reduce
underage use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, and
decrease DUI/DWI rates.
2. Nominated for recognition by a State Alcohol and Drug
Agency, by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of
America (CADCA), or by other national organizations or
their affiliates.
3. Able to document and demonstrate success in the form
of quantifiable outcome data.
4. In operation for a minimum of two (2) years.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Service to Science Academy:
Review Criteria
Philosophy
Needs Assessment
Population Served
Goals & Objectives
Activities & Strategies
Evaluation
Program Management
Community Coordination
Service to Science Academy:
Application Process
• The application to attend a Service to
Science Academy is a modified National
Association of State Alcohol & Substance
Abuse Directors (NASADAD) application
for Innovative/Exemplary Programs.
• Applications are reviewed by a panel who
makes recommendations for acceptance
to the Academy.
Live it!
Application Criteria as
Program Practice
• SDFSC Santa Cruz County: Service to Science Academy
Santa Cruz County submitted an application and was awarded a program slot
with the current cohort for the Service to Science Academy. The Santa Cruz
team will receive a series of trainings and technical assistance to assist them
in moving their program towards being recognized as a model or promising
program.
• SDFSC Butte County: NPN Exemplary Program Award
Butte County submitted 3 of their prevention programs for review: Friday Night
Live Mentoring, Friday Night Live, and Youth Nexus. Two of these programs
are being recognized nationally, with only 6 programs receiving this national
recognition by the National Prevention Network Research.
• Andrea Taylor, Ph.D.: NREPP Model Program Status
Andrea Taylor evolved a local program, Across Ages, an
intergenerational mentoring program that promotes positive youth
development and helps prevent school failure, substance abuse and
teen pregnancies into to an NREPP Model Program that is
implemented nation-wide. The process spanned 1991-1998.
Advanced Program Essentials
Put Your Finger On It…
•
•
•
•
•
Logic Model
Core Components
Documented Need and Value
Defining Population
Defining Need for Service within the
Community
Logic Model
“ A logic model is a systematic and visual
way to present and share your
understanding of the relationships among
the resources you have to operate your
program, the activities you plan, and the
changes or results you hope to achieve.”
(W.K. Kellogg, Logic Model Development
Guide, 2004)
Value of a Logic Model
A Picture is Worth a 1000 Words
• Builds understanding about what the
program is, what it’s expected to do and
what measures of success will be used.
• Provides a research-based theory behind
your strategies
• Promotes communication and a common
understanding amongst staff and funders
Core Program Components
What are the “active ingredients” in the
formula for program success?
• In theory, core components must be
implemented precisely as intended in
order to achieve demonstrated outcomes.
• Core components cannot be adapted.
Define Core Components
Core components might be:
• program structure (e.g. the sequence of
sessions or context of delivery),
• program content (e.g. specific concepts or
skill sets), or
• method of delivery (e.g. “homework”
assignments, classroom infusion, or youthled group activities).
Define Population
• Institute of Medicine (IOM) Classifications
Universal preventive interventions are activities
targeted to the general public or a whole population
group that has not been identified on the basis of
individual risk.
Selective preventive interventions are activities
targeted to individuals or a subgroup of the population
whose risk of developing a disorder is significantly
higher than average.
Indicated preventive interventions are activities
targeted to individuals in high-risk environments,
identified as having minimal but detectable signs or
symptoms foreshadowing disorder or having biological
markers indicating predisposition for disorder but not yet
meeting diagnostic levels.
Defining Need for Service
– Integrating key stakeholders in process
• Bonus points for youth
• Representative of community
Strategic Prevention Framework
Assessment
Planning
Assemble data
collection review
team, define
substance abuse
problem
Implementation Evaluation
Report
immediate &
intermediate
outcomes
Determine domain(s)
of concentration and
Examine
Outline
prioritize risk and
Develop logic
internal
process
protective factors
Identify and define resources,
models for overall evaluation
target population for
program,
skills,
from action
Examine
reduction/prevention readiness
components
plans
program/intervention
options
Identify risk and
Develop action Assess longBuild
protective factors collaboration
plans for
term
Address
cultural
documentation
through
outcomes/
relevancy
general
Develop tentative teaming and
networking
impact
Document,
theory of, or
pathway to, change
Explore
review, improve
quality
fidelity/adaptation
Examine
Communicate
balance
outcomes to
Identify existing community
resources
key
Revisit fidelity
prevention
and
stakeholders
Select "best-fit"
and
resources that
adaptation issues to build
program/
target problem & readiness:
external
support
as necessary
risk/protective
intervention
capacity
factors
– Strategic Prevention Framework
• Needs/Resource Assessment
• Strategic Planning
• Evidence-based Implementation
Capacity
Choose to innovate
Perform gap
analysis of needs
and resources
Re-measure
outcomes &
supplement
final report if
necessary
Key Considerations
Advancing Programming
• What’s the yardstick?
