U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

BLUEPRINTS for 

VIOLENCE PREVENTION 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

810 Seventh Street NW. 

Washington, DC 20531 

John Ashcroft 

Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels 

Assistant Attorney General 

J. Robert Flores

Administrator 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp 

This report was prepared by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado at Boulder, 

and was supported by grant number 98-MU-MU-K005 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, 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. 
BLUEPRINTS for 

VIOLENCE PREVENTION 

Sharon Mihalic, Abigail Fagan, Katherine Irwin, Diane Ballard, and Delbert Elliott 

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence 

University of Colorado—Boulder 

Report 

July 2004 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

NCJ 204274 
Foreword

Identifying programs that have been proven effective is essential to preventing juvenile violence 

and delinquency. 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, has developed and implemented 

research-based criteria for evaluating program effectiveness. 

Given limited resources, communities seek to ensure that the programs they implement will 

produce the desired results. After reviewing more than 600 programs, the Blueprints initiative has 

identified 11 model programs and 21 promising programs that prevent violence and drug use and 

treat youth with problem behaviors. To further assess the effectiveness of the Blueprints 

programs, OJJDP funded replications of Blueprints programs nationwide— delivering training 

and technical assistance to 42 sites replicating 8 of the Blueprints model violence prevention 

programs and to another 105 sites (representing approximately 400 schools) implementing a 

model drug prevention program. 

This Report describes the Blueprints programs, presents lessons learned about program 

implementation, and provides recommendations for program designers, funders, and implementing 

agencies and organizations. It is hoped that the information provided in this Report will assist 

communities in selecting and implementing research-based programs that enable youth to fulfill 

their potential and lead productive lives. 

J. Robert Flores 

Administrator 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION i 
Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Identification of Effective Programs ................................. 1

Introduction ............................................................... 1

Blueprints Selection Criteria ................................................... 6

Evidence of Deterrent Effect With a Strong Research Design ........................ 6

Sustained Effect .......................................................... 8

Multiple Site Replication ................................................... 9

Additional Factors ....................................................... 10

Analysis of Mediating Factors ........................................... 10

Costs Versus Benefits ................................................. 10

Summary .............................................................. 13

Blueprints Program Descriptions ............................................... 13

Environmentally Focused Programs .......................................... 15

Changing the Home Environment ......................................... 15

Home Visiting and Early Childhood Education ............................ 16

Model Programs ................................................ 18

Nurse-Family Partnership ...................................... 18

Promising Programs ............................................. 20

High/Scope Perry Preschool .................................... 20

Yale Child Welfare Project, Syracuse Family Development Program, and

Houston Child Development Center .............................. 21

Parent Training .................................................... 22

Model Programs ................................................ 22

Incredible Years: Parent, Teacher, and Child Training Series ............ 22

Promising Programs ............................................. 23

Guiding Good Choices ........................................ 23

Strengthening Families Program: Parents and Children 10–14 ........... 25

Family Therapy ................................................... 26

Model Programs ................................................ 26

Functional Family Therapy ..................................... 26

Multisystemic Therapy ........................................ 27

Promising Programs ............................................. 28

Brief Strategic Family Therapy .................................. 28

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION ii
Changing the School Environment ........................................ 29

Establishing Norms or Expectations for Behavior .......................... 30

Model Programs ................................................ 30

Bullying Prevention Program ................................... 30

Midwestern Prevention Project .................................. 31

Promising Programs ............................................. 33

Project Northland ............................................ 33

Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids .................... 34

Reorganization of Grades or Classes ................................... 34

Model Programs ................................................ 35

Promising Programs ............................................. 35

School Transitional Environment Program ......................... 35

Student Training Through Urban Strategies ........................ 36

School and Discipline Management .................................... 37

Model Programs ................................................ 37

Promising Programs ............................................. 37

Promoting Action Through Holistic Education ...................... 37

Classroom or Instructional Management ................................. 38

Model Programs ................................................ 38

Promising Programs ............................................. 39

Seattle Social Development Project ............................... 39

Changing the Community Environment .................................... 40

Model Programs ................................................ 41

Promising Programs ............................................. 41

CASASTART .............................................. 41

Individually Focused Programs ............................................. 43

Social Skills, Behavioral, and Cognitive-Behavioral Programs ................... 43

Model Programs ................................................ 46

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies ......................... 46

Life Skills Training ........................................... 47

Project Towards No Drug Abuse ................................ 47

Promising Programs ............................................. 48

I Can Problem Solve .......................................... 48

Preventive Treatment Program .................................. 49

Good Behavior Game ......................................... 50

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION iii
Fast Track ................................................. 51

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers ...................... 53

Preventive Intervention ........................................ 54

Mentoring and Tutoring ................................................ 55

Model Programs ................................................ 55

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America .............................. 55

Promising Programs ............................................. 56

Community Supervision and Aftercare ..................................... 56

Model Programs ................................................ 56

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care ........................... 56

Promising Programs ............................................. 58

Intensive Protective Supervision ................................. 58

Conclusion ............................................................... 59

Chapter 2: Importance of Implementation Fidelity .............................. 63

Defining Implementation Fidelity ............................................... 63

Quality of Implementation Fidelity .............................................. 64

Studies Examining Adherence ................................................. 69

Studies Examining Exposure .................................................. 73

Quality of Program Delivery and Participant Responsiveness .......................... 74

Conclusion ............................................................... 75

Chapter 3: Assessing Site Readiness ........................................ 84

Communicating Information Regarding Effective, Research-Based Programs .............. 85

Enhancing Local Support for Empirically Based Programs and Readiness To Adopt New

Initiatives ................................................................. 86

Conducting a Needs Assessment ............................................... 89

Assessing and Maintaining Resources ........................................... 91

Preparing for Implementation ................................................. 93

Chapter 4: Challenges of Implementation ..................................... 95

Blueprints Process Evaluation ................................................. 95

Critical Components of Successful Program Implementation .......................... 97

Effective Organization .................................................... 97

Qualified Staff ......................................................... 103

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION iv
Program Champion ..................................................... 107

Proactive Technical Assistance ............................................. 109

Outside Evaluators ........................................................ 115

Conclusion .............................................................. 116

Chapter 5: Recommendations ............................................. 117

Recommendations for Implementing Agencies and Organizations ..................... 118

Choose a Program After Careful Research .................................... 118

Assess Need for Prevention Program ..................................... 118

Learn About Empirically Documented Programs ............................ 119

Choose a Program That Fits the Need and the Target Population ................ 120

Enhance Readiness of Site ................................................ 120

Build an Environment That Is Supportive of the New Program .................. 121

Plan for Implementation ............................................... 121

Ensure That Money, Materials, and Personnel Are Adequate ................... 122

Understand the Importance of Implementation Fidelity ........................ 122

Improve the Quality of Implementation ...................................... 122

Build Organizational Capacity Through Administrative Support ................. 122

Build Staff Support .................................................. 123

Ensure That Site Has Program Champion(s) ................................ 125

Provide Training and Technical Assistance (TA) ............................ 125

Recommendations for Designers .............................................. 126

Develop Materials for Program ............................................ 126

Develop Internal Capacity To Deliver Program ................................ 126

Develop Proactive Training and Technical Assistance Package ..................... 127

Pilot Test Training and TA ................................................ 127

Assess Site Readiness To Adopt Program .................................... 128

Recommendations for Funders ................................................ 129

Support Research-Based Programs ......................................... 129

Support Implementation Research .......................................... 129

Support Capacity Building Among Program Designers .......................... 129

Require Accountability With Funding ........................................ 130

Conclusion .............................................................. 130

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION v 
References ............................................................. 132

Appendix A: Monitoring the Quality of Implementation (Process Evaluation Research

Design) ................................................................ 158

Definition of Program Evaluation .............................................. 158

Purposes of Implementation Monitoring ........................................ 160

Process Evaluation (Stand-alone or To Inform Outcome Evaluation) ................ 161

Feedback for Managerial Purposes .......................................... 161

Accountability to Sponsors and Decisionmakers ................................ 162

Blueprints Process Evaluation ................................................ 163

Measuring Program Fidelity ............................................... 164

Data Collection Methods ................................................. 165

Site Visits ......................................................... 166

TA Provider Reports ................................................. 167

Interviews and Staff Surveys ........................................... 167

Program Documents and Records ....................................... 167

Appendix B: Site Visit Questionnaire ....................................... 169

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION vi
Chapter 1: Identification of Effective Programs

Introduction 

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 initial 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 conceived as an effort to identify model 

violence prevention programs and implement them within the State of Colorado. Soon after the 

initiation 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 has evolved into a large-scale 

prevention initiative, both identifying model programs and providing technical support to help 

sites choose and implement programs with a high degree of integrity (Elliott and Tolan, 1998; 

Mueller and Mihalic, 1999; Mihalic et al., 2001; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

2001). 

After reviewing more than 600 violence prevention programs, the Blueprints initiative has 

identified 11 model programs and 21 promising programs. Taken together, these programs target 

populations spanning the developmental age range, from birth to 19 years (table 1.1). In addition, 

they both prevent violence and treat youth already displaying problem behaviors. Some of these 

programs are universal in that they are intended for an entire population of children (e.g., in a 

classroom, school, or neighborhood) who have not exhibited problems. Other programs are 

selected and target high-risk children who may already show some level of antisocial behavior. 

Still other programs are indicated and treat children who show clear signs of delinquent or 

antisocial behavior (table 1.2). 

In addition to providing funding that allows the continuing identification of effective prevention 

programs, OJJDP has promoted the adoption of research-based programs and funded replications 

of Blueprints programs nationwide. This initiative has resulted in the delivery of training and 

technical assistance to 42 sites replicating 8 of the Blueprints model programs and the delivery of 

program materials, training, and technical assistance to another 105 sites, representing 

approximately 400 schools that are implementing the Life Skills Training Program, also a model 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 1 
Table 1.1: Age-Groups Targeted by Blueprints Programs 

Age Group 

Blueprints Program Pregnancy/Infancy Early Childhood Elementary School Junior High SchModel Programs Big Brothers Big Sisters of AmericaBullying Prevention Program X X 

X X 

Multidimensional Treatment Foster CareMultisystemic TherapyLife Skills TrainingMidwestern Prevention ProjectNurse-Family Partnership XProject No Drug AbusePromoting Alternative Thinking Strategies X Promising Programs Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid SteroidsFast Track X Good Behavior Game X Guiding Good Choices X X High/Scope Perry Preschool XHouston Child Development Center X XI Can Problem Solve X X Preventive Intervention X Preventive Treatment Program X Project Northland X Strengthening Families Program: Parents and Children 10–14 X X Yale Child Welfare Project X XStudent Training Through Urban StrategiesSyracuse Family Development Program X X

X 

X X 

Functional Family TherapyIncredible Years X X 

X X X 

Brief Strategic Family TherapyCASASTART

X X 

X X 

Intensive Protective SupervisionLinking the Interests of Families and Teachers X 

X 

Promoting Action Through Holistic EducationSchool Transitional Environment ProgramSeattle Social Development Project X 

X X 

X 
Table 1.2: Target Populations of Blueprints Programs 

Target Population 

Blueprints Program Universal Selected Model Programs Big Brothers Big Sisters of America XBullying Prevention Program XFunctional Family Therapy X Incredible Years X Life Skills Training XMidwestern Prevention Project XMultidimensional Treatment Foster Care Multisystemic Therapy Nurse-Family Partnership XProject Towards No Drug Abuse XPromoting Alternative Thinking Strategies XPromising Programs Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid SteroidsBrief Strategic Family Therapy XCASASTART XFast Track X XGood Behavior Game XGuiding Good Choices XHigh/Scope Perry Preschool XHouston Child Development Center XI Can Problem Solve X XIntensive Protective Supervision Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers XPreventive Intervention XPreventive Treatment Program XProject Northland XPromoting Action Through Holistic Education X XSchool Transitional Environment Program XSeattle Social Development Project XStrengthening Families Program: Parents and Children 10–14 XStudent Training Through Urban Strategies XSyracuse Family Development Program XYale Child Welfare Project X
program. Whereas the designers of each program provide training and consultation to sites, 

Blueprints staff conduct a detailed and comprehensive process evaluation at each site to monitor 

the quality of replication. 

The overarching goals of the Blueprints for Violence Prevention initiative are four-fold: 

 Identify effective, research-based programs. 

 Provide training and technical assistance to transfer the requisite knowledge and skills to 

implement these programs. 

 Monitor the implementation process to 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 quality and fidelity of 

implementation. 

The identification of effective programs, the first goal and the focus of this chapter, has been in 

the forefront of the national agenda on violence prevention for the last decade. Federal agencies 

that distribute grant funds have increasingly emphasized the need to implement programs that 

have been demonstrated to be effective. The emphasis on research-based practices has led 

communities to search for the best practices and to determine what types of programs would be 

most appropriate and effective for their population. As a result, identifying effective prevention 

and intervention programs has become a priority for both federal and private agencies. Over the 

past decade, many organizations have produced lists of programs and practices that demonstrate 

at least some evidence of effectiveness 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 the community, they can be confusing to the 

public. First, most differ in focus, with some lists being quite narrow (for example, limiting their 

descriptions to drug abuse, family strengthening, or school-based programs only). In addition, and 

perhaps more important, the criteria for program inclusion vary tremendously from list to list, 

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 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 4 
these lists to ensure that at least a minimal scientific standard has been applied (for example, that 

programs demonstrate effectiveness using a research design that includes a 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. This high standard 

is necessary for programs that will be widely disseminated because conducting local evaluations to 

determine program effectiveness is not always possible at the community level. Therefore, it is 

important that programs demonstrate positive results, based on a rigorous evaluation, before their 

widespread dissemination. 

There are several reasons for requiring high, rigorous standards: 

 Effects achieved in clinical trials are rarely duplicated when a program is implemented by 

others under normal (nonlaboratory), real-life conditions. In other words, some lowering of 

effects should be expected. 

 Public confidence in the research community could weaken or be lost if recommended 

programs prove in practice to be ineffective. 

 Huge financial investments are involved (e.g., the nation’s investments in prisons, probation, 

and parole) and, without clear scientific standards, decisions might be made solely on financial 

grounds. 

 Conducting outcome evaluations of most local programs is not feasible, nor would this be 

desirable (because of the cost in resources), so researchers must be confident in their 

recommendations. 

Blueprints model programs meet such a standard, and a widespread consensus exists that 

Blueprints programs are effective interventions. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 5 
Blueprints Selection Criteria 

Using rigorous criteria when assessing the effectiveness of a prevention or intervention program is

important. Although a program model can rarely, if ever, be proven superior to all others, a

particular model elicits greater confidence after its theoretical rationale, goals and objectives, and

outcome evaluation data have been carefully reviewed. In turn, a community that implements such

a strategy has a greater likelihood of a successful violence prevention effort.

Although many scholarly reviews have identified exemplary programs, the methodological

standards used in evaluating program effectiveness vary. In rare cases, researchers have actually

scored each program evaluation on its methodological rigor. For the majority of other reviews,

however, the standards used are variable, sometimes unrelated to effectiveness, and seldom made

explicit. As a result, claims of program effectiveness in most of these reviews must be viewed with

caution. In contrast, Blueprints programs meet rigorous tests of effectiveness in the field. While

the Blueprints Advisory Board*

 considers many criteria when reviewing program effectiveness,

three factors are considered most important:

 Evidence of a deterrent effect with a strong research design.

