U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator July 2004

Of fice of Justice Pr ograms • Par tnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Successful Program 

Implementation: Lessons 

From Blueprints 

Sharon Mihalic, Katherine Irwin, Abigail Fagan, 

Diane Ballard, and Delbert Elliott 

The Blueprints for Violence Prevention 

initiative, developed by the Center for the 

Study and Prevention of Violence at the 

University of Colorado–Boulder and supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, is a leader in 

identifying effective violence prevention 

and drug prevention programs that have 

been evaluated in rigorous, controlled trials. However, the identification of such 

programs is only the first step. Once an 

effective program has been identified, practitioners are faced with the challenge of 

implementing it properly. A sound program 

will not produce the desired results if it is 

implemented poorly. 

Programs are often thought of as a uniform 

set of elements that are provided to clients 

in a consistent manner; however, in fact, 

great variability exists in the manner in 

which programs are delivered. For example, the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program found that programs were not 

implemented with the same attention to 

core components and dosage as found in 

the research models (Silvia and Thorne, 

1997). Furthermore, based on evidence 

that schools were meeting only about half 

of the indicators of program quality or 

quantity needed to effect behavior change, 

the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools concluded that the quality 

of school prevention activities is generally 

poor, and prevention activities are not being implemented with sufficient strength 

and fidelity to produce a measurable difference in the desired outcomes (Gottfredson, 

Gottfredson, and Czeh, 2000). 

As science-based programs become more 

readily available to practitioners, the need 

for identifying and overcoming problems 

associated with the process of implementation becomes critical. A major goal of 

the Blueprints initiative has been to enhance the understanding of program implementation by studying the factors that 

hinder the successful implementation of 

programs. This was accomplished by conducting process evaluations at each of the 

Blueprints replication sites. 

Blueprints Process 

Evaluation 

The Blueprints process evaluation had 

two major goals: 

◆ Monitor the implementation process 

to identify and help resolve problems, 

provide feedback to sites, and ensure 

that programs were implemented with 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

measure common implementation 

on the quality of implementation of 

presents the results of this process 

A Message From OJJDP 

Over the past several years, federal, 

state, and local agencies have become increasingly concerned that 

the programs they support should 

demonstrate positive effects. Many 

federal agencies have supported the 

effort to evaluate and replicate programs showing positive or promising 

results. Through a national effort to 

understand what works and outline a 

series of best practices, legislators, 

researchers, and practitioners have 

produced several lists of effective 

programs. Among these efforts is 

OJJDP’s Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention Initiative, developed by 

the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of 

Colorado–Boulder. 

Discovering what works, however, 

does not solve the problem of program effectiveness. Once models and 

best practices are identified, practitioners are faced with the challenge 

of implementing programs properly. 

A poorly implemented program can 

lead to failure as easily as a poorly 

designed one. 

In recognition of this fact, OJJDP 

sponsored a process evaluation of the 

Blueprints programs to systematically 

barriers experienced across a variety 

of contexts and programs. Focusing 

nine different programs, the Blueprints team closely monitored and 

evaluated the quality of implementation across 147 sites. This Bulletin 

evaluation, identifying critical components of program implementation. 
fidelity to their original intent and 

design. 

◆ Gather and disseminate information 

regarding factors that enhance the 

quality and fidelity of implementation. 

conditions necessary for effective and organization, qualified staff, program 

sustained program implementation. champion(s), program integration, 

The following sections describe the criti- training and technical assistance, and 

cal components of successful program implementation fidelity. 

implementation: site assessment, effective 

The process evaluation focused on 9 programs (8 violence prevention programs 

and 1 drug prevention program) in 147 

sites. The Blueprints team used several 

methods to evaluate implementation 

quality. A series of questionnaires were 

constructed to measure how well and to 

what extent agencies had accomplished 

key program elements such as 

◆ Securing funds and resources. 

◆ Serving the targeted population. 

◆ Establishing links with other agencies. 

◆ Hiring and training staff. 

◆ Completing core and critical program 

elements. 

◆ Providing the recommended dosage 

and duration of treatment. 

Whereas a set of common questions was 

asked across the eight programs involved 

in the violence prevention initiative, an 

additional series of questions was developed to measure the quality of implementation and technical assistance within 

each program. Blueprints field representatives administered these questionnaires 

once every 4 months for 2 years. In the 

drug prevention initiative, questionnaires 

were administered once a year over the 

3-year implementation period. This difference in procedure was necessary because 

of the brevity of the Life Skills Training 

(LST) program (15 sessions in the first 

year, which could be implemented 1 to 5 

times a week), an element of the drug prevention initiative. During LST implementation, local observers, hired by Blueprints, 

monitored teacher adherence to the program during unannounced visits to each 

teacher’s classroom to observe lessons 

and complete a checklist of the major 

objectives covered. The observer made 

four visits in year 1, three visits in year 2, 

and two visits in year 3. To identify and 

describe implementation barriers, the 

Blueprints team developed a series of 

qualitative questions for site coordinators, 

administrators, and teachers. Teachers 

also completed written questionnaires 

after they had taught the program. 

With this systematic research design, and 

using site visits, phone interviews, and 

qualitative and quantitative information 

provided by the sites, the Blueprints team 

About the Blueprints Initiative 

◆ 

◆ 

❖ 

❖ 

❖ 

quality and fidelity of implementation. 

◆ 

❖ 

❖ 

❖ 

❖ 

❖ 

❖ 

❖ 

❖ 1 

◆ 

1 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention began at the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) as an initiative of the State of Colorado, with funding from 

the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The 

project was originally conceived as an effort to identify model violence prevention 

programs and implement them within Colorado. Soon after the creation of Blueprints, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) became 

an active supporter of the project and provided funding to CSPV to sponsor program replications in sites across the United States. As a result, Blueprints evolved 

into a large-scale prevention initiative. 

The Blueprints for Violence Prevention initiative has two overarching goals: 

Identify effective, research-based programs. 

Replicate these effective programs through a national dissemination project 

sponsored by OJJDP designed to 

Provide training and technical assistance (through the program designers) 

to transfer the requisite knowledge and skills to implement these programs 

to sites nationwide. 