• How do I measure up?
• Where do I want to go from here?
Considerations: Participation
• Recruitment
– Are we meeting target #s consistently?
– Are we using strategic recruitment methods?
• Retention:
– Do we have sufficient completion rates?
– Have we defined a program graduate/drop-out?
– What do we do to encourage retention?
Considerations: Fidelity
• Fidelity
– To what degree are we consistently
implementing core components? Is this
sufficient?
– What system do we use to reflect on areas of
challenge? How does that inform our
process?
– What method do we use to monitor
implementation across sites? Are we vigilant
enough? Does feedback get incorporated?
Considerations: Innovation
• Degree to which program is novel, cutting edge,
innovative.
– How is this different than what’s already available?
– What aspects of the program are unique?
• Grounded but Innovative: program alignment
with already-proven models of service
– What proven methods are incorporated in what we
do?
– Did we take an evidence-based strategy to the “next
level” or use it in a novel way?
Considerations: Population
• How culturally appropriate are services
to identified population?
– Program content
– Program materials (e.g. translation)
– Staff (training and protocol)
– Tested across ethnic/cultural groups
– Link to evidence-based strategies
demonstrated with specific populations
Considerations: Marketing
• Have materials/curriculum been
“packaged”
– Sequencing
– Branding
– Training protocol tested and
established/documented
Considerations: Replication
• Protocol
– Program curriculum
– Training process
– Evaluation
• Packaged program materials
– Curriculum
– Evaluation
• Strategic replication
– Varied populations
– Varied context
Advancing Programs through
Evaluation
•
•
•
•
Rigor
Methodology
Data Plan & Analysis
Reporting
Increasing Evaluation Rigor
Across the Board
Methodology/Design
Instrumentation to Analysis
Reporting
Tips for Optimal Evaluation Rigor
• Use external evaluator to lend credibility
– Especially valuable for publishing findings
• Conduct evaluation of replication sites
– Evidence of impact in varied settings; populations
• Evaluate program effect and sustainability of
effect
– Pre/post demonstrates immediate effects
– Follow up (longitudinal) proves how those effects are
sustained.
Advancing Methodology
• Process & Outcome
• Evaluation Design
• Tips for Optimal Design
Role of Process and Outcome Methods
Process
•
Allows for continuous
learning about how the
program is working as it is
implemented
•
Focuses on clearly
describing and assessing
program design and
implementation.
•
Makes it possible to answer
questions concerning “why”
and “how” programs operate
the way they do and what
can be done to improve
them.
Outcome
•
The outcome evaluation
focuses on producing clear
evidence concerning the
degree of program impact on
program participants.
•
Assesses the immediate or
direct effects of program
activities (as compared to
long-term impact).
Level of Rigor:
Outcome Evaluation Design
Pre and Post with Control
(Random Assignment)
Pre and Post with Comparison
Pre and Post with Follow-Up
Pre and Post Only
Post-Test Only—Hindsight Comparison
NREPP Source of Evidence Hierarchy
Tip for Optimal Design:
Matched Data
Making a Match
– Requires tracking of individuals
– Allows for analysis of individual-level impact,
not just aggregate level
– Can control for “dosage” or other factors
Tip for Optimal Design:
Longitudinal Data
Looking at the long run…
The majority of programs use a pre/post
assessment schedule.
– The utilization of follow-up points is
recommended based on length of program
• Consider a follow up point at 1, 3, 6, 9, or 12
months after completion.
• Programs with continuous enrollment vs. cohorts of
youth need
– strong tracking systems
– Continuous evaluation schedule (e.g. every 3 or 6
months)
Tip for Optimal Design:
Comparison Groups
Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day…
Comparison groups can sometimes be fairly
easy to develop
• School data
• Low dosage service groups can sometimes
be utilized—make the distinction between
program drop-out versus evaluation drop-out
• Use standardized measures and compare
program groups to school, district, state
results.
Tip for Optimal Design:
Control Groups
Control freak!
– Controls groups require resources and may
deter participants due to randomization.