 Demonstration of a sustained effect.

 Multiple site replication.

Programs meeting all three of these criteria are classified as “model” programs, whereas programs

meeting at least the first criterion but not all three are considered “promising.” 

Evidence of a Deterrent Effect With a Strong Research Design 

All Blueprints programs must demonstrate evidence of a deterrent effect on problem behavior and 

be based on a strong research design—this is the most important of the selection criteria. In 

* Blueprints Advisory Board members are Tom Cook, Ph.D., Northwestern University; Delbert Elliott, Ph.D., 

University of Colorado; Denise Gottfredson, Ph.D., University of Maryland; David Hawkins, Ph.D., University of Washington; 

Hope Hill, Ph.D., Howard University; Mark Lipsey, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University; and Patrick Tolan, Ph.D., University of 

Illinois. Peter Greenwood, Ph.D., The RAND Corporation, is a former board member. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 6 
general, relatively few programs have demonstrated effectiveness in preventing the onset or 

reducing the prevalence (i.e., individual offending rates) of violent, aggressive, and other problem 

behaviors. 

The Blueprints Advisory Board accepts evidence of deterrent effects for three types of 

outcomes—violence (including childhood aggression and conduct disorder), delinquency, and 

drug use. Providing sufficient quantitative data to document effectiveness inpreventing or 

reducing these behaviors requires the use of evaluative designs that provide reasonable confidence 

in the findings (e.g., experimental designs with random assignment or quasi-experimental designs 

with matched control groups). Most researchers recognize random assignment studies 

(randomized trials) executed with fidelity as providing the highest standard of program evaluation. 

Random assignments offer the most compelling evidence that study results are due to the 

intervention rather than to preexisting differences between experimental and control groups or 

other threats to internal validity, such as maturation, selection bias, and testing effects. In these 

studies, assignment to experimental or control conditions is determined solely by chance, and the 

likelihood of differences being attributed to the assignment process can be assessed. 

When random assignment cannot be used, the Advisory Board considers studies that use control 

groups matched as closely as possible to experimental groups on relevant characteristics (e.g., 

gender, race, age, socioeconomic status, income), as well as studies with control groups that use 

statistical techniques to control for initial differences on key variables. As carefully as 

experimental and control groups are matched, however, determining if the groups vary on 

characteristics that have not been matched or controlled for and that are related to program 

outcome is impossible. Random assignment, therefore, is widely considered the most rigorous of 

methodological approaches. 

Research designs vary greatly in quality, particularly with respect to three key factors: sample 

size, attrition, and measurement issues. When considering these issues, it is important to assess 

several potential problems: 

 Sample sizes must be large enough to provide statistical power to detect at least moderate 

effects. When small sample sizes are used, detecting statistically significant differences 

between groups is more difficult. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 7 
 Attrition, or loss of study participants over time, may be indicative of problems in program 

implementation or may be a failure to locate subjects during a followup period. Attrition is 

problematic, particularly because it can compromise the integrity of the original randomization 

or matching process. It reduces confidence that the original sample and final sample are 

comparable and that the final experimental and control comparisons reflect only treatment 

effects. 

 Tests to measure outcomes must be administered fairly, accurately, and consistently to all 

study participants. For example, the use of inconsistent measures over time may produce less 

reliable test scores. The instruments used to measure outcomes should be demonstrated to be 

reliable and valid. 

A Note About School-Based Evaluations. Evaluations of school-based programs, with schools 

as the unit of analysis, typically require multiple schools per condition to perform a main effects 

analysis with sufficient power to detect effects. Since meeting this criterion requires a complex 

evaluation which is very costly, it would eliminate most existing school-level evaluations from 

consideration in the Blueprints Series. Therefore, school-based evaluations that use experimental 

or quasi-experimental designs with relatively few schools, but more than one in each condition, 

will be considered in the Blueprints Series if they meet an additional burden of proof. They must 

demonstrate consistency across effects and across replications with multiple measures from 

different sources. The theoretical rationale should be well developed, and there should be a 

rigorous evaluation of theory with evidence that results are consistently in line with expectations 

(i.e., there are changes in the risk and protective factors that mediate the changes in outcomes). 

Outcomes should be robust, with at least moderate effects. Evidence that the benefits of the 

program outweigh the costs are helpful. The decision to accept this level of proof is driven 

entirely by the state of current research. This standard of proof should not be assumed to be ideal. 

Evaluations with multiple schools are most desirable and should be encouraged among funders 

and researchers. 

Sustained Effect 

Many scholarly reviews classify a program as effective if it demonstrates success by the end of the 

treatment phase. However, having program effects that endure beyond treatment, and from one 

developmental period to the next, is also important. Unfortunately, many programs that 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 8 
demonstrate initial success fail to show long-term maintenance of the effects after the intervention 

has ended, or may even show a decline in effectiveness over time. In addition, some programs 

may have a delayed effect, so that the full impact of an intervention or treatment may not be 

realized at the end of treatment. For example, a preschool program (such as Head Start) designed 

to offset the effects of poverty on school performance should demonstrate effectiveness when 

children start school. It is also critical, however, that the effect is sustained over a longer period of 

time—i.e., through high school, when problem behavior peaks. Only by showing sustained effects 

can the program help adolescents maintain a successful life course. 

For these reasons, designation as a Blueprints program requires a sustained effect at least 1 year 

beyond treatment, with no subsequent evidence that the effect is lost. Although programs that 

have specifically failed to produce sustained effects do not qualify for inclusion in Blueprints’ 

model or promising categories, programs that have not yet demonstrated long-term effects (e.g., 

sufficient time has not yet elapsed or followup analyses were never planned) may be considered as 

promising. 

Multiple Site Replication 

Replication is an important element in establishing program effectiveness and understanding what 

works best, in what situations, and for whom. Some programs are successful because of unique 

characteristics in the original site that may be difficult to duplicate in another location (e.g., the 

presence of a charismatic leader or extensive community support and involvement). Replication 

establishes the strength of a program and its prevention effects by demonstrating that it can be 

successfully implemented in other sites. 

Programs that have demonstrated success in diverse settings (e.g., urban, suburban, and rural 

areas) and with diverse populations (e.g., different socioeconomic, racial, and cultural groups) 

create greater confidence that such programs can be transferred to new settings. As communities 

prepare to tackle the problems of violence, delinquency, and substance abuse, knowledge that a 

specific program has had success in various settings with similar populations adds to its 

credibility. 

Some projects initially may be implemented as a multisite single design (i.e., several sites are 

included in the evaluation design). When this occurs, having evaluation results from each site, as 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 9 
well as pooled results, to facilitate the assessment of transportability to other sites is preferable. 

Becoming a Blueprints model program requires at least one replication with fidelity demonstrating 

that the program continues to be effective. Multiple site replication is not a criterion for the 

promising category. 

Additional Factors 

In the selection of Blueprints programs, two additional factors are considered: whether a program 

conducted an analysis of mediating factors and whether a program is cost effective. Although this 

information is highly desirable, in the beginning of the Blueprints initiative, few programs had 

conducted either analysis so these subsequently had to be dropped as required criteria. They are 

required factors for school-based evaluations with small numbers of schools per condition. 

Analysis of Mediating Factors 

The Blueprints Advisory Board looks for evidence that change in the targeted risk or protective 

factor mediates the change in problem behavior. This evidence clearly strengthens the claim that 

participation in the program is responsible for the reduction in problem behavior, and it 

contributes to the theoretical understanding of the causal processes involved. Unfortunately, many 

programs reporting significant deterrent effects have not collected the data necessary to complete 

an analysis of mediating factors. 

Costs Versus Benefits 

Program costs should be reasonable and should be less (or at least no greater) than the program’s 

expected benefits. High-pricetag programs are difficult to sustain when competition is high and 

funding resources low. Moreover, implementing expensive programs that will, at best, have small 

effects on violence is counterproductive. 

Although outcome evaluation research initially established that Blueprints programs were 

effective in reducing violence, delinquency, and drug use, very few programs had reliable 

cost-benefit estimates. More recently, however, two cost-benefit studies that included Blueprints 

programs—the RAND Corporation study and a study by the Washington State Institute for Public 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 10 
Policy—suggest that these programs are cost-effective (Greenwood et al., 1996; Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy, 1998, 2001). 

The RAND study (Greenwood et al., 1996) compared four different crime prevention approaches 

with California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law (Cal. Penal Code 667, 1994). Three of 

these approaches, graduation incentives (e.g., Quantum Opportunities Program), parent training 

(e.g., Functional Family Therapy), and delinquent supervision (e.g., Intensive Protective 

Supervision), compared favorably with the Three Strikes law in terms of serious crime prevented 

per dollar expended, and the first two were dramatically more cost effective. The fourth approach, 

home visitation/daycare (e.g., Nurse-Family Partnership), was shown to be less cost effective than 

the Three Strikes law, but several caveats should be kept in mind when examining this evidence. 

First, home visitation/daycare occurs during the first 5 years of childhood, and up to 15 years pass 

before the intervention can begin to affect serious street crimes, which typically occur as youth 

enter puberty. In addition, several positive outcomes realized by the program are not included in 

the analyses, which focus solely on criminal justice cost savings. For example, reductions in child 

abuse, and other substantial favorable results in child health and development, educational 

achievement, and economic well-being, are not included in these analyses, even though they could 

generate government savings that exceed program costs. 

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Aos et al., 2001) completed a cost-benefit study 

of programs aimed at age groups from early childhood through adulthood. The Institute examined 

the costs of crime to taxpayers (i.e., criminal justice costs with and without costs to victims who 

suffer personal and property losses). Several programs had benefits that exceeded costs, including 

some of the Blueprints programs (see table 1.3). Programs designed for juvenile offenders (e.g., 

Multisystemic Therapy, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, and Functional Family Therapy) 

had the largest and most consistent economic returns. Programs targeting younger children and 

youth not already involved in the criminal justice system (e.g., early childhood education 

programs) had smaller, although positive, returns when considering savings in criminal justice 

costs. Their benefits, however, could also be calculated in other ways, such as savings to the 

health and welfare systems. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 11 
Table 1.3: Summary of Program Economics (all monetary values in year 2000 dollars) 

Net B

Program Average Size of the Crime Reduction Effect* Net Direct Costs per Participant (i.e. Mentoring (e.g., BBBSA) -0.04 $1,054 Intensive Probation (versus regular caseloads) -0.05 $2,234 Early Childhood Education (e.g., High/Scope Perry, Montreal, and Syracuse) -0.10 $8,936 Seattle Social Development Project -0.13 $4,355 Functional Family Therapy -0.25 $2,161 Nurse-Family Partnership -0.29 $7,733 Multisystemic Therapy -0.31 $4,743 

Multidimensional Treatment Fos er Care t -0.37 $2,052 

* Negative effect size means lower crime. † Lower end of range includes taxpayer benefits only; upper end of range includes taxpayer and crime victim benefits. 

Source: Aos et al., 2001 
Summary 

The Blueprints selection criteria establish a high standard of program effectiveness that has 

proved difficult for most programs to meet, thus explaining why only 11 model programs have 

been identified to date. Although rigorous, this standard reflects the level of confidence necessary 

for recommending that these programs be widely disseminated and to provide communities that 

replicate these programs with reasonable assurances that they will prevent violence when 

implemented with fidelity. The Blueprints initiative was never intended as a means of compiling a 

comprehensive list of all programs that had some evidence of effectiveness (e.g., see Sherman et 

al., 1997). Instead, the model programs, in particular, were selected to reflect programs with very 

strong research designs that demonstrated evidence of effectiveness in delinquency, violence, or 

substance abuse prevention and reduction. 

Programs not on the Blueprints list are not necessarily ineffective. In fact, many good programs 

probably exist that have not yet undergone the rigorous evaluations needed to qualify as a 

Blueprints program. Similarly, other programs may have demonstrated effectiveness in outcomes 

not considered by the Blueprints Advisory Board. Nonetheless, the Blueprints initiative has 

revealed that many prevention and intervention programs are ineffective, and a few have 

unintended harmful effects. Thus, performing outcome evaluations is critical and results should be 

made available to the community. Without this information, determining what programs work will 

be impossible, and being confident that children are benefiting from these efforts will be difficult. 

The Blueprints team continues to review new research findings with the hope of expanding the list 

of Blueprints programs to include other credible, effective interventions that communities can 

confidently implement. Blueprints staff also review ongoing evaluations of all the Blueprints 

programs to refine the knowledge of their sustained effects and their adaptability to other 

populations and settings. 

Blueprints Program Descriptions 

In addition to identifying specific prevention and intervention programs that are effective in 

reducing violence, delinquency, and drug use, assessing more generally whether certain types of 

prevention practices are effective is important. Research must identify whether targeting certain 

risk or protective factors, or changing certain aspects of environments or individuals, is likely to 

lead to success. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 13 
In fact, research has demonstrated that some violence prevention practices are more effective than 

others and some practices do not work at all (Sherman et al., 1998; Lipsey, 1992; Mihalic and 

Aultman-Bettridge, 2004). Moreover, as Elliott and Tolan (1998) note, “doing something is not 

always better than doing nothing,” because some interventions (such as Scared Straight or other 

prison visitation programs) have been shown to be harmful to adolescents (Petrosino, 

Turpin-Petrosino, and Finckenauer, 2000). Unfortunately, most of the interventions that are 

introduced into schools or implemented by prevention and treatment agencies are not linked to 

knowledge of the success or failure of the intervention (either general or specific). Resources are 

thus often wasted on ineffectual programs rather than being used to implement programs that 

have been demonstrated to be effective. 

Much of the current knowledge regarding effective prevention and intervention strategies stems 

from meta-analysis, a statistical technique for aggregating the findings of many studies and using 

average effect sizes to identify the strongest types of strategies. This research demonstrates that 

behavioral, skills-oriented, and multimodal practices, in both criminal justice and other settings, 

can reduce crime (Lipsey, 1992). For example, family therapy and improving parenting practices 

have been shown to be key strategies in reducing crime and delinquency, by improving the youth’s 

home environment, which can be the source of many problems (Sherman et al., 1997). Schools 

have also become a primary locus of prevention efforts as they contain both a ready delivery 

mechanism and a population base of students able to participate. Research in the area of 

school-based prevention demonstrates that school and discipline management interventions, 

interventions to establish norms and expectations for behavior, and instructional programs that 

teach social competency skills using cognitive-behavioral methods are all effective practices. In 

contrast, other types of programs (such as instructional programs that do not use 

cognitive-behavioral methods, therapeutic interventions such as counseling and social work, and 

recreation and leisure programs) are consistently ineffective in reducing outcomes related to 

violence and other antisocial behaviors (Gottfredson, 1998; Mihalic and Aultman-Bettridge, 

2004). 