Monitor the implementation process to troubleshoot problems, provide feedback to sites, and ensure that programs are implemented with fidelity to 

their original intent and design. 

Gather and disseminate information regarding factors that enhance the 

OJJDP sponsors two Blueprints replication initiatives: 

Violence prevention. The Blueprints violence prevention initiative successfully 

delivered training and technical assistance for 2 years to 42 sites replicating 8 

of the Blueprints model programs. 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) 

Bullying Prevention Program 

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) 

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) 

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) 

Nurse-Family Partnership 

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) 

Quantum Opportunities Program

Drug prevention. The Blueprints drug prevention initiative provides program 

materials, training, and technical assistance for 3 years to 105 sites (representing more than 400 schools) implementing the Life Skills Training program. 

While the designers of each program provide expert training and technical assistance to sites, Blueprints staff monitor the quality of replication by conducting a 

detailed and comprehensive process evaluation at each site. 

The Quantum Opportunities Program is no longer a Blueprints model program. 

discovered and validated a number of 

2 
1 

◆ 

◆ 

◆ 

1 

Identifying Effective Programs 

Identifying effective programs has been at the forefront of the 

national agenda on violence prevention for the last decade. 

Federal funding agencies have increasingly emphasized the 

need to implement programs that have been demonstrated 

effective. The focus on research-based practices has stimulated communities to search for the best practices and to 

determine what types of programs would be most effective 

and appropriate for their local problems and population. 

In recent years, various governmental agencies, and some 

private organizations, have produced lists of programs that 

demonstrate at least some evidence of positive effects on 

violence/aggression, delinquency, substance abuse, and their 

related risk and protective factors. Taken as a whole, this 

work has resulted in a large repertoire of research-based 

programs from which the practitioner community may choose. 

Although these lists provide a valuable resource for communities, they can be confusing. Some lists are narrow in focus— 

for example, limiting their descriptions to drug abuse, family 

strengthening, or school-based programs only. In addition, 

and perhaps more importantly, the criteria for program inclusion vary tremendously, with some agencies adopting a more 

rigorous set of criteria than others (Elliott, 1997; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). In fact, one 

must be diligent when examining the lists to ensure that 

at least a minimal scientific standard has been applied; for 

example, programs should demonstrate effectiveness using 

a research design that includes a comparison (i.e., control) 

group. Anything less rigorous than this approach cannot 

provide sufficient evidence to justify disseminating and 

implementing programs on a wide scale. 

The Blueprints initiative likely uses the most rigorous set of 

criteria in the field: 

Demonstration of significant deterrent effects on problem 

behavior (violence, aggression, delinquency, and/or substance abuse) using a strong research design (experimental or quasi-experimental with matched control group). 

Sustained effects at least 1 year beyond the intervention. 

Replication in at least one other site with demonstrated 

effects. 

This high standard is necessary if programs are to be widely 

disseminated because conducting an outcome evaluation 

during every implementation effort will be costly, time consuming, and not always possible. Therefore, it is important 

that programs demonstrate effectiveness, based on a rigorous 

evaluation, before their widespread dissemination. Programs 

meeting all three of the criteria are classified as “model” programs, whereas programs meeting at least the first criterion 

but not all three are considered “promising.” To date, Blueprints 

has identified 11 model programs and 21 promising programs 

(see list of Blueprints programs on page 4). 

See Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2002; Elliott, 1997; Greenberg, Domitrovich, and Bumbarger, 1999; Mendel, 2001; Posey et al., 2000; Mihalic and 

Aultman-Bettridge, 2004; National Institute of Drug Abuse, 2002; Sherman et al., 1998; Strengthening America’s Families, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2002; 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001; U.S. Department of Justice, 2002. 

Site Assessment 

A successful initiative requires that communities assess their needs, commitment, 

and resources before implementation. 

To help sites complete this work, Blueprints created a detailed application form 

focused on these areas and conducted 

onsite feasibility visits to verify this information. The visits were important, given 

that applications and grant proposals are 

usually completed by persons (such as 

professional grant writers) who are removed from frontline implementing staff 

and who have little or no knowledge of the 

problems that may be encountered when 

adopting a new program. Implementing 

staff and other key participants were required to attend the feasibility visit, and 

much time was devoted to reviewing specific issues related to implementation. 

These discussions were an important part 

of the site assessment, as those charged 

with delivering the interventions were invaluable in identifying potential problems 

and brainstorming ways to avoid these 

obstacles before implementation. Moreover, these individuals are often left out 

of such discussions and administrative 

decisionmaking processes, and they 

seemed to appreciate the opportunity 

to express their opinions. 

The feasibility visits were designed to fully 

inform participants of the nature of the 

new initiative. In addition to requiring that 

key parties attend, Blueprints staff also 

invited those with more peripheral roles, 

such as parents and community members. 

Visits were conducted jointly by a Blueprints team member and the program designer or designated technical assistance 

provider(s) who conducted formal presentations describing the program and 

grant requirements. This process allowed 

participants to have direct contact with 

those most knowledgeable about the program and, for many, this was their first 

opportunity to learn about the rationale 

of the program and the duties they would 

be asked to perform. A discussion period 

followed in which the Blueprints team 

learned more about a site’s capabilities 

to adopt the program, and, just as importantly, staff and community members were 

able to have their questions answered. 

These visits provided a deeper understanding of the program elements, decreased 

fear and resistance, and enhanced the 

staff’s motivation for the program. The 

visits also tended to create a stronger 

motivation within the organization to implement the program, as at least a minimal 

level of familiarity with the program was 

established. 

Effective Organization 

To implement a program effectively, an 

organization needs administrative support, agency stability, a shared vision, 

and interagency links. 

Administrative Support 

Every successful program depends on 

strong administrative support. Administrative support is important because, first 

and foremost, decisions about adopting 

a program are generally made at the administrative level, while decisions about 

implementing a program are usually made 

at lower organizational levels (e.g., by program coordinators, teachers, therapists, 

3 
Guiding Good Choices 

The Blueprints Programs 

The Blueprints for Violence Prevention initiative has identified the following model and promising programs. 