• The trick is in the approach and the ability to
provide services at a later date.
Advancing Instrumentation
• Standardized v. Locally Developed
• Tips for Optimal Instrumentation
Survey Options
Pros
• Already developed, lots of
choices.
• Psychometrics established
• Allows for comparison of
results—national, state,
district levels
• Scoring and analysis
sometimes available
Cons
• Cost
• May not be specific to your
population
• May not capture novel
aspects of program
Pros
• Can tap into novel program
aspects/impact
• Can be tailored to
population
• No cost
Cons
• Don’t know reliability/validity
• Doesn’t allow for
comparison
Tip for Optimal Instrumentation
• Next level of locally developed measures
– “performance measure”/psychometrics of
instruments
• reliability & validity (done by your evaluator)
• Track at individual level
– Confidential Ids
– Develop comprehensive database
Advancing Data Management &
Processing
• Data Plan
• Sample Size
• Data Analysis
Data Plan
• Develop plan for analyzing data based on
proposed outcomes (logic model)
– What questions to ask of the data?
– What piece of the data answers each
question?
– Potential sub-group comparisons
(e.g. by gender, dosage, site)
Tips for Optimal Data Plan
• Specify cutoff points for baseline
assessment (Defined for program)
e.g. Baseline assessments are defined as those
completed prior to session 2 of the curriculum.
• Define completers vs. dropouts
e.g. Parents attending 85% of sessions are defined as
program “completers”; less than 10% are defined as
“dropouts”.
• Ensure matched pre/post
– Individual vs. aggregate level findings
Planning a Sample Size
How Much Wood should a Woodchuck Chuck?
• Sample size (N): refers to population
participating or being measured (e.g. # of
participants; # of sites)
• Power: Probability of finding a true effect
– Type I error: state a finding when there isn’t one (a false positive)
– Type II error: state no finding when there is one (a false
negative)
• Sample size & Power
– Influences types and sensitivity of analysis
– Larger sample size increases power
Tips for Optimal Data Plan:
Strategic Sample Size
• Calculate necessary sample size for
appropriate statistical power
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
http://www.macorr.com/ss_calculator.htm
• Resource limitations: consider using a
strategic sub-sample
Data Analysis:
Beyond Percentage Reporting
• Means with standard deviation
– SD reflects the variability of values
• Tests of significance (comparative analysis)
– Correlations
As participation level increases, attendance rate
significantly increases.
– Chi square analysis
Youth demonstrated statistically significant
improvements in communication skills over time.
Tips for Optimal Data Analysis:
Techniques & Strategies
• Leverage variability in data/dosage to
program advantage
e.g. Youth who completed the program were more likely
to have negative attitudes toward use than youth who
did not complete the program.
• Identify potential comparison data sets
(e.g. school records)
e.g. School records show that participating youth had
significantly fewer discipline referrals than the general
student population.
Advancing Reporting Methods
• Venues for Dissemination
• Cater to the Crowd
• Tips for Optimal Reporting
Where to Disseminate
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Evaluation Reports
Summary Reports
Applications
Grants
Press Release
Professional Publications
Academic/research Publications
Cater to the Crowd
– What information is relevant to your audience?
• Note preferred models/frameworks, rhetoric
• Highlight information that is of value to them
– To what extent is detail or brevity important to your
audience?
– Are pieces of program information weighted
differently (e.g. a reviewer point system)
– Work with your evaluator in developing a brief
findings report as well as a full evaluation report
Tips for Optimal Reporting:
Frame It
• The evaluator is responsible for providing the
full and objective picture
• Program Director may choose to highlight the
most positive findings when reporting to
funders or stakeholders—if appropriate
• Wording can make a difference! The same
findings can be written in a variety of ways—
be conscious of the wording.
Tips for Optimizing Reporting:
The Message
• Say It In Pictures
– The appropriate use of charts and graphs can be
a powerful tool in conveying findings.
• Bring It Home
– The use of personal quotes and case examples
can be powerful when they are used to
supplement key quantitative findings.
– Personal experiences make the impact real to the
reader
– However, when misused they can make the
evaluation seem less credible
Climbing the Mountain: What’s
Your Next Step?
• Action Planning Exercise
– Defining short-term, intermediate, and longterm goals (e.g. 1 yr, 3yr, and 5 yr goals)
• Programmatic Goals
• Evaluation Goals
• Opportunity Goals
– How can we support you in your climb to the
top?
• Customized TA and Training plans