As a whole, the Blueprints programs (both model and promising) fall under many of the effective 

strategies listed above. The following sections describe many of these strategies and provide 

information regarding the Blueprints programs that adopt each approach. Not all strategies are 

reviewed here—only those that contain Blueprints programs. Some programs are multicomponent 

and could fall into more than one category; however, an effort has been made to classify each 

program according to its primary emphasis and, thus, each program is listed under only one 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 14 
strategy. The programs are divided into two broad domains—those with an environmental focus 

(i.e., changing the family, school, and community environment) and those that focus on the 

individual, including cognitive-behavioral, mentoring, and community supervision and aftercare 

programs. The distinctions among universal, selected, and indicated programs should be kept in 

mind when reading these descriptions. Most of the Blueprints programs are universal (i.e., 

designed for populations that do not exhibit problem behaviors) or selected (i.e., designed for 

populations considered “at-risk” or displaying initial levels of problem behaviors) interventions. 

Relatively few of the Blueprints programs are indicated interventions, which target identified 

perpetrators of crime, even though research (MacKenzie, 1997; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998) has 

identified several strategies and programs in this category that have been used by the criminal 

justice system and that have shown some evidence of effectiveness. However, for specific 

programs, few of the research studies are of sufficient quality to permit any firm conclusions 

about their effectiveness, and problems with small numbers of subjects and with attrition often 

exist (MacKenzie, 1997). 

Environmentally Focused Programs 

Changing the Home Environment 

Family-related factors play an important role in children’s development. For example, poor family 

functioning, parenting practices, and family interaction styles have been demonstrated as 

consistent risk factors for substance use, delinquency, and criminal behavior (Hawkins et al., 

1998; Snyder and Patterson, 1987). As a result of this research, many programs have been 

designed to alter the family environment. Three successful strategies that strive to change the 

individual behavior of the child by altering the social environment of the family include home 

visiting, parent training, and family therapy programs. These interventions are designed to 

improve family relations and create a home environment that is conducive to the successful 

development of the child. Early childhood education programs are included in the discussion of 

home visiting interventions because they typically cut across the domains of family and school and 

often include home visits to parents. These programs at times emphasize individual-level risk 

factors, but may also be considered environmentally focused because they target children living in 

economically poor and high-risk neighborhoods. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 15 
Home Visiting and Early Childhood Education 

Research has consistently shown that a small percentage of teenagers account for the majority of 

teenage crimes (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001). Many of these 

youth are life-course persistent offenders (Loeber and Farrington, 1998, 2000; Moffitt, 1993) with 

an early onset of aggressive and behavioral problems, often associated with 

inattention-hyperactivity, neurocognitive risk (e.g., poor reading, language, and problem-solving 

skills), difficult temperament, and poor parenting (Moffitt and Caspi, 2001). These problems 

compromise healthy development and increase the risk for significant impediments to later 

wellness—impediments such as violence, delinquency, dropping out of school, depression (Cowen 

and Durlak, 2000; Kazdin, 1985), and drug abuse (Brook et al., 1986; Dishion et al., 1991). 

Although the majority of young children with behavioral problems will not become life-course 

persistent offenders (Derzon, 2001; Yeager and Lewis, 2000), conduct disorder and other forms 

of antisocial behavior become resistant to change over time. The prognosis for children who 

continue to exhibit problems as adolescents is poor unless early intervention is offered to improve 

their behavioral adjustment at home and at school (Kazdin, 1987). Intervention during the 

prenatal and infancy periods, focused on preventing health and developmental problems, can 

prevent later delinquency by interrupting the negative socialization processes that begin during 

childhood and continue through adolescence (Herrenkohl et al., 2001). 

The prenatal period is an important time for intervention, as many factors that place a child at risk 

occur during pregnancy. Babies born to mothers who smoke, use drugs, and/or maintain poor 

diets and health during pregnancy are at increased risk of perinatal difficulties. In addition, most 

pregnant teens younger than age 15 receive no prenatal care or inadequate care (Hamburg, 1992) 

and babies born to teenage mothers are at increased risk of premature delivery and/or low 

birthweight. These problems, in addition to other medical stresses at birth, are associated with 

parent- and teacher-rated behavior problems between the ages of 5 and 7 (McGee, Silva, and 

Williams, 1984), delinquency at age 18 (Werner, 1987), and violent delinquency (Mednick, 

Brennan, and Kandel, 1988). Childhood abuse and neglect are also related to later criminal 

behavior. Being abused or neglected as a child increases the likelihood of arrest as a juvenile by 59 

percent, as an adult by 28 percent, and for a violent crime by 30 percent (Widom and Maxfield, 

2001). 

Not all children who experience such problems have poor outcomes, as demonstrated in research 

by Werner (1989, 1990; Werner and Smith, 1992) who followed a cohort of children born in 1955 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 16 
on the island of Kauai for 30 years. Despite experiencing four or more debilitating risk factors by 

age 2 (such as parental psychopathology, extreme poverty, perinatal birth disorders, low parental 

educational level), many children in the study were able to overcome the adversity in their lives. 

Such children may be considered “resilient,” and the protective factors they may experience, 

which help them overcome such problems, can be classified into three major domains (see 

Garmezy, 1985; Greenberg, Domitrovich, and Bumbarger, 1999; Masten and Garmezy, 1985): 

 Individual characteristics (i.e., dispositional attributes of the individual that may have a strong 

genetic base), such as easy temperament, positive orientation, intelligence, self-esteem, 

autonomy, and sociability. 

 Family characteristics, such as secure attachments, lack of family conflict, and cohesive and 

warm family interactions that provide emotional support and affection. 

 External (environmental) support systems at school, work, or church that encourage and 

reinforce children’s coping strategies, reward individuals’ competencies and determination, 

and provide them with a sense of meaning and an internal locus of control. 

Obviously, not all children possess these protective factors, and many can benefit from programs 

that target these three areas. Intervening early with high-risk infants and preschool-age children 

and their parents, through home visitation and early childhood development and education 

programs, can help foster resiliency in children so that they may overcome adversity. 

Most of the early childhood programs that have been successful contain similar elements. For 

instance, they are intensive, multicomponent programs that address the various influences that 

affect a child’s development. Most also include home visits to provide parenting skills training and 

support and an early educational component that focuses on the child’s development (Wasserman, 

Miller, and Cothern, 2000). Home visiting and early childhood education programs have been 

most beneficial to high-risk populations, such as poor families and unmarried women (Olds and 

Kitzman, 1993; Gomby, Culross, and Behrman, 1999). Intervention usually begins during 

pregnancy or shortly after the birth of the child and continues until around age 4. These programs 

may be delivered in the home or in a childcare setting, or both. In fact, some of the most powerful 

and effective interventions seek to attain multiple goals (Gomby et al., 1993) by combining 

preschool or daycare with home visits. Such interventions typically provide weekly to monthly 

home visits to provide parents with information about parenting and/or child development issues 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 17 
and to offer parents emotional and social support, counseling, and referrals to outside agencies. In 

addition, parents are taught how to support and maintain the social, emotional, and cognitive 

gains that children achieve in the daycare or preschool setting. 

Programs offering solely home visiting, such as the Nurse-Family Partnership, work with mothers 

during their pregnancy to ensure that they receive prenatal care and information on nutrition and 

health, which helps decrease the likelihood of birth abnormalities and neuropsychological 

impairments. The programs also work with parents after the birth of the child to provide support 

and to teach skills designed to alter the parent-child interaction, improve the developmental life 

course of the child, and promote a positive maternal life course. 

The primary goal of early childhood education programs is school readiness: preparing at-risk 

children to enter school by improving cognitive development and constructing a role for the child 

that is conducive to success. These programs generally focus directly on the child and strive to 

improve cognitive development through language development, reading, and cognitively 

stimulating play. These early gains often result in improved school readiness and academic 

achievement, which, in turn, strengthen bonds to school. 

Outcome evaluations of home visiting and early childhood education programs have primarily 

focused on the health and cognitive development of the child, with less emphasis on antisocial 

behavior. However, several programs described below have demonstrated long-term effects in 

reducing behavior problems during adolescence, when violent offending peaks. Gains have been 

even more dramatic when home visiting has been augmented by center-based early childhood 

programs and/or medical services, such as in the High/Scope Perry Preschool project (Gomby et 

al., 1993). 

Model Programs 

Nurse-Family Partnership 

Nurse-Family Partnership (formerly Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses) sends 

nurses to the homes of low-income, first-time mothers, beginning during pregnancy and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 18 
continuing for 2 years after the birth of the child. The program is designed to help women 

improve their prenatal health and the outcomes of pregnancy through the following methods: 

 Encouraging good health habits. 

 Teaching mothers the skills necessary to care for their infants and toddlers, in order to 

improve children’s health and development. 

 Improving women’s own personal development, giving particular attention to the planning of 

future pregnancies, women’s educational achievement, and parents’ participation in the 

workforce. 

The program has been tested with both white and African American families in rural and urban 

settings. 

Nurse-Family Partnership has had positive outcomes on mothers’ obstetrical health, psychosocial 

functioning, and other health-related behaviors (Olds et al., 1998). During the first 15 years after 

delivery of their first child, low-income, unmarried women who received nurse home visits had 31 

percent fewer subsequent births, longer intervals between births (an average of 2 years), fewer 

months on welfare (60 months versus 90 months), 44 percent fewer behavioral problems due to 

alcohol and drug abuse, 69 percent fewer arrests, and 81 percent fewer criminal convictions than 

those in the control group. The program has also reduced rates of child abuse and neglect by 

helping young parents learn effective parenting skills and effective means of coping with a range 

of issues, including depression, anger, impulsiveness, and substance abuse. One study found that 

participation in the program was associated with a 79-percent reduction in state-verified cases of 

child abuse and neglect among mothers who were poor and unmarried. In their second year of 

life, nurse-visited children had 56 percent fewer visits to emergency rooms for injuries and 

ingestions than children who were not visited. 

Long-term positive outcomes for adolescents have also been reported. Adolescents whose 

mothers received nurse home visits more than a decade earlier were 60 percent less likely to have 

run away, 56 percent less likely to have been arrested, and 80 percent less likely to have been 

convicted of a crime than adolescents whose mothers did not receive visits. They also smoked 

fewer cigarettes per day, consumed less alcohol in the past 6 months, and exhibited fewer 

behavioral problems related to alcohol and drug use. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 19 
Home visitation has also been found to be cost effective. An evaluation by Rand Corporation 

indicates that providing home visitation to low-income and unmarried mothers results in a savings 

to government and society. The savings exceed program costs by a factor of 4 by the time an 

intervention child reaches age 15; the return on the investment is realized by the child’s fourth 

birthday (Karoly et al., 1998). Cost savings are primarily in reduced welfare and criminal justice 

expenditures, but also in increases in tax revenues (Olds et al., 1999). 

Promising Programs 

High/Scope Perry Preschool 

High/Scope Perry Preschool provides high-quality early childhood education to children ages 3 

and 4 from low-socioeconomic families and addresses the relationship between childhood poverty 

and school failure by fostering social, emotional, and intellectual competence. The 2-year 

intervention operates 2.5 hours per day, 5 days per week, for 7 months per year, and includes 

weekly home visits by teachers. Based on the theory that early success or failure in school may set 

children on a life-course trajectory of success or failure, High/Scope Perry helps children start 

school with aptitudes and attitudes conducive to success (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1980). This 

goal is achieved by providing children with cognitive stimulation, which may be lacking in the 

home environment, that leads to greater cognitive ability when children enter school. In addition, 

the program teaches children to be active and independent learners, helps parents support the 

child’s education, and provides teachers with effective teaching methods and support (Parks, 

2000). The success achieved by the program comes from the children’s increased school 

readiness, which results in positive reinforcement from teachers and students, enhanced academic 

performance, and stronger commitment to school (Parks, 2000; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1980). 

The evaluation, based on the random assignment of 123 African American youth to preschool and 

no-preschool groups over a period of 5 years (1962 to 1966), demonstrated greater school 

success (academic achievement and commitment) and social responsibility for participants, 

including reductions in antisocial behavior and misconduct from elementary school to age 15. In 

addition, participants had fewer fights, criminal justice contacts, and arrests through age 19 

compared with those who had not attended preschool (31 percent of program participants had 

been arrested for a crime, compared with 51 percent of individuals in the control group). Program 

participants also had greater socioeconomic success (increased employment, economic 

independence, satisfaction with work) at age 19 (Berrueta-Clement et al., 1984; Schweinhart and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 20 
Weikart, 1980; Weikart, Bond, and McNeil, 1978). At age 27, the experimental group had half as 

many arrests as the control group; they also had higher earnings. More of the women in the 

experimental group had graduated from high school, had attended college or vocational training, 

were married, and had fewer children out of wedlock (Schweinhart, Barnes, and Weikart, 1993). 

The program provides a savings to the public of about 7 times the initial investment per child, 

with a return of $7.16 per dollar spent (Barnett, 1993; Parks, 2000) incurred through savings in 

welfare assistance, special education, criminal justice costs, and costs to crime victims, and 

increased tax revenue from higher earnings. An independent cost analysis by the RAND 

Corporation (Karoly et al., 1998) found a return of more than twice the initial investment, even 

after eliminating the savings to victims (the least reliable savings category). 

Yale Child Welfare Project, Syracuse Family Development Program, and Houston Child 

Development Center 

Three other programs—the Yale Child Welfare Project, the Syracuse Family Development 

Program, and the Houston Child Development Center—also target low-income families and are 

designed to provide family support and early education. These programs offer a broad range of 

support for both mothers and children. Through home visits, mothers receive individualized 

training, support, and information about nutrition, health, safety, child development issues. 

Parents learn to develop appropriate interactions with children, solve immediate family crises, 

achieve long-term goals, and access community resources. Each program also provides 

high-quality daycare/education for the children. The Yale and Syracuse programs begin during 

pregnancy and continue until children are 30 months or 5 years old, respectively, while the 

Houston program targets children 2 months to 3 years. The Houston program, through random 

assignment of 102 Mexican American mother-child pairs, demonstrated increases in IQ and 

cognitive ability at 24 months for program children; less destructive, overactive, and negative 

attention-seeking behavior at ages 4–7; and lower teacher ratings of impulsive, obstinate, 

disruptive, hostile, and fighting behaviors at ages 8–11 (Johnson and Breckenridge, 1982; Johnson 

and Walker, 1987). The Yale (Seitz, Rosenbaum, and Apfel, 1985) and Syracuse programs (Lally, 

et al., 1988), using quasi-experimental designs with matched control groups and primarily 

targeting African American women, each demonstrated long-term improvements, 10 years after 

the intervention, in social adjustment, school attendance, and academic achievement. The 

Syracuse program also reduced juvenile delinquency, with 6 percent of participants having a 

juvenile record by age 15, compared to 22 percent of individuals in the control group, and those 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 21 
with criminal records had fewer and less serious offenses. Additionally, the Yale program 

demonstrated dramatic effects for program mothers and families who had increased their 

educational achievement, reduced family size, and created more economically independent 

families. Unfortunately, the high cost of these programs makes them somewhat unattractive. 

Parent Training 

Other family factors that place children at risk for delinquency and violent behavior include harsh 

or ineffective parenting, poor parental monitoring, poor attachment, and lack of warmth and 

nurturing (Capaldi and Patterson, 1996; Farrington, 1994; Gorman-Smith et al., 1996; 

Gorman-Smith, Tolan, and Henry, 2000). Parents of children with behavioral problems tend to be 

more inconsistent and punitive in their disciplinary methods, and the children tend to use aversive 

behaviors to shape and manipulate their family environments (Patterson, Reid, and Dishion, 

1992). Parent training helps to overcome the problems generally associated with poor family 

management practices by teaching parents how to provide consistent and supportive forms of 

discipline (e.g., using positive consequences such as praise, rewards, and privileges for good 

behavior, and noncoercive, negative consequences such as time-out and loss of privileges for 

inappropriate and noncompliant behavior) to replace or reduce physical punishment and how to 

develop clear standards for child behavior (Patterson, 1982; Webster-Stratton et al., 2001). 