Model Programs 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) 

Bullying Prevention Program 

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) 

Incredible Years: Parent, Teacher, and Child Training Series 

Life Skills Training (LST) 

Midwestern Prevention Project 

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) 

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) 

Nurse-Family Partnership 

Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) 

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) 

Promising Programs 

Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS) 

Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) 

CASASTART 

Fast Track 

Good Behavior Game 

High/Scope Perry Preschool 

Houston Child Development Center 

I Can Problem Solve 

Intensive Protective Supervision 

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers 

Preventive Intervention 

Preventive Treatment Program 

Project Northland 

Promoting Action Through Holistic Education (PATHE) 

School Transitional Environment Program (STEP) 

Seattle Social Development Project 

Strengthening Families Program: Parents and Children 10–14 

Student Training Through Urban Strategies (STATUS) 

Syracuse Family Development Program 

Yale Child Welfare Project 

Descriptions of these programs are available in the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Report (see Online Report on page 10) 

and on the Blueprints Web site (www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html). 

nurses). Even after a program is adopted, 

administrators can make or break a program depending on their abilities to lead 

and motivate other people and to articulate the vision of the program. The failure 

to generate enthusiasm among all key 

players involved in adopting and implementing a new program can undermine 

even the best plans. Administrators also 

have the power to allocate resources and 

make organizational changes that can facilitate the success of a program. Failure to 

make the necessary changes in work routine to accommodate a program or to provide adequate resources demonstrates an 

administrative lack of resolve to fully support the program. Although administrators 

may voice their support of a new initiative, 

tangible actions, such as those just mentioned, more clearly demonstrate commitment to a program. When implementing 

staff feel fully supported, they will be more 

motivated to follow through with a program and to make it a success. 

In the drug prevention initiative, the 

most effective school administrators 

were active participants in the project, 

explaining the grant to teachers and eliciting their support before implementation, 

attending teacher training workshops, 

observing lessons, keeping informed of 

implementation progress, and, in some 

cases, even co-teaching classes. In the 

violence prevention initiative, strong 

administrators kept themselves informed 

of progress, listened and responded to 

problems that arose, met with implementing staff regularly, and often expanded the 

program to other local sites or other internal divisions of the organization. 

On the other hand, a lack of support from 

the top levels was an issue in each of the 

failed Blueprints sites. In most cases, administrators at these sites voiced support 

for the program to Blueprints staff and the 

technical assistance providers. However, 

their passive actions on behalf of the program indicated a lack of support to implementing staff, who then tended to lose 

motivation and interest in the program. 

Administrative apathy was especially 

problematic at school-based sites. In two 

cases, teachers rejected the new program, 

emphasizing that increasing academic 

demands left them no time or desire to 

teach another curriculum. Rather than 

finding alternate ways of integrating the 

program into the school or trying to 

reduce teachers’ workloads, the school 

principal upheld the teachers’ decision 

to discontinue the program. In two other 

sites, outside prevention agencies had 

coordinated the project and provided 

instructors to teach the curriculum, but 

had not engendered full support from 

school administrators. As a result, when 

these agencies were unable to continue 

teaching the program, principals refused 

to take on the burden. In cases involving 

treatment programs, some administrators 

chose to terminate programs when implementation problems arose. Instead of 

taking an active role in championing the 

program and working to overcome obstacles, the administrators reverted to the 

status quo. 

These examples demonstrate that violence 

and drug prevention may not be a priority 

for many school and prevention agency 

administrators, particularly when they face 

other challenges. Some administrators may 

4 
be willing to adopt a program as long as it 

is easy to do so and few costs are involved. 

However, the presence of a strong commitment to prevention is necessary to overcome barriers when obstacles arise. These 

situations reinforce the need to assess a 

site’s commitment before implementation 

to ensure that it is strong enough to endure 

if problems develop. 

The Blueprints team tried to foster enthusiasm and support from administrators 

throughout the project by requiring their 

attendance at feasibility visits to ensure 

that they learned about the program’s 

basic elements, encouraging them to 

attend training workshops, and meeting 

with them during onsite visits. Letters 

of Commitment and Memorandums of 

Agreement were also obtained before 

site selection. 

Agency Stability 

Lack of agency stability (i.e., high rate of 

staff turnover) also proved to be an important factor in implementation quality, 

typically delaying implementation, or increasing caseloads for others, while new 

staff were hired and trained. Although 

most of the programs suffered from staff 

turnover to some extent, it seldom resulted in program failure. The training and 

technical assistance provided through 

Blueprints, however, likely reduced the 

probability that turnover would lead to 

serious problems; real-world implementations without adequate support may face 

more negative consequences. 

Shared Vision 

Having everyone involved in the program 

share the same vision of the program’s 

goals and objectives is important. Often, 

the emotional and psychological reactions 

to change are centered on ideological conflicts. Competing philosophies between 

program goals and agency goals arose 

at several Blueprints sites. At one site, 

the discordance emerged when the site 

chose to deliver one component of the 

program to all the students of an alternative school, rather than deliver all components to a smaller group of students in 

the ninth grade who were most at risk of 

dropping out. At other sites, therapists in 

the family therapy programs sometimes 

failed to adapt to the new theoretical orientations of the programs, making implementing the models with fidelity difficult. 

Blueprints worked to resolve philosophical conflicts by asking about such issues 

in the application and later discussing 

potential problems during the feasibility 

visits. This process eliminated most 

problems in the early stages of a project. 

However, program implementers would 

occasionally take issue with certain aspects of the programs they were learning. 

These persons usually either adapted to 

the new goals or left the program if their 

feelings and beliefs could not be resolved. 

In fact, changes in personnel resulting 

from philosophical disagreements often 

enhanced implementation, as morale 

among the remaining group usually 

increased as a result. 

Interagency Links 

Programs fare better when larger systems 

are receptive to them. Many of the Blueprints programs required substantial interagency links, especially in treatment 

programs that required the coordination 

of a client’s treatment plan and those 

requiring a referral base of clients. The 

Blueprints team tried to foster these relationships at the feasibility visits by inviting key participants from all organizations. 

Occasionally, however, links were weak, 

and multiple agencies would try to exert 

control over clients. In these cases, Blueprints brought all agencies and technical 

assistance providers together to resolve 

their communication problems and to 

develop an ongoing system of mutual 

interaction. This helped everyone gain 

a clear understanding of the program and 

resolve turf issues early in the process. 

Qualified Staff 

Support and Motivation 

The adoption of a program by administrators does not necessarily mean that it will 

be implemented or sustained at lower levels, such as in schools and classrooms. 

Here, the support, motivation, and buy-in 

of implementing staff are crucial to program survival. Program success is fostered by individuals who carry out an 

initiative with high shared morale, good 

communication, and a sense of ownership. 

Interestingly, although program sustainability may depend on motivated staff, it 

is not necessarily true that implementation quality will fail without strong commitment. In the drug prevention initiative, 

measures of teacher support and commitment were uncorrelated with sites’ overall 

implementation rating (i.e., the percentage of objectives taught in each lesson). 

In fact, many successful classes were 

taught by teachers who stated that they 

did not want to teach the curriculum, 

either because they resented being excluded from their school’s decision to 

adopt the program, or because they felt 

overwhelmed with other obligations and 

did not have the time or desire to add 

another curriculum to their workload. 

While implementation quality did not necessarily suffer, teachers who were unsupportive of the program reported that they 

were less likely to teach all the lessons of 

the curriculum. 

The Blueprints team was usually able 

to motivate and support staff, primarily 

through the training and technical assistance package that was delivered, but 

also through the feasibility visit. As noted 

earlier, the feasibility visit was the first 

attempt to generate enthusiasm for the 

program by bringing together all key 

players who would eventually be involved. During implementation, the Blueprints team met with staff to solicit their 

feedback regarding the program. When 

problems arose, staff were encouraged 

to contact their technical assistance providers to obtain expert advice on ways 

to overcome these obstacles. Sites also 

were encouraged to schedule regular 

meetings to foster communication and 

support among implementers and to 

troubleshoot problems. When motivation 

could not be generated, unhappy staff 

sometimes voluntarily left the project 

and new staff were hired, and this turnover generally increased the overall 

level of staff satisfaction. 

Skills, Experience, and 

Credentials 

Another factor that enhanced the quality 

of implementation was having staff with 

the requisite skills, experience, and credentials for the job. This factor was carefully assessed in the application and 

during the feasibility visit. Most sites 

complied with this requirement, but a 

few did hire staff with less than the required credentials and/or experience. 

These sites, in general, showed slower 

progress in training sessions as the more 

inexperienced staff members often required more background on key concepts 

and practice in learning program techniques. Staff turnover also occurred in 

many cases, as these staff typically had 

less satisfaction with and competence 

in the program. 

5 
only after conducting careful research. 

adoption decisions and ultimately higher quality implementation (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002). 

After careful planning and research, the time comes to choose 

is consistent with the stated goals or mission of the school, 

should be implemented with whole classrooms and not with 

major goal of MST is reduction in out-of-home placement at 

Setting the Stage for Successful Implementation: Choosing the Right Program 

Before communities and agencies face the implementation 

issues discussed in this Bulletin, they must first choose the 

program to be implemented. The Blueprints initiative recommends that agencies and organizations choose a program 

Assess the Need for the Program 

Success involves more than simply selecting effective programs and importing them into a school or agency. Decisions 

about adopting a program should be made with careful thought 

about its necessity. This entails assessing the risk and protective factors in the community or school that need addressing 

and determining the population most in need of services. Risk 

and protective factors vary from community to community, and 

thus prevention needs also vary. Research has shown that the 

motivations for adopting a program often dictate its success 

or failure (Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983; Petersilia, 1990). Interventions that are adopted based on an internal need, rather 

than as an opportunistic effort to obtain outside funding, are 

more likely to succeed (Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, 1999; 

Petersilia, 1990). If programs are adopted where similar programs are already being implemented in a school or community, this can lead to incomplete program implementation or 

program failure as similar programs become intermeshed. At 

the very least, students may become easily bored with redundant information. Thus, the needs assessment should include 

an overview of programs already being implemented in the 

area. Rather than having several redundant programs, a school 

or community should consider a comprehensive package of 

programming that is appropriate for each developmental stage 

and that can meet local needs. 

Learn About Empirically Documented 

Programs 

Once a site has a good idea of the degree and type of risk 

that exists in its area, it is time to identify programs that 

match the local needs. All too often, program decisions are 

made without the benefit of good information on best practices and model programs. Many programs are implemented 

despite the lack of empirical support for their effectiveness 

because practitioners do not always know where to turn for 

information and, at times, the abundance of information is difficult to sort through. In the past, prevention literature was not 

always readily available and was often too difficult to read. 

However, a tremendous amount of literature on prevention 

science has been collected and is being made available 

to the practitioner community through agencies and other 

avenues, such as the Blueprints initiative, that help to bridge 

the gap with the scientific community. The information search 

can begin with the lists of effective programs identified by various federal and nonprofit agencies. The Blueprints Web site 

(www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints) has documented these 

various lists, the types of programs, and the selection criteria. 

Also, attendance at workshops and conferences that focus on 

prevention can be extremely helpful. Conducting this type of 

exhaustive information search will result in better program 

Choose a Program That Fits the Need and 

the Target Population 

a program that matches the needs of the community and that 

agency, or community. Carefully matching a program to community needs will help ensure that the program is more readily 

accepted by other key players. Attention must also be given to 

matching a program to the targeted population. Many researchbased programs are being implemented for populations for 

whom they were never intended, and for whom research has 

not proven their effectiveness. For instance, a universal drug 

prevention program, such as the Life Skills Training program, 

populations of drug-addicted youth for whom the program has 

not been tested. The prevention elements of this program may 

not be effective with youth involved with drugs. Family-based 

programs, such as Multisystemic Therapy, have been proven 

effective with chronic and violent juvenile offenders. To use this 

program with youth at risk or having minor behavioral problems 

may be effective (this is not known since it has not been tested 

with this population), but it will likely not be cost beneficial. One 

a cost savings. When programs are not well matched to the 

local needs and the population needing services, a risk of program failure exists as implementers may perceive the costs 

(e.g., time and resources) as greater than the benefits. Worse 

yet, the program may not have the intended results when 

delivered to a population for whom it has not been tested. 