Interventions that promote parent’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to child rearing, 

improve children’s health and development, and prevent child abuse and neglect can have an 

important impact on the subsequent development of antisocial behavior because they interrupt the 

development of delinquency and related behavioral disorders. 

Model Programs 

Incredible Years: Parent, Teacher, and Child Training Series 

The Incredible Years: Parent, Teacher, and Child Training Series is a comprehensive set of 

curriculums designed to promote social competence and prevent, reduce, and treat conduct 

problems in young children. The program targets children ages 2 to 8 who exhibit or are at risk 

for conduct problems. In all three programs, trained facilitators use videotaped scenes to 

encourage group discussion, problem solving, and sharing of ideas. The parent training 

component includes three series: BASIC, ADVANCE, and SCHOOL. BASIC is the core element 

of program delivery. The other two series, and the teacher and child training programs, are 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 22 
recommended elements of program delivery. BASIC teaches parents interactive play and 

reinforcement skills, nonviolent discipline techniques, logical and natural consequences, and 

problem-solving strategies. ADVANCE addresses family risk factors such as depression, marital 

discord, poor coping skills, poor anger management, and lack of emotional support. SCHOOL 

focuses on teaching ways to enhance youth’s academic and social competencies. 

The teacher training component helps strengthen classroom management skills. It seeks to help 

instructors encourage and motivate students, promote students’ prosocial behavior and their 

cooperation with peers and teachers, teach anger management and problem-solving skills, and 

reduce classroom aggression. 

The child training component, also known as the Dina Dinosaur curriculum, emphasizes skills 

related to developing emotional competency, having empathy with others and learning 

perspective, making and keeping friends, managing anger, solving interpersonal problems, 

following school rules, and succeeding at school. It is designed for use as a “pull out” treatment 

program for small groups of children who exhibit conduct problems, although it is also being 

tested as a preventive, classroomwide curriculum. 

In six randomized trials, the parent training program has been shown to reduce children’s conduct 

problems, increase positive affect and compliance to parental commands, and increase school 

bonding and involvement. These improvements have been sustained up to 3 years after the 

intervention (Webster-Stratton, 1990). In two randomized trials, the teacher program has been 

shown to reduce peer aggression in the classroom, increase positive interactions with teachers and 

peers, and improve school readiness (Webster-Stratton, Reid, and Hammond, 2000). In two 

randomized trials of the child program, conduct problems at home were reduced and cognitive 

problem-solving strategies with peers improved (Webster-Stratton and Hammond, 1997). (See 

Webster-Stratton et al., 2001, for a summary of all evaluations.) 

Promising Programs 

Guiding Good Choices 

Guiding Good Choices (GGC; formerly Preparing for the Drug Free Years) is a family 

competency training program for parents of children in grades four through eight (ages 8 to 14) 

that promotes healthy, protective parent-child interactions and reduces children’s risk for early 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 23 
initiation into substance use and other common adolescent problems. GGC is a weekly, 

five-session, 2-hour, multimedia program that strengthens parents’ child-rearing techniques, 

parent-child bonding, and children’s peer resistance skills. Children are required to attend one of 

the five sessions, where they learn skills to resist peer pressure to engage in inappropriate 

behavior. The other four sessions involve only parents, and include instruction in the following 

areas: 

 Identifying risk factors for adolescent substance use and creating strategies to enhance the 

family’s protective processes. 

 Developing effective parenting skills, including creating clear guidelines regarding substance 

use, monitoring compliance with these guidelines, and providing effective and appropriate 

consequences when necessary. 

 Managing anger and family conflict. 

 Providing opportunities for positive child involvement in family activities. 

The program has been successfully implemented in nine middle school families who live in rural, 

economically stressed neighborhoods in the Midwest. Families who volunteered to receive the 

program were randomly assigned to the intervention or a wait-list control. Compared to the 

control condition, the GGC intervention was more effective in promoting proactive 

communication from parent to child and improving the quality of the parent-child relationship 

(Kosterman et al., 1997). An additional longitudinal study included 33 rural, low-income schools 

in 19 midwestern counties that were divided into blocks based on the proportion of students that 

resided in lower income households and on school size. Schools within each block were then 

randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions—GGC or the Strengthening Families 

Program for Parents and Children 10–14 (see below)—or to a minimal contact control condition. 

As compared to children in the control group, GGC children demonstrated significantly less 

alcohol initiation and positive (though nonsignificant) trends in reducing tobacco and marijuana 

use (Spoth, Redmond, and Shin, 2001). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 24 
Strengthening Families Program: Parents and Children 10–14 

The Strengthening Families Program: Parents and Children 10–14 (SFP 10–14; formerly Iowa

Strengthening Families) is a universal, family-based intervention intended to delay the onset of

adolescent substance use and behavior problems by improving family practices. Specifically

targeted for change are parents’ general child management skills, parent-child affective

relationships, and family communication. The program includes seven weekly sessions in which

parents and children learn individual skills for the first hour and are brought together in the second

hour to work on improving family communication and practices. During the group parent training

sessions (with an average of eight families), parents are taught the following skills:

 How to clarify expectations of children’s behavior, especially regarding substance use.

 How to use appropriate and consistent discipline techniques.

 How to manage strong emotions concerning their children.

 How to use effective communication.

In the children sessions, adolescents learn similar skills, as well as peer resistance and refusal

techniques, personal and social interaction skills, and stress and emotion management. In the

combined parent and children classes, families practice conflict resolution and communication

skills, and engage in activities designed to increase family cohesiveness.

The program was evaluated with all 6th-grade students and their families in 33 rural, midwestern

schools, in which most families were white and middle class, and most parents had obtained at

least a high school education. The randomized block design described above was used, with

schools randomly assigned to receive SFP 10–14, GGC, or a minimal contact control condition.

At posttest, SFP 10–14 parents showed improved child management practices, including

monitoring, discipline, and standard setting; increased parent-child communication; more child

involvement in family activities and decisions; and strengthened family affective quality (Spoth,

Redmond, and Shin, 1998). The 1- and 2-year followups revealed that participating adolescents

had lower rates of alcohol initiation in both years, as well as 30–60 percent relative reductions in

alcohol use, using alcohol without parents’ permission, and being drunk (Spoth, Redmond, and

Lepper, 1999). The 4-year followup (at the end of grade 10) indicated lower proportions of youth

reporting lifetime use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (Spoth, Redmond, and Shin, 2001).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 25 
Family Therapy 

A number of adolescent problems can be traced to family discord and conflict, maladaptive 

parenting, and poor communication. Family therapy programs, which vary in their theoretical 

underpinnings and techniques, are intensive clinical interventions that work with multiple members 

of a family to improve family interaction and communication. Unlike parent training programs, 

which typically provide specific child management skills training in a relatively structured fashion, 

family therapy interventions are designed to assess the interrelationships among all family 

members, including the target child, and to overcome family members’ resistance to change. Skills 

training may also occur, but it typically consumes only a minor portion of the contact time 

(Gordon and Arbuthnot, 1987). 

Model Programs 

Functional Family Therapy 

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a short-term, family-based prevention and intervention 

program that has been successfully applied in a variety of contexts to treat high-risk youth and 

their families from different backgrounds. This multisystemic clinical program was specifically 

designed to help diverse populations of underserved and at-risk youth, ages 11 to 18, who often 

enter the system angry, without hope, and/or resistant to treatment. On average, participating 

youth and families attend 12 1-hour sessions spread over 3 months; more difficult cases require 26 

to 30 hours of direct service. Therapists’ caseloads average 12–16 families. 

Three distinct treatment phases are offered in FFT: 

 Phase 1, Engagement and Motivation, is designed to engage and motivate youth and families 

and help them face and overcome intense negative affects (such as hopelessness and anger) 

that prevent change. 

 Phase 2, Behavior Change, focuses on the development and implementation of immediate and 

long-term behavior change plans that are culturally appropriate, context sensitive, and tailored 

to the unique characteristics of each family member. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 26 
 Phase 3, Generalization, helps families apply positive family change to other problem areas 

and/or situations, maintain changes, and prevent relapse. To ensure long-term support of 

changes, FFT links families with available community resources. 

Program success with a wide range of interventionists, including paraprofessionals and trainees 

with various professional degrees, has been demonstrated and replicated for more than 25 years. 

Controlled comparison studies with followup periods of 1, 3, and 5 years have demonstrated 

significant and long-term reductions in youth re-offending, ranging from 25 percent to 60 percent, 

and also reductions in sibling entry into high-risk behaviors (Alexander et al., 2000). This program 

also has been demonstrated to be cost effective (Aos et al., 2001). 

Multisystemic Therapy 

Multisystemic Therapy (MST) provides cost-effective, community-based clinical treatment to 

violent and chronic juvenile offenders who are at high risk of out-of-home placement. The 

program is based on the philosophy that individuals live within a complex social network, 

encompassing individual, family, and extrafamilial (peer, school, and neighborhood) factors. 

Behavior problems can stem from and be maintained by problematic interactions within this social 

network, and MST specifically targets the multiple factors that can contribute to antisocial 

behavior. The overarching goal of the program is to help parents understand and help their 

children overcome behavior problems, including disengaging from deviant peers and overcoming 

poor school performance. To empower families, MST addresses identified barriers to effective 

parenting (e.g., parental drug abuse and mental health problems) and helps family members build 

an indigenous social support network involving friends, extended family, neighborhoods, and 

church members. In doing so, MST uses the strengths in each youth’s social network to promote 

positive change in his or her behavior. Likewise, treatment is designed with input from the target 

family to increase family collaboration and participation. 

Consistent with the program philosophy, and to enhance generalization to other settings, MST is 

typically provided in the home, school, and other community locations. Therapists with low 

caseloads (4–6 families)—and who are available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week—provide the 

treatment, placing developmentally appropriate demands for responsible behavior on youth and 

their families. Intervention plans include strategic family therapy, structural family therapy, 

behavioral parent training, and cognitive behavior therapies. The average duration of treatment is 

about 4 months, which includes approximately 60 hours of therapist-family contact. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 27 
Program evaluations have demonstrated 25 to 70 percent reductions in long-term rates of 

rearrest, and 47 to 64 percent reductions in out-of-home placements. Moreover, families receiving 

MST have shown extensive improvements in family functioning and decreases in youth’s mental 

health problems. Positive results were maintained for nearly 4 years after treatment ended 

(Henggeler et al., 2001). This program has been demonstrated to be cost-effective (Aos et al., 

2001). 

Promising Programs 

Brief Strategic Family Therapy 

Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) adopts a structural family systems framework to improve 

youth’s behavior problems. BSFT is a short-term, problem-focused clinical intervention, involving 

12 to 15 sessions over 3 months, with sessions lasting from 60 to 90 minutes. The target 

population is children ages 8 to 17 who display or are at risk for developing behavior problems, 

including substance abuse. 

Therapy is based on the assumptions that each family has unique characteristics that emerge when 

family members interact and that this family system influences all members of the family. The ways 

in which family members interact and behave with one another can be either successful or 

unsuccessful, and BSFT seeks to improve patterns of maladaptive family interactions that are 

directly related to youth’s behavior problems. This goal is achieved through a three-step process: 

 Joining: understanding resistance and engaging the family in therapy. 

 Diagnosis: identifying the interaction patterns that encourage problematic youth behavior. 

 Restructuring: developing a specific plan to help change maladaptive family interaction 

patterns by working in the present, reframing the family system, and working with boundaries 

and alliances. 

In one evaluation of BSFT, adolescents showed significant reductions in conduct disorder and 

socialized aggression from pre- to posttreatment, whereas adolescents participating in group 

therapy showed no significant changes. Adolescents receiving the treatment also showed clinically 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 28 
significant changes in conduct disorder and socialized aggression, as compared with the control 

group (Santisteban et al., 2003). 

Changing the School Environment 

Many individual-level risk factors for crime and violence (e.g., abuse and neglect, behavioral 

disorders, impulsiveness, and risk-taking temperaments) may be brought into the school 

environment by individual students. Moreover, when a concentration of children with these 

characteristics exists, there is an emergent contextual effect at school, where physical aggression, 

bullying, and disrespect (for teachers, other students, and authority figures) become normative. 

Further, the way the school is structured and the training and competence of the staff can also 

undermine a successful course of youth development, facilitating the creation and maintenance of 

delinquent or antisocial peer groups, low expectations for academic success, intimidation of 

teachers, and low value on education. The overall climate, structure, and environment of the 

school can thus contribute to students’ behavior problems or, at the least, impede any successful 

resolution of them. School ecology programs recognize these problems and try to identify and 

change conditions in the school that might negatively affect students. Such factors may include 

school norms and behavior expectations, administrative policies, tracking strategies, school 

structure and size, and teacher attitudes and practices. 

School ecology programs typically focus on two major issues (Felner et al., 2001): 

 Reducing the conditions of risk in the school environment to prevent the onset of adaptive 

difficulties. 

 Enhancing the school environment to ensure that all youth acquire competencies and 

strengths. 

To create and maintain systemic changes in school climate and structure, and to generalize effects 

across settings, programs must involve teachers, administrators, parents, students, and interested 

community members. School-based strategies can be roughly grouped into four categories: 

 Interventions to establish norms or expectations for behavior. 

 Reorganization of classes or grades. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 29 
 Interventions to improve school discipline and management. 

 Interventions to enhance classroom management and instruction. 

Establishing Norms or Expectations for Behavior 

Research on school discipline problems indicates that the ways in which norms and expectations 

for behavior are established can have a strong effect on levels of school crime and violence. In 

schools in which behavior norms are clearly stated, well-known by students, and consistently and 

fairly enforced, student and teacher victimization are reduced (Gottfredson, 1997). Many 

programs try to change norms in multiple environments, including the family and the community. 

These interventions operate under the assumption that risk factors in multiple domains (e.g., 

social, family, peer, school, and the individual) must be addressed to affect substantial changes in 

youth behavior. 

Model Programs 

Bullying Prevention Program 

The Bullying Prevention Program focuses on restructuring the social environment of primary and 

middle schools in order to provide fewer opportunities for bullying behavior and to reduce the 

positive social rewards (such as peer approval and support) gained through bullying behavior. 

Overall, the program tries to create a school environment characterized by positive interest and 

involvement by adults and firm limits on unacceptable behavior; norm and rule violations 

consistently result in sanctions and adults act as authority figures and positive role models for 

youth. Although the Bullying Prevention Program actively involves students, adults in the school 

are seen as the driving force in changing the normative environment. To facilitate such a sweeping 

change, the program seeks to ensure that adults are aware of bullying problems and actively 

involved in their prevention, conveying the message that “bullying is not accepted in our 

class/school, and we will see to it that it comes to an end” (Olweus, Limber, and Mihalic, 1999). 

The Bullying Prevention Program targets change in the school, classroom, and individual student. 