Paid Staff 

Another staffing scenario that was found 

to negatively affect implementation was 

the use of volunteers as program coordinators. While most volunteers had the 

required skills, credentials, and even 

above-average motivation, they often 

lacked the necessary time needed to 

coordinate the program. In fact, coordinating time is generally underestimated 

by most sites. The site coordinator position, at a minimum, requires a half-time 

person, and even 20 hours per week was 

often not enough time to accomplish all 

the tasks that needed to be completed. 

Because most volunteers will not have 

20 or more hours a week to devote to a 

project, hiring paid staff to coordinate 

such efforts is generally better. 

Adequate Time 

Time issues arose at nearly every site. In 

the treatment programs, lost productivity 

resulting from time spent learning the 

new program and lack of time with clients 

resulting from client-therapist workloads 

that had not been adjusted to accommodate the intensity of the new program 

were seldom insurmountable problems. 

However, within schools, lack of time to 

conduct the prevention program was 

one of the most serious difficulties faced. 

Teachers with already heavy workloads 

were asked to perform additional tasks, 

and, if not involved in the decision to 

adopt the program, instructors often 

became frustrated and dissatisfied with 

the initiative. Unless teachers, administrators, and other school staff are convinced of the usefulness of the program, 

6 
they may be unwilling to devote the time 

and energy necessary to implement the 

program fully, or to implement it at all, 

as was the case in our school-based failures. Blueprints strived to overcome such 

resistance by requiring that at least one 

teacher from each school attend the 

feasibility visit (all were encouraged to 

attend). It was hoped that this teacher 

would then inform other teachers of the 

importance of the project and open channels of communication between Blueprints staff and those implementing the 

program. Training and technical assistance were then used to continue fostering 

motivation and support. 

Program Champion(s) 

The program champion is the motivator 

behind the innovation, guiding its day-today operations, fostering communication, 

and serving as a base of support for implementing staff. Typically the program director or coordinator, the champion needs 

to have enough power in the organization 

to influence decisions and effect change 

(which is why most champions are from 

the administrative level), but also must 

have rapport with the implementing staff 

to motivate them to carry out the day-today program elements. In the Blueprints 

initiative, sites with strong champions 

experienced fewer problems. In the evaluation of the drug prevention initiative, the 

rating of the site coordinator was significantly correlated with the site’s overall 

implementation score, with stronger coordinators ensuring that a greater percentage 

of the curriculum was taught. In contrast, 

poor coordinators likely negatively affected 

implementation scores because when they 

failed to fulfill their duties, the Blueprints 

team could not effectively identify problems or help schools overcome them. Problems can arise if the champion is not given 

adequate time to coordinate the effort. 

For example, coordinators in many schoolbased sites were assigned to the project 

on a half-time basis, which was typically 

not enough time to accomplish the many 

program tasks. 

A program may also fail if the champion 

leaves the organization and has not been 

successful in piquing the interest of others, as occurred in one of the sites. With 

the lack of a strong champion and generally passive administrative support, the 

program failed. Reliance on a single champion may be problematic; developing 

multiple champions within a site may be 

a better strategy. A team of individuals 

may be assigned to manage all of the 

initial planning and development tasks required in adopting a new program, which 

could be overwhelming for one individual. 

A team approach can also improve communication among all levels of management and staff and build a strong base 

of support within the organization. Sites 

that had dual champions, particularly 

from both the management and midmanagement (i.e., coordinating) levels, 

were especially successful in motivating 

staff and initiating change within the 

organization to accommodate all facets 

of the program. In addition, these dual 

champions often successfully expanded 

the program within and outside their 

organizations. 

Program Integration 

Devoting ongoing and serious attention to 

linking prevention programs to the stated 

goals and objectives of the host agency 

was also important. On the agency’s part, 

this entails creating comprehensive plans 

to identify problems, searching for programs that can best resolve the problems, 

and instituting a plan of action. A clearly 

developed prevention plan provides a 

road map for all to follow and demonstrates the real commitment behind the 

initiative. Program integration is most 

likely accomplished when prevention 

activities are initiated within the host 

agency, rather than by external forces 

(Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002), 

because commitment to the larger goal 

of prevention is usually stronger. The 

integration of a specific program within 

a school can be facilitated by aligning the 

objectives of the prevention curriculum 

with state and local learning standards 

mandates. In the Blueprints initiative, 

schools that completed this work typically 

had higher levels of satisfaction with and 

commitment to the new program. 

Training and Technical 

Assistance 

The Blueprints initiative provided training 

and technical assistance from the program 

designers and their designated technical 

assistance providers to all sites. The initial 

training introduced staff to core program 

philosophies, garnered key administrative 

and community support, and provided 

much needed direction to staff members. 

Many sites received subsequent booster 

training sessions, but the number and 

type of these supplemental training sessions varied from program to program. In 

their written comments, trainees suggested 

that the training workshops instilled motivation and a deeper understanding of the 

programs. 

Blueprints’ emphasis on training and 

technical assistance is based on earlier 

research in school-based prevention 

training that indicates the following: 

◆ Trained teachers are more likely to 

implement, and to implement more 

of, the curriculum than untrained 

teachers (McCormick, Steckler, and 

McLeroy, 1995). For example, among 

no-shows at one program’s teacher 

training, nearly 50 percent failed to 

use the program at all or abandoned 

the program before the end of the 

semester (Ross et al., 1991). 

◆ Fully trained teachers complete a 

greater percentage of the program 

with greater fidelity. For example, fully 

trained teachers completed 84 percent 

of the curriculum and adhered to the 

curriculum more than 80 percent of 

the time; partially trained teachers 

completed 76 percent of the curriculum and adhered to it 70 percent of 

the time; and teachers with no training 

completed 70 percent of the curriculum and adhered to it 60 percent of the 

time (Connell, Turner, and Mason, 1985; 

Fors and Doster, 1985). 

◆ Trained teachers report greater preparedness to teach the program, teach 

the curriculum with greater fidelity, 

and achieve better student outcomes 

than untrained teachers. Booster training was needed to enhance fidelity 

among seasoned teachers (Parcel et 

al., 1991). 

◆ Trained teachers are more effective 

and have more favorable student 

outcomes than untrained teachers 

(Taggart et al., 1990). 

◆ Teachers without followup and support over time often fail to fully implement or continue use of a program 

(Gingiss, 1992). 

Blueprints found that a strong, proactive 

package of training and technical assistance builds confidence and can help 

agencies overcome and even avoid many 

implementation barriers. Programs that 

failed to provide a well-integrated technical assistance package often found their 

sites lagging in implementation, unsure 

how to proceed, and having difficulty 

overcoming challenges. Many of the technical assistance providers assumed that 

sites would contact them if they had implementation problems. However, Blueprints 

7 
found that program staff and administrators did not always recognize their own 

weaknesses, or assumed they would have 

to handle them on their own. In some 

cases, Blueprints staff recommended or 

initiated technical assistance contacts. By 

the end of the Blueprints grant, most of 

the technical assistance providers had 

developed and fine-tuned a strong technical assistance package. 

Blueprints staff had learned many valuable lessons by the time the initial training sessions were completed. Sites were 

often ill prepared to receive initial training 

sessions. In some cases, sites had failed to 

hire or appoint all staff members before a 

training, thus causing technical assistance 

providers, Blueprints staff, and members 

at each site to scramble for quick solutions for these new employees, such as 

finding subsequent training sessions they 

could attend. In addition, some technical 

assistance providers found that individuals talked during the sessions, arrived 

late, or failed to attend parts of their 

workshops. 

The presence of administrators in some or 

all parts of the training sessions improved 

the quality of implementation by sending 

a strong message to key personnel that 

the program was a priority in the agency. 

Administrators who attended training sessions also understood programs better 

and were able to accommodate and support implementation efforts more effectively. Although administrative attendance 

requirements varied from program to 

program, once the Blueprints team understood the benefit of having powerful 

agency staff who were fully trained, they 

encouraged all administrators to attend 

the training sessions. 

Additionally, after confronting attendance 

problems at a few sites, Blueprints sent 

a one-page training protocol to each site 

before their workshops, to be distributed 

to all persons scheduled to attend the 

training sessions. The protocol was individualized for each program and briefly outlined the purpose of the workshop, the 

staff members who needed to attend, and 

Blueprints’ behavioral expectations during 

training. School programs faced unique 

training challenges regarding attendance 

because ensuring that principals and administrators would release some or all 

teachers from class to attend workshops 

was often difficult. Although this problem 

could be averted by scheduling training 

during planning days or vacation time, 

doing so resulted in additional problems of 

schedule conflicts with other training sessions or the need to provide incentives for 

attendance. 

Another problem encountered was the 

failure of some sites to inform staff before 

training that they would be implementing 

a new program; staff would simply arrive 

at the workshop without knowing why they 

needed to attend. Not surprisingly, most 

became resistant and uncooperative on 

learning of their new duties, and trainers 

had to spend much time reviewing the program and informing staff of the sites’ implementation plans. To avoid this problem 

and to ensure that staff are prepared, sites 

should inform staff members of plans to 

implement programs, clearly describe their 

role in the initiative, and review the basic 

principles and structure of the chosen program before training sessions begin. 

Given the high staff turnover experienced 

across Blueprints sites, costs for multiple 

initial training sessions should be built 

into program budgets. Likewise, technical 

assistance providers should build their 

capacity for ongoing initial training sessions. During process evaluation visits, 

Blueprints learned that some programs 

had delayed client recruitment; therefore, 

implementers were unable to immediately 

use the principles and skills they had 

learned. Also, many schools held training 

workshops in the late summer but did not 

begin the curriculum until many months 

into the school year. To maximize training 

benefits, sites should start serving clients 

as soon as possible after initial training 

sessions have been completed. 

Implementation Fidelity 

Implementation fidelity, sometimes called 

adherence or integrity, is a determination 

of how well the program is being implemented in comparison with the original 

program design (i.e., whether the program 

is being delivered as it was in its original 

research trials). Four primary components 

should be examined when considering program fidelity (Dane and Schneider, 1998): 

◆ Adherence refers to whether the program service or intervention is being 

delivered as it was designed or written 

(i.e., with all core components being 

delivered to the appropriate population; staff trained appropriately; the 

right protocols, techniques, and materials used; and the locations or 

contexts chosen as prescribed). 

◆ Exposure (also referred to as dosage) 

may include any of the following: the 

number of sessions implemented, the 

length of each session, and the frequency with which program techniques were used. 

◆ Quality of program delivery is the 

manner in which a teacher, volunteer, 

or staff member delivers a program 

(e.g., the person’s skill in using the 

techniques or methods prescribed by 

the program, and their enthusiasm, 

preparedness, and attitude). 

◆ Participant responsiveness is the 

extent to which participants are engaged by and involved in the activities 

and content of the program. 

As programs are proven effective and disseminated widely, in real-world settings 

and under less favorable conditions than 

experienced in scientific experiments, 

modification of key program components 

and inconsistencies in program delivery 

become more likely. Depending on the 

changes made, the program may become 

less effective in producing the desired 

outcomes. Meta-analysis (Gresham et al., 

1993; Wilson and Lipsey, 2000) and evaluations of numerous programs demonstrate 

that better implemented programs produce 

more desired change (Center for the Study 

and Prevention of Violence, 2001; Mihalic 

et al., 2004). 

Blueprints Training Recommendations 

◆ 

◆ 

◆ 

◆ 

◆ 

◆ 

◆ 

Hire all staff before training. 

Review program and implementation plans with staff before training sessions. 

Arrange for substitute teachers/providers for training days. 

Arrange for administrators to attend training sessions. 

Communicate expectations for staff behavior during training sessions. 

Plan for staff turnover. 

Be ready to implement program immediately after training. 

8 
The Blueprints initiative emphasizes the 

importance of implementation fidelity. A 

common theme expressed in much of the 

recent literature on fidelity is that communities will not implement a program with 

fidelity and that modifications to a program 

must be made to enhance local adoption 

and satisfaction. Contrary to this assumption, the Blueprints replication initiative 

demonstrates that, in fact, high fidelity and 

satisfaction can be achieved. 

With the exception of the one Quantum 

Opportunities Program site, all other 

sites in the violence prevention initiative 

achieved 86 to 100 percent of all core and 

critical domains (i.e., adherence). In the 

drug prevention initiative, teachers completed 81 to 86 percent of all the points 

in the observed lessons, a remarkable 

improvement over earlier research trials 

conducted by the designer of the program. 