The program begins with the creation of a coordinating committee and a schoolwide survey 

assessing the extent and nature of the bullying problem. Following the survey, a school conference 

day is held to review questionnaire results. The coordinating committee then begins to plan 

strategies to change school-level conditions, such as creating a system of improved monitoring of 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 30 
students during recess and lunch times, and plans for parent and staff meetings to discuss the 

program and the progress of implementation. The classroom-level intervention involves the 

creation of class rules regarding bullying behavior and regular class meetings to discuss issues 

and/or rule infractions. In addition, parent-teacher meetings may occur to discuss elements of the 

program. The program is also implemented at the individual student level with individual 

intervention programs for bullies and their parents, and for victims and their parents, to ensure 

that any ongoing behavior is stopped and that victims receive needed support. 

Research on the Bullying Prevention Program utilized a quasi-experimental design with 

time-lagged contrasts between age-equivalent groups (successive cohorts of children for 

particular grade levels), involving 2,400 students in grades 4 to 7 in 42 schools (28 elementary 

and 14 junior high) in Bergen, Norway. These students were followed for 2.5 years. The 

evaluation documented decreases of (typically) 50 percent or more in the frequency with which 

students reported being bullied by others. In addition, substantial reductions in student 

involvement in vandalism, fighting, thefts, and truancy were demonstrated. Several aspects of the 

social climate of the class showed marked improvement, including better order and discipline, 

improved social relationships, and increases in positive attitudes toward school (Olweus, Limber, 

and Mihalic, 1999). A program replication with 6,388 students in grades 4 through 6 in 39 

schools in 3 matched pairs of rural South Carolina school districts revealed a decrease in the 

frequency with which intervention children bullied other children (by approximately 25 percent), 

while students in schools that were part of the control group reported a corresponding increase. 

Additionally, self-reported antisocial behavior increased in the control group, whereas no increase 

or a slower rate of increase with regard to general delinquency, vandalism, school misbehavior, 

and punishment for school-related misbehaviors was seen among the treated children (Olweus, 

Limber, and Mihalic, 1999). 

Midwestern Prevention Project 

The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP) includes school normative environment change as one 

of many components of a comprehensive, 3- to 5-year community-based prevention program that 

targets “gateway” drug use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana—those substances that 

traditionally precede the use of other illicit substances. The program involves schools, parents, 

and community organizations, uses mass media to communicate messages regarding the dangers 

of gateway drug use, and seeks changes in health policies and community practices to reduce 

youth access to targeted substances. Each domain (school, parent, community organization, and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 31 
health policy) is targeted in a specific timeline, beginning with the school intervention in the first 

year and ending with the health policy changes. 

The school-based intervention is the central component of the program and is designed as a 

primary prevention program. The program begins in either sixth or seventh grade, depending on 

the school district and the grade that represents the transition to middle or junior high school. Ten 

to thirteen classroom sessions are delivered by teachers trained in the curriculum and may be 

facilitated by peer leaders who are nominated by the class and trained by teachers in the program 

components. The lessons focus on increasing drug resistance skills and also try to change the 

social climate of the school to encourage nondrug use norms. Five booster sessions are offered in 

the second year of the intervention to reinforce concepts learned previously, and followup peer 

counseling and support are made available through the high school years. 

These school activities are followed by a parent component designed to develop norms within the 

family that discourage drug use through parent skills training sessions targeting parent-child 

communication and prevention support skills. This component continues throughout the 

middle/junior high school years. At the same time, a group composed of the school principal, 

teachers, parents, and peer leaders works to change the school climate by institutionalizing the 

school-based curriculum, helping to monitor drug use on the school grounds and in the 

community, and planning and implementing the parent training program. 

The community component occurs during the last stages of the prevention effort and involves 

community leaders who create and implement drug abuse prevention services within the 

neighborhood, plan community activities that complement the school and family programs, and 

develop strategies to change health policies (such as local ordinances restricting cigarette smoking 

in public venues). This final goal is achieved through subcommittees of local government and 

community leaders and is largely directed at reducing supply of and demand for gateway 

substances. A mass media campaign using television, radio, and print outlets is delivered 

throughout the life of the project to convey to the larger community messages that are central to 

the student and parent skills training components of the program. 

MPP was first evaluated in Kansas City using a quasi-experimental design in which schools 

(n=50) and communities were assigned to program conditions on the basis of scheduling flexibility 

and demographic matching where possible. Three sampling plans were used to collect data, 

including the random assignment of 8 schools to treatment or control groups that involved 1,607 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 32 
students who were followed over a 3-year period. The program has demonstrated net reductions 

of up to 40 percent in adolescent daily smoking and marijuana use, along with smaller reductions 

in alcohol use, with the results maintained through high school graduation. Reductions in use of 

other illicit substances (amphetamines, LSD, and inhalants) have been shown for participating 

youth into early adulthood (age 23). The program has also demonstrated reductions in parents’ 

use of alcohol and marijuana, and increased positive parent-child communication regarding drug 

use and abuse prevention. In addition, communities participating in MPP have reported that the 

program successfully facilitated the development of community services for drug abuse prevention 

(Pentz, Mihalic, and Grotpeter, 1997). 

Promising Programs 

Project Northland 

Project Northland is a 3-year, comprehensive, community-based program designed to prevent 

alcohol use in middle school students. Each year of the program has a specific theme. In the first 

year, improvement in parent-child communication is targeted, and sixth grade students, with the 

assistance of their parents, are assigned homework assignments that relate to adolescent alcohol 

use. A communitywide task force is also established in the first year to address issues of 

community norms and youth access to alcohol. The second year involves a teacher-led classroom 

curriculum that emphasizes drug resistance skills. Parent involvement is encouraged, and youth 

are given opportunities to participate in structured, alcohol-free activities. In the final year, eighth 

grade students are encouraged to become community activists against teen alcohol use, thereby 

generalizing the lessons learned in the first 2 years of the project to the larger community. 

Evaluation of the program involved 24 Minnesota school districts (4 smaller districts were 

combined with nearby districts to ensure adequate sample size in each unit, for a total of 20 

combined districts) that were blocked by size and then randomly assigned to treatment and 

control groups. By the end of the eighth grade, the program demonstrated lower scores on a 

“tendency to use alcohol” scale, less use of alcohol in both the past week and past month, and 

lower frequency of the combination of alcohol and cigarette use for program youth. In addition, 

students who were nonusers of alcohol at the beginning of the intervention demonstrated 

significantly lower onset rates for alcohol, and cigarette and marijuana use was significantly lower 

in the intervention districts (Perry et al., 1996). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 33 
Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids 

Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS) is a school-based program designed 

to prevent anabolic androgenic steroid use among student athletes. The program uses educational 

and skills training sessions to address the risks and benefits of steroid use. ATLAS is integrated 

into team practice sessions and consists of an educational classroom curriculum and weight room 

skills training sessions. The educational component covers subjects such as risk factors of steroid 

use, strength training, and skills development to refuse steroid and other substances. In addition, 

nutritional recommendations and false claims for over-the-counter supplements are discussed. The 

weight room skills training sessions focus on demonstrating proper techniques for lifting and 

provide additional contact time to reinforce the classroom curriculum. The program also 

incorporates an informational session for parents to help them reinforce the knowledge gained by 

the youth. 

The evaluation of this program included a large sample (n=3,207) of males participating in high 

school football programs in Portland, OR (Goldberg et al., 2000). Findings demonstrated 

favorable effects on the reduction of anabolic steroid use. Longitudinal results indicated that this 

program enhanced healthy behaviors, reduced factors that encouraged steroid use, and lowered 

intent to use steroids and other substances over a 1-year period following the intervention. 

Although the reported use of alcohol and other drug use (marijuana, amphetamines, and 

narcotics) was not lower for the experimental group at program completion, it was significantly 

lower compared to the control group at the 1-year followup. 

Reorganization of Grades or Classes 

Many schoolwide interventions focus on the school climate, or environment, by making changes 

to the substantive structure of the school itself. These efforts are designed to buffer the negative 

effects of large schools or class sizes on students (particularly at-risk adolescents) and to help 

avoid or overcome problems some students encounter when transitioning into new and larger, 

urban junior or senior high school settings, especially in districts that have multiple feeder schools. 

The restructuring is intended to make the school environment more relevant for some students by 

offering work study and community service programs in addition to traditional academic subjects. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 34 
Model Programs 

None. 

Promising Programs 

School Transitional Environment Program 

The School Transitional Environment Program (STEP) tries to ease the transition of high-risk 

youth entering larger, more complex school settings (Felner and Adan, 1988). STEP involves a 

reorganization of the social system to eliminate the flux and complexity that students confront 

when entering a new school. Incoming ninth grade students are assigned to teams of 60 to 100 

students, who are then assigned to homerooms in which all students are STEP participants. 

Homeroom teachers serve as guidance counselors and assist students in making a successful 

transition. They also maintain contact with parents regarding students’ progress. All students 

participating in the program are assigned to the same core courses, which are located physically 

close together in order to facilitate a stable peer group and create a smaller “school within a 

school” physical environment. 

An initial study of STEP was conducted in a large urban high school with a total enrollment of 

approximately 1,700 students. Students were randomly selected for participation in STEP from 

approximately 450 entering students who had satisfactory school adjustment and demonstrated no 

need for special mental health services. The 65 participating STEP students were matched by sex, 

age, and ethnic background with 120 control students who met the same criteria. A total of 59 

experimental and 113 control group students completed all assessments. By the end of the ninth 

grade, students participating in the program demonstrated better attendance and school 

performance and more stable levels of self-confidence than control students. STEP students also 

perceived the school environment as more stable, understandable, well-organized, involving, and 

supportive (Felner, Ginter, and Primavera, 1982). 

A long-term followup (Felner and Adan, 1988) of the initial sample through the high school years 

(for which 90 percent of school records were obtained) showed that STEP students had higher 

grades and fewer absences than control subjects in the 9th and 10th grades, although this gap 

closed in the last 2 years of high school. The dropout rate of STEP students was half that of the 

control group (21 percent and 43 percent, respectively). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 35 
A replication of the program in two high schools and three junior high schools showed 

significantly fewer decreases in academic performance or self-concept and fewer increases on 

measures of emotional and behavioral dysfunction and difficulties (e.g., depression, self-reported 

substance abuse and delinquent acts, and teacher ratings) compared with their respective control 

groups (Felner and Adan, 1988). 

Student Training Through Urban Strategies 

Student Training Through Urban Strategies (STATUS) combines school environment change 

with classroom restructuring and education to establish stronger ties between youth and their 

communities. The program targets high-risk youth in middle/junior high and high schools. The 

school climate segment of the intervention consists of four components: 

 A student leadership class that allows students to participate in school policymaking and 

problem solving. 

 Staff development and training to support and facilitate students’ efforts. 

 Community action committees to provide resources and guidance to students. 

 Parent meetings to increase awareness of school activities and allow parent participation in 

school decisionmaking. 

In addition, STATUS students enroll in a yearlong “options” class, provided in a 2-hour block, 

that combines social studies and English and also involves law-related education. The class uses 

instructional methods emphasizing active student involvement and focuses on social institutions, 

such as the school, family, and criminal justice system, as well as on human behavior, social 

contracts, and social order. In high school, the curriculum also includes job market and life 

planning skills. 

An evaluation of STATUS involved approximately 120 students in grades 7 to 9 in 2 schools who 

were self-referred or referred by school staff, and who were randomly assigned to treatment or 

control conditions. Shifting of students occurred after randomization due to scheduling difficulties 

and resulted in nonequivalent groups, but these differences were statistically controlled. Results 

showed less delinquency, less drug involvement for middle school students, less negative peer 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 36 
influence, and better school performance and attitudes for participants compared to control 

students (Gottfredson, 1990). 

School and Discipline Management 

Like programs designed to change behavior norms or restructure the school environment, 

programs featuring school and discipline management interventions involve a comprehensive, 

schoolwide effort, with school climate change as a primary focus. Unlike other types of strategies, 

however, these interventions involve a more targeted focus on behavior management and school 

discipline practices. In addition, in contrast to many restructuring programs, they typically target 

all students within a particular school setting, rather than individual high-risk students. Many of 

these programs also strive to establish closer relationships between schools and communities by 

including parents, local leaders, and members of the community in the initiative. 

Model Programs 

None. 

Promising Programs 

Promoting Action Through Holistic Education 

Promoting Action Through Holistic Education (PATHE) targets middle and high schools that 

serve students at risk of school failure and subsequent delinquency. The program generally 

involves all students in the school and provides additional treatment for low-achieving and 

disruptive students. This comprehensive intervention uses a number of strategies to effect 

schoolwide change. School improvement programs are designed and implemented through a 

partnership of staff, students, parents, and community members. Specific academic weaknesses 

and discipline problems in the school are identified and targeted for change through staff training 

and the creation of clear and fair rules. “School pride” campaigns, extracurricular activities to 

foster greater student engagement in the school, and peer counseling services are also used to 

promote a positive school climate. Finally, the school provides job-seeking skills training and 

offers career exploration programs to promote career development for the entire student body. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 37 
In addition to these schoolwide services and interventions, PATHE provides programming for 

at-risk students, including mentoring, tutoring, and counseling programs directed at improving 

students’ self-concept, academic success, and bonding to prosocial norms (Gottfredson, 1990). 

An outcome evaluation of the program used a nonequivalent comparison group design, with all 

teachers and students in five middle schools (four program and one comparison) and four high 

schools (three program and one comparison) in low-income, predominantly African American, 

urban and rural areas. Schools were the unit of analysis for the schoolwide intervention. To test 

the program’s effect among a high-risk sample of students who were targeted for special 

academic and counseling services, a pool of students selected through teacher referrals and 

examination of academic and behavior referrals from each school were randomly assigned to 

treatment or control conditions. Overall, the evaluation demonstrated decreases in levels of 

serious delinquency, drug involvement, suspensions, and school disciplinary actions in the schools 

participating in the program. The results also indicated decreased school alienation, increases in 

attachment to school, and improvements in school climate and discipline management. The 

high-risk youth sample had higher graduation rates, higher standardized test scores, and increased 

school attendance, but showed no change in delinquency; self-reported drug involvement was 

higher for the treatment group. These results suggest that the mentoring, tutoring, and counseling 

components directed at high-risk students were not enough to change problem behaviors 

(Gottfredson, 1990). 

Classroom or Instructional Management 

Prevention and intervention strategies focusing on classroom management generally combine 

teacher training in effective instructional and disciplinary practices with student training. 

Ultimately, the goal of such strategies is to equip teachers with the necessary skills to positively 

manage student behavior. Generally, these approaches involve the entire school population rather 

than just the high-risk students (Thornton et al., 2000). However, the interventions are often 

designed to be implemented in at-risk schools, such as those located in large urban areas or that 

have histories of student behavior and learning problems. 

Model Programs 

None. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 38 
Promising Programs 

Seattle Social Development Project 

The Seattle Social Development Project is a long-term intervention for grades one through six 

that combines parent and teacher training to intervene early in a child’s development to foster 

prosocial bonds, strengthen school attachment and commitment, and decrease youth delinquency. 

The program is based on social control and social learning theories. Teachers receive training in 

proactive classroom management techniques, and in interactive teaching and cooperative learning 

styles. These strategies are focused on establishing clear rules and rewards for positive behavior. 