This indicates that the level of fidelity to 

each program was extremely high and that 

the sites that had not achieved 100 percent 

of these elements had generally only failed 

in achieving one element. 

Nearly all the sites strove to implement 

programs with fidelity and had remarkable success with the core components. 

Achieving fidelity to the dosage requirements of each program was more difficult, 

though this was a problem encountered 

primarily among the school-based programs. Teachers were generally unable 

to meet the demands of teaching all the 

required prevention lessons at the required frequency. For example, in the 

drug prevention initiative, from 56 to 

78 percent of the teachers (depending 

on the grant and the level of the curriculum taught) reported that they taught 

all the lessons of the Life Skills Training 

curriculum. In the violence prevention 

initiative, Promoting Alternative Thinking 

Strategies (PATHS) was intended to be 

taught three times a week throughout the 

school year, for approximately 15 to 20 

minutes; the Bullying Prevention Program 

included weekly classroom meetings 

throughout the school year. In practice, 

only one-third (PATHS) to one-half (Bullying) of the teachers taught lessons at this 

recommended dosage. Meeting the required dosage was so difficult that only one 

site implementing the Bullying program 

was successful in having all the instructors conduct a weekly classroom lesson 

on bullying. Biweekly teacher meetings 

were also difficult to achieve, but about 

half of the sites were able to implement 

this important element. Dosage elements 

(e.g., weekly meetings with youth, weekly 

group clinical supervision) were so integral to the treatment programs, such as 

Functional Family Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy, that it was much easier for 

sites to achieve success in providing the 

correct dosage. 

Blueprints’ constant monitoring and presence, achieved through telephone contacts, onsite visits, and meetings with key 

participants, were steady reminders to 

sites of the importance of program fidelity. 

Blueprints staff tried to move sites toward 

high-quality programs by continually emphasizing the importance of implementing 

all core components at the appropriate 

dosage. Problems with implementation 

(especially in sites that were not receiving 

proactive technical assistance) were addressed through a technical assistance 

site visit or phone consultation. 

The overwhelming response to these 

assistance efforts was positive—many 

coordinators commented that Blueprints 

served as an encouragement and support 

to the sites, was a good reminder to practice fidelity, was of much help during the 

feasibility and planning stages, and provided much-needed funding. However, 

several coordinators also indicated that 

the role of the Blueprints team was not 

always understood, suggesting that future 

endeavors should develop clearer descriptions regarding why monitoring is 

important and present these messages 

throughout the project. Additionally, in 

contrast to what might have been expected, the emphasis on fidelity did not 

create dissatisfaction with the program. 

In fact, 87 percent of the coordinators in 

the violence prevention initiative stated 

at the end of the 2-year period that they 

were “extremely” or “very” satisfied with 

the program, and teachers in the drug 

prevention initiative rated the overall 

quality of the program as “good” to 

“very good” (an average score of 3.6 

on a 5-point scale). 

Summary 

The Blueprints initiative both identified 

effective programs and provided funding 

for their replication. Selected sites were 

provided a training and technical assistance package from the program designers 

(lasting 2 years for the violence prevention initiative and 3 years for the drug prevention initiative) to help establish the 

programs and to build skills and confidence in implementing the programs. A 

process evaluation was conducted at each 

site to measure accountability and fidelity. 

Though most sites implemented their 

programs with great fidelity to the original 

designs, widely varying issues and problems arose throughout the process. One of 

the major goals of the Blueprints initiative 

was to learn from these problems which 

factors had led to successful implementation and which had led to difficulties. The 

broad scope of this initiative, which included prevention and treatment programs 

targeting youth from infancy to late adolescence (age 19), illuminated many factors across sites that could enhance or 

hinder the success of a program. 

Sites that want to implement a new program should consider these lessons 

learned from the Blueprints initiative: 

◆ Enhance readiness of site. 

❖ Build an environment that is 

supportive of the new program. 

❖ Plan for implementation. 

❖ Ensure that money, materials, and 

personnel are adequate. 

◆ Build organizational capacity through 

administrative support. 

❖ Develop administrative support. 

❖ Demonstrate active support for 

the program. 

❖ Strive for internal stability. 

❖ Develop interagency linkages, as 

necessary. 

❖ Begin program efforts incrementally. 

◆ Build staff support. 

❖ Include staff in planning and


decisionmaking.


❖ Hire staff with the appropriate 

credentials and requisite skills. 

❖ Build skills through training in the 

new program. 

❖ Provide the resources, materials, 

and financial compensation necessary to conduct the program. 

❖ Provide the time necessary to 

accomplish all aspects of the job. 

◆ Ensure that site has program 

champion(s). 

◆ Provide training and technical 

assistance. 

◆ Understand the importance of implementation fidelity. 

Creating an environment that will foster 

a positive experience will result in higher 

quality implementation and, ultimately, 

more positive outcomes for youth. 

9 
For Further Information 

Center for the Study and 

Prevention of Violence 

Institute of Behavioral Science 

University of Colorado–Boulder 

439 UCB 

Boulder, CO 80309–0439 

303–492–8465 

303–443–3297 (fax) 

www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints 

Online Report 

A detailed report on the Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention initiative is available 

on OJJDP’s Web site (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ 

ojjdp, select Publications Search, search 

for keyword “Blueprints”). A limited number of hard copies are available from 

CSPV at a cost of $6.00. 

References 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

2002. Finding the Balance: Program Fidelity 

and Adaptation in Substance Abuse: A Stateof-the-Art Review. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention. 

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 2001. The importance of implementation fidelity. Blueprints News 2(March):1. 

Connell, D., Turner, R., and Mason, E. 1985. 

Summary of findings of the School Health 

Education Evaluation: Health promotion 

effectiveness, implementation, and costs. 

Journal of School Health 55:316–321. 

Dane, A.V., and Schneider, B.H. 1998. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation 

effects out of control? Clinical Psychology 

Review 18:23–45. 

Ellickson, P., and Petersilia, J. 1983. Implementing New Ideas in Criminal Justice. 

R–2929–NIJ. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand 

Corporation. 