Teachers are encouraged to frequently assess each child to ensure that he or she is learning and to 

remediate where necessary. Additionally, students are encouraged to work in small, diverse 

groups to promote healthy relationships with peers. In first grade, teachers also provide 

instruction in communication, decisionmaking, negotiation, and conflict resolution skills. The sixth 

grade curriculum includes refusal skills training (Hawkins et al., 1992). 

Throughout the program, parents can participate in parent training and child development sessions 

that are age specific. For example, parents of children in first and second grades receive training in 

child monitoring and discipline techniques. The second and third grade parents are offered 

sessions geared toward parent-child communication, school engagement, and support for their 

child’s academic progress. In fifth and sixth grades, sessions focus on family communication 

regarding drugs and encouraging refusal skills (Hawkins et al., 1992). 

The evaluation of the project included two Seattle elementary schools assigned as full control or 

full experimental sites. In the remaining six elementary schools in the district, entering first grade 

students and teachers were randomly assigned to intervention or control classrooms. During 

grades one through four, newly entering students were randomly assigned to classrooms. When 

the initial students entered the fifth grade, the panel was expanded to include all fifth grade 

students in 18 elementary schools. 

Results indicated that, by the end of the second grade, participating students exhibited lower 

levels of aggression and antisocial behaviors (white males only) and lower levels of 

self-destructive behavior (white females only) (Hawkins, Von Cleve, and Catalano, 1991). Older 

students (those entering fifth grade) who received the intervention were less likely to begin using 

alcohol and engaging in delinquent behavior, and had increases in school attachment and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 39 
improved family relationships, compared with students in the control group (Hawkins et al., 

1992). At age 18, students who had participated in the project from grades one through six, 

compared with students in the control group and students who had received the program in 

grades five and six only, had less involvement in violent delinquency and sexual activity, less 

alcohol use (including drinking and driving behavior), improved attachment and commitment to 

school, and improved school achievement compared with students in the control group (Hawkins 

et al., 1999). 

Changing the Community Environment 

Communities represent a primary domain in which to address the problems of youth violence and 

drug abuse. Families and schools do not exist in a vacuum, and much of the success of these 

institutions is influenced by the communities in which they exist. Although most communities are 

cohesive and contain various channels for positive youth development, others are disorganized, 

economically deprived or deteriorated, and have high levels of unemployment and mobility and 

low levels of neighborhood attachment and natural surveillance of public places. Although crime 

occurs in all communities, it is especially problematic in these socioeconomically deprived areas. 

Numerous challenges arise when communities plan and develop initiatives for tackling their crime 

problems. The first challenge is to mobilize the community (including community leaders and 

residents, government agencies, and private organizations such as businesses and churches), 

which is especially difficult when it is highly disorganized. The second challenge lies in identifying 

and sustaining effective leadership and organizational structure. Third, garnering necessary 

resources is oftentimes problematic. Fourth, numerous challenges arise when trying to coordinate 

multiple program efforts across several agencies. A sustained and successful effort requires a 

common purpose and the coordinated efforts of many individuals and groups (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 1993). 

Evaluations of community-based programs using an acceptable methodology are limited because 

of the extreme difficulty associated with this work (Sherman, 1997a). Evaluating risk factors 

across a substantial sample of communities has generally been considered too cost prohibitive by 

funders. An additional problem is that community-based efforts generally implement multiple 

programs at the same time, and isolating the active ingredients that cause success is difficult. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 40 
Because of the problems in both implementing and evaluating community-based initiatives, few 

programs at this level have been identified. 

Model Programs 

None. 

Promising Programs 

CASASTART 

CASASTART, formerly known as the Children At Risk (CAR) program, targets youth in 

high-risk environments to reduce their exposure to drugs and criminal activities. Those 

participating in a demonstration trial were ages 11–13 and met the criteria for being at risk in 

school, in the family, and individually. 

CASASTART tries to decrease individual, peer group, family, and neighborhood risk factors 

through case management services, afterschool and summer activities, and increased police 

involvement. The program also works to improve children’s attachment to adults, attachment to 

prosocial norms, school performance, and participation in prosocial activities/peer groups. These 

goals are achieved through the implementation of eight core components, which target different 

areas of risk, including the family, peer group, individual, and community: 

 Community-enhanced policing/enhanced enforcement: increased police presence and 

involvement in the community and working with youth. 

 Case management: small caseloads (13–18 families) ensure close and personalized attention to 

youth and their families, as well as implementation of plans targeting individual needs. 

 Criminal/juvenile justice intervention: communication between case managers and juvenile 

justice and probation departments enhances supervision and planning for court-involved 

youth. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 41 
 Family services: parent programs, counseling services, organized activities, and family 

advocacy by case managers increase positive involvement of parents in the lives of their 

children. 

 Afterschool and summer activities: prosocial, peer-oriented activities are implemented, 

including not only recreation and entertainment programs, but also personal social 

development projects, particularly those directed at self-esteem, cultural heritage, and social 

problems. 

 Education services: tutoring, homework assistance, and work preparation opportunities are 

offered to strengthen individual skills. 

 Mentoring: group or one-to-one mentoring relationships promote positive behaviors. 

 Incentives: monetary and nonmonetary incentives are given for participation in CASASTART 

activities. 

Five cities participated in the evaluation—Austin, TX; Bridgeport, CT; Memphis, TN; Savannah, 

GA; and Seattle, WA—and all had neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, crime, and drug 

dealing. Eligible youth from these areas were identified by case managers, schools, and courts and 

were randomly assigned to treatment (n=338) or control groups (n=333). Quasi-experimental 

neighborhoods (matched to the original CAR neighborhoods) and youth were also chosen 

because control group youth in the CAR sites were exposed to spillover effects. This last group 

consisted of 203 youth identified by CASASTART staff, schools, and cooperating agencies. 

The evaluation demonstrated that, immediately following the program, experimental youth had 

lower rates of drug use in the past month, lifetime use of gateway drugs, and any drug use, 

compared with the quasi-experimental group composed of matched neighborhoods and youth. At 

the 1-year followup, CASASTART youth were less likely than a control group of youth to report 

use of any drugs, gateway drugs, or stronger drugs in the past month; use of any drugs and 

gateway drugs in the past year; drug sales during the last month and lifetime; and violent crimes in 

the past year. Compared with the quasi-experimental group, CASASTART youth were less likely 

to report lifetime use of any drugs or gateway drugs and were less likely to report lifetime drug 

sales (Harrell, Cavanagh, and Sridharan 1998). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 42 
Individually Focused Programs 

The most common form of intervention targets individuals in order to promote social

competencies and/or ameliorate deficits in troubled adolescents. As opposed to focusing on

unhealthy environments (as exemplified in the school environmental programs described above),

individually focused interventions attempt to change a person’s thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, or

behaviors. Many multicomponent programs, however, address both issues and incorporate

environmental and individually focused strategies in the intervention, with great success (Lipsey,

1992). The individually focused programs are grouped into three categories:

 Social skills, behavioral, and cognitive-behavioral programs.

 Mentoring and tutoring programs.

 Community supervision and aftercare programs.

Programs in each of these categories are described below.

Social Skills, Behavioral, and Cognitive-Behavioral Programs 

Teaching youth self-control and social skills enables them to competently interact with others and 

resolve problems without force or violence. These skills are typically taught through programs 

using behavioral or cognitive-behavioral techniques. 

Behavioral programs focus on rewarding desired behavior and providing mild forms of 

punishment for undesired behavior. These interventions rely on external reinforcers (e.g., 

contingency contracting, token economies) to shape behavior. 

Cognitive skills programs, on the other hand, focus on thinking skills and the ways in which 

individuals process social information (Fraser, 1996). The cognitive approach seeks to improve a 

child’s ability to think through a problem situation, identify consequences of a certain action, and 

evaluate and generate optional solutions to problems, with repeated emphasis on the links 

between thought and action. Cognitive approaches typically combine some behavioral strategies 

(cognitive-behavioral approach), especially when targeting antisocial or delinquent youth to 

promote prosocial behavior. The assumption is that by changing internal factors (i.e., cognition), 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 43 
as opposed to purely external factors (i.e., reinforcement contingencies), the behavior will be 

learned and generalized to everyday situations (Tolan and Guerra, 1994). 

Cognitive-behavioral programs are similar to the social skills building programs that use 

behavioral and cognitive techniques; however, the former are typically delivered to small groups 

of at-risk adolescents or youth already displaying behavioral problems, rather than to a general 

population of students. The programs work intensely with these youth to change behavior by 

using behavioral techniques of punishments and rewards or by altering deficiencies in thinking 

skills. This strategy is based on the premise that delinquent youth, who generally score lower on 

cognitive tests than their nondelinquent peers (Henggeler, 1989), are deficient in a number of 

thinking and social problem-solving skills necessary for social adaptation. For instance, many 

delinquent youth have the following characteristics (Kazdin, 2000; Ross and Ross, 1989; Spivack, 

Platt, and Shure, 1976): 

 They act impulsively, giving little thought to their actions and generating few alternative 

solutions to interpersonal problems. 

 They believe that what happens to them depends on fate, chance, or luck, and fail to see the 

consequences of their own actions. 

 They focus on ends or goals rather than the intermediate steps to obtain them. 

 They exhibit a rigid or concrete thinking style, which makes it difficult for them to understand 

the reasons for rules or laws. 

 They lack thinking skills required for solving problems and interacting with others. 

 They misinterpret the actions and intentions of others. 

The development of cognitive skills helps youth to successfully adapt to their environment and 

reduces the likelihood that they will adopt a criminal lifestyle. 

Social and cognitive skills are learned skills that are greatly influenced by environmental factors 

(Ross and Ross, 1989). For example, extreme poverty may impede the successful development of 

cognitive skills, as economically deprived neighborhoods tend to be more disorganized and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 44 
provide less social control over residents, i.e., there may be fewer adults or peers to model 

effective problem-solving strategies. Inadequate or coercive parental supervision and discipline, 

abuse, or neglect may also have a retarding effect on the development of cognitive skills in 

general, and social perspective taking and empathetic understanding in particular. Children who 

are disciplined in a controlling, erratic, or excessively punitive manner may perceive that they have 

little control over their own environment; fail to learn adequate problem-solving skills; believe that 

what happens to them is not dependent on their behavior; and are especially likely to act 

aggressively because of their inability to solve problems and satisfy needs in a more socially 

acceptable way. Parents with a history of criminal behavior, substance use, or depression may 

model cognitive deficits, such as lack of self-management or ineffectual problem-solving, 

ultimately resulting in cognitive deficits in their children. 

Many effective programs use social and cognitive skills training approaches, and these types of 

interventions have been shown to reduce crime, substance use, school dropout and truancy, and 

other antisocial behavior and conduct problems (Gottfredson, Wilson, and Najaka, 2002). Social 

skills programs have typically been offered to general and at-risk populations (Davis and Tolan, 

1993). They have also been effectively delivered at different developmental stages, including 

preschool, elementary, junior high, and senior high school (Gottfredson, Wilson, Najaka, 2002). 

Cognitive programs, however, have been more beneficial for those older than ages 10–11 because 

of their more advanced stage of cognitive development (Kazdin, 2000). These programs are 

typically multifaceted and include elements of modeling, behavioral rehearsal (practiced 

role-playing), feedback, social reinforcement, and mild punishment (loss of points or tokens) 

(Kazdin, 1987; Sarason and Sarason, 1981). Although cognitive development strategies have been 

offered as primary prevention programs, and in treatment and correctional settings, they work less 

well for conduct-disordered children who have co-morbid diagnoses, academic delays and 

dysfunction, and lower reading achievement and who come from families with high levels of 

impairment (Kazdin, 2000). 

Other approaches in this general area attempt to reduce children’s misconduct by modifying their 

parents’ behavior, with the overall goal of altering the pattern of familial interchanges so that 

prosocial, rather than coercive, behavior is reinforced and supported within the family (Kazdin, 

2000; Ross and Ross, 1989). Parents are taught to establish a consistent set of rules and provide 

reinforcements for prosocial behaviors as well as mild forms of punishment to suppress negative 

behaviors. Parents are also taught social skills such as communication, contracting, and problem 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 45 
solving. Children thus develop better cognitive strategies and social skills by observing how their 

own parents deal with problem-solving issues. 

Model Programs 

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies 

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) is a comprehensive program for promoting 

social and emotional competencies, including the understanding, expression, and regulation of 

emotions. The curriculum is designed for use by teachers and counselors throughout the year, 

with entire classrooms of children in kindergarten through fifth grade. PATHS has been 

researched with children in regular education classrooms and also with a variety of special needs 

students (e.g., deaf, hearing impaired, learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, mildly mentally 

delayed, and gifted). The curriculum provides teachers with systematic, developmentally based 

lessons, materials, and instructions for teaching their students emotional literacy, self-control, 

social competence, positive peer relations, and interpersonal problem-solving skills. More 

specifically, lessons include instruction in identifying and labeling feelings, expressing feelings, 

assessing the intensity of feelings, managing feelings, understanding the difference between 

feelings and behaviors, delaying gratification, controlling impulses, reducing stress, using self-talk, 

reading and interpreting social cues, understanding the perspectives of others, using steps for 

problem solving and decisionmaking, having a positive attitude toward life, increasing 

self-awareness, and enhancing verbal and nonverbal communication skills. 

Focusing on these factors provides tools that enable youth to achieve academically and helps 

enhance classroom atmosphere and the learning process. In addition, promoting these 

developmental skills helps prevent or reduce behavioral and emotional problems. In fact, program 

evaluations based on various measures (such as teacher ratings and children’s self reports) have 

demonstrated positive behavioral changes related to hyperactivity, peer aggression, and conduct 

problems (Greenberg, Kusche, and Mihalic, 1998). Using populations of normally adjusted 

students, behaviorally at-risk students, and deaf students, these effects also have been found for 

classrooms receiving the intervention compared with matched controls. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 46 
Life Skills Training 

Life Skills Training (LST) is a 3-year intervention curriculum designed to prevent or reduce 

gateway drug use (tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana) by providing social resistance skills training 

to help students identify pressures to use drugs and resist drug offers (Dusenbury and Falco, 

1995). LST is primarily meant to be implemented in school classrooms by teachers, but has also 

been successfully taught by health professionals and peer leaders. LST targets all middle/junior 

high school students, with an initial 15-lesson intervention offered in grade 6 or 7, depending on 

the school structure, and booster sessions taught in the following 2 years (10 sessions in year 2 

and 5 sessions in year 3). Lessons average 45 minutes in length and can be delivered from once a 

day to once a week. 

The three basic components of the program teach youth the following skills: 

 Personal self-management skills (decisionmaking and problem solving, self-control skills for 

coping with anxiety, and self-improvement skills). 

 Social skills (communication and general social skills). 

 Information designed to effect youth’s attitudes concerning drug use, to instill normative 

expectations concerning drugs, and to promote the development of skills for resisting negative 

influences from the media and peers regarding drug use. 

Teachers use techniques such as direct instruction, demonstration, feedback, reinforcement, and 

practice. 

Using outcomes averaged across more than a dozen studies, LST has been found to reduce 

alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use by 50 to 75 percent for intervention students compared to 

control students. Reductions in smoking and the use of inhalants, narcotics, and hallucinogens 

have been demonstrated through the 12th grade (Botvin, Mihalic, and Grotpeter, 1998). 

Project Towards No Drug Abuse 

Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) is a targeted drug abuse prevention program 

with a focus on high school youth (ages 14 to 19) who are at risk for drug abuse. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 47 
The 12 classroom-based lessons, approximately 40 to 50 minutes each, are designed to be 

implemented over a 4-week period, although they could be spread out over as long as 5 weeks on 

the condition that all lessons are taught. The instruction to students provides cognitive motivation 

enhancement activities (to not use drugs), detailed information about the social and health 

consequences of drug use, correction of cognitive misperceptions and addresses topics including 

instruction in active listening, effective communication skills, stress management, coping skills, 

tobacco cessation techniques and self-control to counteract risk factors for drug abuse relevant to 

older teens. 

Project TND has been tested in three true experimental field trials, involving one or two program 

conditions that were compared to a standard care control condition. A total of 3,000 youth from 

42 schools were involved across the three trials. At 1-year followup relative to comparisons, 

participants who received the 12-session program experienced: a 27 percent prevalence reduction 

in 30-day cigarette use, a 22 percent prevalence reduction in 30-day marijuana use, a 26 percent 

prevalence reduction in 30-day hard drug use, a 9 percent prevalence reduction in 30-day alcohol 

use among baseline drinkers, and a 25 percent prevalence reduction in 1-year weapons carrying 

among males. 

Promising Programs 

I Can Problem Solve 

I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) trains children to generate a variety of solutions to interpersonal 

problems, consider the consequences of these solutions, and recognize thoughts, feelings, and 

motives that create problem situations. By teaching children to think, rather than what to think, 

the program changes thinking styles and, in turn, enhances children’s social adjustment, promotes 

prosocial behavior, and decreases impulsivity and inhibition. The program was originally designed 

for use in nursery school and kindergarten, but has also been successfully implemented with 

children in grades five and six. 

Throughout the intervention, instructors use pictures, role-playing, puppets, and group interaction 

to help develop students’ thinking skills, and children’s own lives and problems are used as 

examples when teachers demonstrate problem-solving techniques. Small groups of 6–10 children 

receive training for approximately 3 months. The intervention begins with 10 to 12 lessons 

focused on basic skills and problem-solving language. The next 20 lessons help students identify 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 48 
their feelings and become sensitive to others’ emotions, so that they learn to recognize people’s 

feelings in problem situations and realize that they can influence others’ responses. The last 15 

lessons use role-playing games and dialogue to promote problem-solving skills. Students generate 

solutions to hypothetical problem situations and consider the possible consequences of their 

decisions. 

A 2-year evaluation of ICPS revealed significant benefits for intervention students. The first year 

of the intervention involved 219 African American students attending 20 federally funded daycare 

centers (10 centers were given the intervention and 10 were used as a control group). There were 

131 students remaining in the second year, who were further divided to receive, or not receive, a 

second year of the program. Immediately following and 1 year after the program ended, ICPS 

children, compared with control students, demonstrated less impulsive (including aggression) 

classroom behavior, less inhibited classroom behavior, and better problem-solving skills (Shure 

and Spivack, 1980; 1982). Additional analyses compared students receiving 1 and 2 years of 

interventions. The results showed that students receiving 2 years had the highest scores in 

generating alternative solutions, followed by students trained for 1 year, and then control 

students. However, the second year of training made no difference in terms of behavior ratings; 1 

year was sufficient to produce adequate behavioral adjustment. 

A replication with fifth and sixth grade students found that ICPS children (n=222), compared with 

a treatment group that received training in critical thinking skills (n=97), demonstrated more 

positive, prosocial behaviors, healthier relationships with peers, and better problem-solving skills 

at the end of grade five (Shure and Healey, 1993). At the end of grade six, all ICPS students 

achieved greater gains in ICPS skills than those in the control group, and the group receiving 2 

years of training was superior in all positive behaviors as measured by teachers, peers, and 

independent observers. 

Preventive Treatment Program 

The Preventive Treatment Program is designed to prevent antisocial behavior in boys who display 

early problem behavior. This 2-year program combines parent training with social skills training 

for youth to decrease delinquency, substance use, and gang involvement. The intervention has 

been successfully implemented for white, Canadian-born males, ages 7–9, from lowsocioeconomic families, who were assessed as having high levels of disruptive behavior in 

kindergarten. During intervention, parents receive an average of 17 sessions that focus on 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 49 
monitoring their children’s behavior, giving positive reinforcement for prosocial behavior, using 

punishment effectively, and managing family crises. The boys receive 19 sessions directed at 

improving prosocial skills and self-control. The training is implemented in small groups containing 

both disruptive and nondisruptive boys, and it uses coaching, peer modeling, self-instruction, 

reinforcement, and role-playing to build skills. 

The program evaluation included boys who were rated by their teachers as highly disruptive at the 

end of kindergarten. Of the 1,161 boys from 53 schools who were nominated, 249 met the 

selection criteria and were randomly assigned (before the others were eliminated because of 

failure to meet the selection criteria) to one of three groups: 

 A treatment group (46 families after selection screening and giving consent to participate in 

the study). 

 A no-treatment contact group (84 families). 

 A no-treatment, no-contact control group (42 families). 

Intervention youth demonstrated both short-term and long-term gains. At age 12, 3 years after the 

intervention, treated boys were less likely than untreated boys in the two control groups to report 

trespassing, taking objects worth less than $10, taking objects worth more than $10, and stealing 

bicycles. Treated boys were rated by teachers as fighting less than the untreated boys (control 

groups combined). Also, 29 percent of the treated boys were rated as well-adjusted in school, 

compared with 19 percent of the untreated boys; 22 percent of the treated boys, compared with 

44 percent of the untreated boys, displayed less serious difficulties in school; and 23 percent of the 

treated boys, compared with 43 percent of the untreated boys, were held back in school or placed 

in special education classes. At age 15, those receiving the intervention were less likely than 

controls to report gang involvement; having been drunk or taken drugs in the past 12 months; 

committing delinquent acts (stealing, vandalism, drug use); and having friends arrested by the 

police (Tremblay et al., 1996; Tremblay et al., 1992; Tremblay et al., 1991). 

Good Behavior Game 

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a behavior modification program taught by classroom 

teachers and is directed at decreasing early aggressive and shy behaviors to prevent later 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 50 
criminality. GBG can be applied to general populations of early elementary school children (i.e., it 

is a universal program), although the most significant results have been found for children 

demonstrating early high-risk behavior. GBG improves teachers’ abilities to define tasks, set rules, 

and discipline students, and allows students to work in teams in which each individual is 

responsible to the rest of the group. Before the game begins, teachers clearly specify those 

disruptive behaviors (e.g., verbal and physical disruptions, noncompliance) that, if displayed, will 

result in a team’s receiving a checkmark on the board. By the end of the game, teams that have 

not exceeded the maximum number of marks are rewarded, whereas teams that exceed this 

standard receive no rewards. Eventually, the teacher begins the game with no warning and at 

different periods during the day, so that students are always monitoring their behavior and 

conforming to expectations. 

The evaluation of this program included 1,084 first grade children from 19 schools in 5 urban 

areas of Baltimore. Three or four most similar schools were matched within each of the urban 

areas and assigned to one of two treatments (GBG or a Mastery Learning program targeting 

reading skills) or to a control condition. Classrooms within each school were randomly assigned 

as either an intervention or control class (receiving no intervention). Children entering first grade 

were then randomly assigned to classrooms. At the end of first grade, GBG students, compared to 

a control group, had less aggressive and shy behaviors according to teachers and fewer peer 

reports of aggressive behavior. Additionally, the alternative treatment, Mastery Learning, 

produced a significant short-term impact on reading achievement for both males and females. At 

the end of sixth grade, GBG students, compared to a control group, demonstrated decreases in 

levels of aggression for males who were rated as highly aggressive in first grade (Kellam et al., 

1994). 

Fast Track 

Fast Track is a comprehensive and long-term program that seeks to prevent chronic and severe 

conduct problems for high-risk children. It is based on the theory that antisocial behavior stems 

from the interaction of multiple influences, and it includes the school, home, and individual in its 

intervention. Fast Track’s main goals are to increase communication and bonds among these three 

domains; enhance children’s social, cognitive, and problem-solving skills; improve peer 

relationships; and ultimately decrease disruptive behavior in the home and school. Although the 

primary intervention is designed for all youth in a school setting, Fast Track specifically targets 

children identified in kindergarten as exhibiting disruptive behavior and poor peer relations. The 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 51 
program spans grades 1 through 10, but is most intense during the key periods of entry into 

school (first grade) and transition from grade school to middle school. It is multidimensional and 

includes the following components: 

 Parent training occurs in first grade and emphasizes fostering children’s academic 

performance, communicating with the school, controlling anger, and using effective discipline 

strategies. 

 Home visitations occur biweekly to reinforce parenting skills, promote parents’ feelings of 

efficacy and empowerment, and foster parents’ problem-solving skills. 

 Social skills training enhances children’s social-cognitive and problem-solving skills, peer 

relations, anger control, and friendship maintenance. 

 Academic tutoring is offered three times per week to improve children’s reading skills. 

 A universal classroom intervention utilizes the PATHS curriculum, a program designed to 

help children in grades one through five develop emotional awareness skills, self-control, and 

problem-solving skills. 

The evaluation of the program included 6,715 first graders from 12 elementary schools in highrisk neighborhoods (those with high levels of delinquency and juvenile arrests) in the following 

areas: Durham, NC; Nashville, TN; Seattle, WA; and central Pennsylvania. Most of the sites were 

characterized by ethnic diversity and low- to middle-socioeconomic standing. All participating 

schools were placed in matched sets based on their similar characteristics (i.e., racial makeup, 

size, poverty level, and achievement level). Schools within each set were then randomly assigned 

to treatment and control groups. 

Results have been published only for a first grade sample in which three different cohorts were 

examined. Consent was obtained to study 7,560 students. Of these, 845 were designated as 

high-risk and assigned to intervention and control groups, to be studied as a separate group. Thus, 

the first analysis of classroom effects involved 6,715 children, with the evaluation demonstrating 

that intervention classes displayed lower levels of aggression, improved classroom atmosphere, 

decreases in hyperactive-disruptive behavior, and fewer conduct problems compared with control 

classes (Conduct Problems Prevention Group, 1999). An analysis of the high-risk sample showed 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 52 
that intervention students, compared with control students, demonstrated improved emotional 

recognition, emotional coping, and social problem solving; decreases in levels of aggressive 

retaliation; and improvement in aggressive-disruptive behaviors on 4 of 12 measures (Conduct 

Problems Prevention Group, 1999). 

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers 

Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) is a population-based intervention for the 

prevention of conduct problems such as antisocial behavior, involvement with delinquent peers, 

and drug/alcohol use. The program is designed for elementary school-age children and their 

families living in at-risk neighborhoods characterized by high rates of juvenile delinquency. LIFT 

targets the school, peer group, and family through the following program components: 

 A classroom component has twenty 1-hour sessions taught over 10 weeks using a lecture and 

role-play format that focuses on specific social or problem-solving skills, unstructured free 

play, skills review, and daily rewards. 

 A modification of the Good Behavior Game is used during recess. Each class is divided into 

small groups for playground play. Children can earn rewards by exhibiting positive 

problem-solving skills and suppressing negative behaviors in this setting. 

 In a series of six meetings held at their children’s school, parents are taught how to create a 

home environment that is conducive to the ongoing practice of good discipline and 

supervision. Each meeting includes a review of the results of home practice exercises; a 

lecture, discussion, and role-play of the current week’s issues; and a presentation of home 

practice exercises for the following week. 

The evaluation involved 12 schools randomly assigned to LIFT or a control condition, with first 

and fifth grade classrooms also randomly chosen for participation. Measurements were collected 

during the fall and spring of each year for 3 years. Evaluation of posttest results (Reid et al., 

1999) showed that, compared with children in the control group, LIFT children showed 

significantly decreased physical aggression on the playground and these effects were most 

dramatic for children who were rated most aggressive at pretest. Teacher ratings indicated a 

significant increase in positive social skills and classroom behavior in children receiving the LIFT 

program. Additionally, LIFT mothers who displayed the highest pre-intervention levels of 

aversive behaviors showed the largest reductions when compared with control mothers. After 3 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 53 
years, fifth grade children in the control group were 2.2 times more likely to initiate affiliation 

with misbehaving peers and 1.8 times more likely to initiate patterned alcohol use than LIFT 

children. Intervention children in the first grade sample were less likely to show an increase in 

inattentive, impulsive, and hyperactive behaviors, as perceived by teachers (Eddy, Reid, and 

Fetrow, 2000). 

Preventive Intervention 

Preventive Intervention is a behavioral intervention that helps prevent juvenile delinquency, 

substance use, and school failure for high-risk adolescents. The 2-year intervention begins in 

seventh grade and includes monitoring student actions, rewarding appropriate behavior, and 

increasing communication among teachers, students, and parents. Program staff check school 

records for participants’ daily attendance, tardiness, and official disciplinary actions, and they 

contact parents by letter, phone, and occasional home visits to inform them of their children’s 

progress. Teachers submit weekly reports assessing students’ punctuality, preparedness, and 

behavior in the classroom, and students are rewarded for good evaluations. Each week, 3–5 

students meet with a staff member to discuss their recent behaviors, discuss the relationship 

between actions and their consequences, and role-play prosocial alternatives to problem 

behaviors. 

The program evaluation included 2 sets of 40 students from 2 schools who demonstrated at least 

2 of the following characteristics: low academic motivation, family problems, and frequent or 

serious school discipline referrals. These students were matched into 20 pairs and randomly 

assigned to treatment or control conditions. At the end of the intervention, program students 

showed higher grades and better attendance compared with control students (Bry and George, 

1980). Results from a 1-year followup study showed that intervention students, compared with 

control students, had less self-reported delinquency, drug abuse (including hallucinogens, 

stimulants, glue, tranquilizers, and barbiturates), school-based problems (suspension, absenteeism, 

tardiness, academic failure), and unemployment (20 percent and 45 percent, respectively). A 5-

year followup found that intervention students had fewer county court records than control 

students (Bry, 1982). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 54 
Mentoring and Tutoring Programs 

Other individually based programs focusing on one-to-one mentoring or tutoring, with youth 

typically paired with an adult or older adolescent, may be used to build interpersonal, school, or 

employment skills. These programs generally target students at high risk of school failure or 

dropout and are designed to provide more intensive and individualized support than interventions 

delivered at the school or classroom level. Mentoring is based on the premise that a predictable, 

consistent relationship with a stable, competent adult can help youth to cope with and avoid a 

high-risk lifestyle. Tutoring programs strive to overcome risk factors, such as early school failure 

and a lack of bonding to school, by providing intensive efforts to remediate academic deficiencies. 

Evaluations of these program types have yielded mixed results (Brewer et al., 1995). 

Model Programs 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA), with a network of more than 500 local agencies 

throughout the nation, maintaining more than 145,000 one-to-one relationships between youth 

and volunteer adults, operates as the largest and best-known mentoring program in the country. 