Elliott, D.S. 1997. Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention: Books 1–11. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral 

Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Fors, S.W., and Doster, M.E. 1985. Implication of results: Factors for success. Journal of School Health 55:332–334. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., and Smith, P. 1999. 

The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy Gresham, F.M., Cohen, S., Rosenblum, S., 

and Comparative Criminology 43:180–187. Gansle, K.A., and Noell, G.H. 1993. Treatment integrity of school-based behavioral Gingiss, P.L. 1992. Enhancing program intervention studies: 1980–1990. School implementation and maintenance through Psychology Review 22:254–272. a multiphase approach to peer-based staff 

development. Journal of School Health McCormick, L.K., Steckler, A.B., and Mc62:161–166. Leroy, K.R. 1995. Diffusion of innovations 

in schools: A study of adoption and imple- Gottfredson, D.C., and Gottfredson, G.D. mentation of school-based tobacco pre­ 2002. Quality of school-based prevention vention curricula. American Journal of programs: Results from a national survey. Health Promotion 9:210–219. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39:3–35. Mendel, R.A. 2001. Less Hype, More Help: 

Reducing Juvenile Crimes, What Works— Gottfredson, G.D., Gottfredson, D.C., and and What Doesn’t. Washington, DC:
 Czeh, E.R. 2000. Summary: National Study American Youth Policy Forum.
 of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. Elli­


cott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc. Mihalic, S.F., and Aultman-Bettridge, T.


2004. A guide to effective school-based Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., and Bum- prevention programs. In Policing and barger, B. 1999. Preventing Mental Disor- School Crime, edited by W.L. Turk. Engle­ ders in School-Age Children: A Review of wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishers. the Effectiveness of Prevention Programs. 

Washington, DC: Pennsylvania State Uni- Mihalic, S., Fagan, A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D.,


versity, Prevention Research Center for and Elliott, D. 2004. Blueprints for Violence


the Promotion of Human Development, Prevention. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.


and U.S. Department of Health and Human Department of Justice, Office of Justice


Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and


Health Services Administration, Center Delinquency Prevention.


for Mental Health Services.


Find OJJDP Products Find OJJDP Products

Online

Want to know more about the 

issues in this publication or related information? 

Log on to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp: 

➤ Browse titles alphabetically or by topic. It’s Fast ➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases. 

➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv JUVJUST 

and the electronic newsletter JUSTINFO. It’s Easy 

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database 

to search for publications of 

interest. It’s Free 

10 
National Institute of Drug Abuse. 2002. 

Preventing Drug Use Among Children and 

Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide. 

Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse 

for Alcohol and Drug Information. 

Parcel, G.S., Ross, J.G., Lavin, A.T., Portnoy, B., Nelson, G.D., and Winters, F. 1991. 

Enhancing implementation of the Teenage 

Health Teaching Modules. Journal of 

School Health 61:35–38. 

Petersilia, J. 1990. Conditions that permit 

intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime and Delinquency 36:126–145. 

Posey, R., Wong, S.C., Catalano, R.F., 

Hawkins, J.D., Dusenbury, L., and Chappell, P.J. 2000. Communities That Care Prevention Strategies: A Research Guide to 

What Works. Seattle, WA: Developmental 

Research and Programs, Inc. 

Ross, J.G., Luepker, R.V., Nelson, G.D., Saavedra, P., and Hubbard, B.M. 1991. Teenage Health Teaching Modules: Impact of 

teacher training on implementation and 

student outcomes. Journal of School Health 

61:31–35. 

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.C., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. 

1998. Preventing Crime: What Works, What 

Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report to the 

United States Congress. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Silvia, E.S., and Thorne, J. 1997. SchoolBased Drug Prevention Programs: A Longitudinal Study in Selected School Districts. 

Research Triangle, NC: Research Triangle 

Institute. 

Strengthening America’s Families. 

2002. Model Programs. Refer to www. 

strengtheningfamilies.org. Salt Lake City, 

UT: University of Utah. 

Taggart, V.S., Bush, P.J., Zuckerman, A.E., 

and Theiss, P.K. 1990. A process evaluation of the District of Columbia “Know 

Your Body” project. Journal of School 

Health 60:60–66. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2002. Exemplary and Promising Safe, Disciplined, and 

Drug-Free Schools Programs: 2001. Refer 

to www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/ 

exemplary01/report_pg6.html. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. 2001. Youth Violence: A Report 

of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control; Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; 

and National Institutes of Health, National 

Institute of Mental Health. 

U.S. Department of Justice. 2002. Title V: 

The Model Programs Guide and Database. 

Refer to www.dsgonline.com. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Wilson, J.J., and Lipsey, M.W. 2000. Effects 

of School Violence Prevention Programs 

on Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior: A 

Meta-Analysis of Outcome Evaluations. 

Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy, Center for Evaluation Research 

and Methodology. 

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 

98–MU–MU–K005 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the authors and do 

not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of 

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. 

Acknowledgments 

implementation. 

successful project. 

questions to: 

P

800–851–3420 

This Bulletin was prepared by Sharon Mihalic, M.A., Director, Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention Initiative, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of 

Colorado; Katherine Irwin, Ph.D., Professor, University of Hawaii–Manoa; Abigail 

Fagan, Ph.D., Intervention Specialist, Social Development Research Group, University of Washington; Diane Ballard, Training and Technical Assistance Manager, 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention Initiative; and Delbert Elliott, Ph.D., Director, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado 

The Blueprints staff wish to thank the administrators, coordinators, and staff at 

each of the replication sites for allowing us to work with and learn from them. We 

are extremely grateful for their time and gracious hospitality in meeting with us 

and providing us with insights on the assets that facilitate and barriers that hinder 

implementation progress. We hope that the time we have spent learning from 

them will move the field forward in our efforts to learn about the challenges of 

We are also indebted to the program designers and technical assistance providers 

to whom we contracted to provide training and technical assistance services to 

sites. We are deeply appreciative of the friendships and relationships that have 

formed over time and the professionalism that has been devoted to make this a 

Share With Your Colleagues 

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We 

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and 

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP 

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as 

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP 

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse 

Publication Reprint/Feedback 

.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

301–519–5600 (fax) 

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.org 

11 
U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~204273* 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

DOJ/OJJDP 

PERMIT NO. G–91 

Bulletin NCJ 204273