BBBSA began in the early 20th century by targeting youth in need of socialization, firm guidance, 

and connection with positive adult role models. Today, the program serves youth ages 6–18, a 

significant number of whom are from disadvantaged, single-parent households. Volunteer mentors 

are screened and trained, and matches are carefully made using established procedures and 

criteria. Mentors meet with youth partners at least three times a month for 3 to 5 hours to 

participate in activities determined by the interests of the child and the volunteer, such as taking a 

walk, attending a school activity or sporting event, playing a game, visiting the library, or just 

sharing thoughts and ideas about life. The program’s hallmark is the supervision of the match 

relationship, which includes regular, scheduled visits and phone conversations among the mentor, 

the parent, and the child. 

An 18-month evaluation of eight BBBSA affiliates found that, compared with a control group 

waiting for a match, youth in the mentoring program were 46 percent less likely to start using 

drugs, 27 percent less likely to start drinking, and 32 percent less likely to hit someone. Mentored 

youth also skipped half as many days of school as control youth, had better attitudes and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 55 
performance in school, and had improved peer and family relationships (McGill, Mihalic, and 

Grotpeter, 1997). 

Promising Programs 

None. 

Community Supervision and Aftercare Programs 

When treating youth already engaged in problem behaviors (i.e., “indicated” youth), some 

programs provide aftercare and transitional services to juveniles following a period of 

incarceration, while others offer treatment to less serious offenders who are diverted from the 

juvenile justice system. Regardless of the strategy used, meta-analyses indicate that reductions in 

recidivism are greater when treatment is provided in community settings rather than in institutions 

(Lipsey, 1992). In addition, although many programs offer increased surveillance and restraint 

along with treatment, in general, recidivism is reduced only when services and rehabilitation are an 

integral part of the intervention (MacKenzie, 1997). 

Model Programs 

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care 

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is a cost-effective alternative to group or 

residential treatment, incarceration, and hospitalization for adolescents who have problems with 

chronic antisocial behavior, emotional disturbance, and delinquency. MTFC provides short-term 

(approximately 7 months), highly structured and therapeutic care in foster families to decrease 

delinquent behavior and increase participation in developmentally appropriate prosocial activities, 

including school, sports, and hobbies. The program recruits, trains, and supervises foster families 

in the community to provide participating youth with close supervision, fair and consistent limits, 

predictable consequences for rule-breaking, a supportive relationship with an adult, and an 

environment that reduces exposure to delinquent peers. 

Youth participate in individual, skills-focused therapy provided weekly. The role of the therapist 

is to support the youngster’s adjustment in the MTFC home where the main treatment effect is 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 56 
expected to occur. School attendance, behavior, and homework completion are closely

monitored, and interventions are conducted as needed for youth in the schools.

Youth also participate in a structured daily behavior management program implemented in the

MTFC home. A case manager, with the help of the MTFC parents, develops an individualized

daily program for each youth that specifies the youth’s schedule of activities and behavioral

expectations and sets the number of points he or she can earn for satisfactory performance. The

goal of the point program is to give MTFC parents a vehicle for providing the youngster with

frequent positive reinforcement for normative and prosocial behaviors, and to give the youngster a

clear message about how he or she is doing. Three levels of supervision are defined in MTFC:

 Level 1 requires adult supervision at all times.

 Level 2 grants youth limited free time in the community.

 Level 3 allows for some peer activities that require less structure.

The program relies on routine consultation with and ongoing supervision of MTFC parents and

youth by case managers. Parents are called daily for a report on the youth’s progress, and they

also attend weekly group meetings. This ongoing consultation helps the MTFC parents to manage

difficult adolescent problem behavior in a therapeutic way.

Family therapy is provided for the youth’s biological (or adoptive) families in either a group or

individual format. Family therapy typically includes a focus on problem solving and

communication skills, methods for de-escalating family conflict, and instruction on how to

advocate for school services for the youth. They are also taught to use the same type of structured

supervision used in the MTFC home to increase the likelihood of success when the youth returns

home.

Evaluations of MTFC demonstrate that participating youth had significantly fewer arrests (an

average of 2.6 offenses versus 5.4 offenses) during a 12-month followup compared with a control

group of youth who participated in residential group care programs. During the first 2 years after

program completion, youth who participated in the MTFC program spent significantly fewer days

in lockup than youth who were placed in other community-based programs. In addition,

significantly fewer MTFC youth were ever incarcerated following treatment (Chamberlain, 1990).

An additional evaluation of youth ages 9–18 leaving state mental hospital settings showed that

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 57 
MTFC youth were placed out of the hospital at a significantly higher rate than control youth 

(Chamberlain and Mihalic, 1998). 

Promising Programs 

Intensive Protective Supervision 

Intensive Protective Supervision (IPS) removes juvenile offenders from criminal justice 

institutions and provides them with more proactive and extensive community supervision than 

they would otherwise receive. Its primary goals are to reduce status offenses, decrease the 

likelihood of future serious delinquency, and increase socially acceptable behaviors. This program 

has specifically targeted youth under age 16 who have been adjudicated as status offenders and 

who tend to be nonserious offenders with little history of delinquency. 

Offenders assigned to IPS are closely monitored by project counselors who have fewer cases and 

interact more extensively with the youth and his/her family than do traditional parole officers. The 

counselors make frequent home visits to assess family and youth needs, provide support for 

parents, and model appropriate behavior. In doing so, they provide external expert evaluation, 

which includes creating individualized plans to effect desired behavioral changes, and they identify 

and help deliver professional and/or therapeutic services. Youth assessments, needs, and goals are 

viewed as ongoing and changing. 

The program has demonstrated both short-term and long-term reductions in juvenile offending for 

participants in an evaluation comparing youth randomly assigned to IPS with those assigned to 

regular protective supervision. IPS youth were referred less frequently than control youth to 

juvenile court for delinquency during the period of supervision (7 percent compared with 26 

percent). Additionally, 65 percent of IPS youth compared with 45 percent of the control group 

were judged to have successfully completed treatment. One year after case closing, 3 times as 

many of the control group youth as IPS participants (35 percent versus 14 percent) were referred 

to juvenile court for delinquency (Land, McCall, and Williams, 1992). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 58 
Conclusion 

In light of an increasing demand for accountability, efforts to identify effective violence and drug 

prevention programs are intensifying. Despite the time and attention devoted to this issue, the 

majority of programs currently being implemented have not been proven effective by evaluations 

conducted with a rigorous research design. In fact, many evaluations fail to meet even minimal 

criteria needed to demonstrate results, and even fewer employ randomized designs, the gold 

standard of research design. As a result, such programs cannot rule out alternative explanations 

for any demonstrated positive results, which weakens confidence in their findings. In contrast, by 

maintaining very high standards when reviewing an extensive body of prevention literature, the 

Blueprints initiative has provided answers to many of the questions regarding what works and 

does not work in violence, delinquency, and substance abuse prevention. 

The programs meeting the Blueprints criteria suggest that intervening early in the developmental 

life course is critical for interrupting negative socialization processes that may place a child on a 

path that may involve antisocial behavior, dropping out of school, and poor adult socialization. 

The program that intervenes the earliest during the life course, Nurse-Family Partnership, targets 

mothers during pregnancy to improve health risks that may jeopardize their infant’s development. 

After the pregnancy, practitioners continue to work with mothers to help them create a home 

environment that nurtures their child’s ongoing successful development. Other early childhood 

programs are directed at improving cognitive and academic performance. These interventions are 

based on the premise that early success and enhanced school readiness help children achieve a 

more successful transition to school and places them on a positive developmental path. For many 

children participating in these programs, success continues into adolescence and is demonstrated 

by reductions in problem behaviors such as fighting, delinquency, arrests, and disruptive and 

hostile acts, even up to 10 years after program completion. The longest followup of this type of 

program, an evaluation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool, demonstrates that, at age 27, children 

who received the intervention were more successful than the control children in navigating the 

transition into adulthood. 

Programs that focus on the home environment, such as parent training and family therapy, have 

been successful in modifying poor parenting practices and improving family communication and 

interaction patterns that contribute to violence, delinquency, and substance abuse. Parenting 

programs, typically targeting the families of young (through middle school) and high-risk children, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 59 
have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing early forms of aggression and also drug use in 

adolescence, and have been shown to improve the quality of the parent-child relationship. Family 

therapy, used with at-risk families or families with children already displaying problems, has 

enhanced family functioning and reduced problem behaviors, including delinquency and violence. 

The school environment is another important locus of change, as it can contribute to children’s 

violence and delinquency. Interventions demonstrating reductions in school-related problem 

behaviors, delinquency, and drug use include comprehensive, schoolwide programs that create 

supportive environments for teachers, staff, and students; emphasize organization and open lines 

of communication; create and reinforce academic and disciplinary policies that promote prosocial 

norms; and instruct teachers in techniques of effective classroom management. Additionally, 

schoolwide improvement efforts promote a positive school climate and help to improve academic 

performance. 

Individually focused programs that teach students self-control, social, and problem-solving skills 

are also very effective. The Blueprints programs that focus on these skills-building techniques 

target universal and selected (at-risk) audiences. However, two meta-analyses (Lipsey, 1992; 

Lipsey and Wilson, 1998) also demonstrate the importance of these programs for juvenile 

offenders both in and out of the juvenile justice system. Each meta-analysis identified behavioral 

and skills-building programs as among the most effective of all the strategies reviewed. 

The literature contains mixed findings with regard to mentoring and tutoring programs. One 

review of 10 mentoring programs indicates that, although they may have some impact on 

improving school attendance and academic achievement, they do not reduce problem behavior 

(Brewer et al., 1995; Thompson and Kelly-Vance, 2001). The mentoring and tutoring programs 

identified by Blueprints are more comprehensive than those programs reviewed, however. The 

only strictly mentoring program included in Blueprints that has, based on a strong evaluation, 

achieved reductions in drug use and delinquency is the well-structured, community-based 

program, Big Brothers Big Sisters. 

In sum, over the past decade, much effort has been devoted to identifying effective programs. At 

the forefront of this movement is the Blueprints for Violence Prevention initiative, which 

describes 32 model and promising programs that target multiple risk factors at various 

developmental stages, ranging from infancy through high school, and different populations, 

including positive development programs for the general population of youth, as well as programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 60 
intended to work with high-risk youth and those already displaying problem behavior. This 

continuum of programs targets individuals and families in varying contexts (home, school, and 

community) and provides a comprehensive set of interventions that can meet the needs of almost 

any community. 

Although information on best practices and effective programs has been developed and 

disseminated at federal, state, and local levels, this information diffusion alone is not enough to 

create beneficial and enduring prevention programming. Dissemination of best practices is only 

the first step. The second step is promoting the actual use of research-based information (Backer 

and David, 1995). Information on the experiences and problems encountered in replicating 

programs and effective methods for sustaining quality implementation is extremely important. 

Prevention practitioners experience a number of problems when they begin to implement new 

programs. Numerous financial, psychological, and organizational factors exist that challenge the 

successful adoption of programs. If these factors are not overcome, the end result may be poor 

implementation or program failure. 

As the Blueprints programs and other research-based programs are adopted by more and more 

communities, there is a tremendous need to provide information on the importance of 

implementing a program with fidelity to the original design. Often a strong tendency is seen 

among implementers to modify a program or adapt it to meet the needs of the local community 

and derive a sense of ownership (Blakely et al., 1987; Rogers, 1995). Unfortunately, the research 

conducted on most programs is insufficient to identify which elements of a program can be 

modified without undercutting the mechanism through which the program model achieved its 

successful outcome. 

The growing debate among those who advocate for strict adherence to the original demonstration 

model (fidelity) (Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 2001), those who argue for 

adding or subtracting from that model (proadaptation) (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978; Blakely et 

al., 1987; also see Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2002, for a review of the literature), 

and those who try to reconcile the two positions (Bauman, Stein, and Ireys 1991; Hall and 

Loucks, 1978) will not be resolved easily. However, the debate must be informed by empirical 

research. Program evaluators are now being asked to conduct the type of research that will help 

ascertain the minimal program threshold necessary to achieve successful outcomes. In the 

meantime, we can learn much from evaluators who have already incorporated aspects of 

implementation into their outcome evaluations. These few studies indicate that effectiveness is a 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 61 
function of the quality of implementation. The following chapter discusses the importance of 

implementation fidelity, the next big challenge of prevention research and practice. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 62
Chapter 2: Importance of Implementation Fidelity

Over the past several years, a large amount of information has been collected on the risk and 

protective factors for violence. Research has also identified prevention programs that can modify 

these risk and protective factors. The Blueprints initiative has been in the forefront in identifying 

exemplary programs that have been evaluated in rigorous, controlled trials, and much attention 

has been focused nationally on selecting and implementing quality programs. However, 

identification of effective programs is only the first step in efforts to prevent and control violence. 

Widespread implementation of effective programs is unlikely to affect the incidence of violent 

crime unless careful attention is given to the quality of implementation and the degree to which a 

program is delivered as intended (American Youth Policy Forum, 1999; Biglan and Taylor, 2000; 

Lipsey, 1999). Research demonstrates that successful implementation is not guaranteed by a site’s 

decision to adopt a best practices program. Many science-based programs have been adopted in 

different settings with widely varying outcomes. In fact, a high-quality implementation of a less 

promising program may be more effective than a low-quality implementation of a best practice 

program (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Czeh, 2000; Wilson and Lipsey, 2000). 

Until recently, little emphasis has been given to implementing programs with fidelity in both the 

science and practice of prevention. As a result, most people do not recognize the importance of 

implementation fidelity and feel that implementation of at least some program components is 

better than nothing. However, this may be an erroneous belief, since it is difficult to know which 

components of a program may be responsible for the reductions in violence. Programs must be 

implemented with fidelity to the original model to preserve the behavior change mechanisms that 

made the original model effective (Arthur and Blitz, 2000). 

Defining 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. The Center for 

Substance Abuse Prevention (2001) defines it as the degree of fit between the developer-defined 

elements of a prevention program and its actual implementation in a given organization or 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 63 
community setting. Five primary components are 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 

in the locations or contexts as prescribed). 

 Exposure may include any of the following: the number of sessions implemented, the length 

of each session, or the frequency with which program techniques were implemented. 

 Quality of program delivery is the manner in which a teacher, volunteer, or staff member 

delivers a program (e.g., skill in using the techniques or methods prescribed by the program, 

enthusiasm, preparedness, attitude). 

 Participant responsiveness is the extent to which participants are engaged by and involved in 

the activities and content of the program. 

 Program differentiation identifies the unique features of different components or programs 

that are reliably differentiated from one another. 

Although the concept of implementation fidelity is not new, ways in which to operationalize, or 

measure, fidelity are relatively recent phenomena. Fidelity is assessed by conducting a process 

evaluation. Appendix A describes why a process evaluation should be conducted when 

implementing a program. It also contains the major elements of the process evaluation that was 

conducted for the Blueprints replication sites. 

Quality of Implementation Fidelity 

Although an extremely important topic, program implementation has been relatively neglected in 

the prevention research literature (Fagan, 1990; Greenberg et al., 2001). In a review of more than 

1,200 published prevention studies, only 5 percent provided data on implementation (Durlak, 

1997). In a review of 34 rigorously evaluated programs to prevent mental disorders in school-age 

children, only 11 of the 34 studies (32 percent) used implementation information as a source of 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 64 
data for outcome analyses and linked variability in implementation indices to differences in 

program outcomes (Domitrovich and Greenberg, 2000). Dane and Schneider (1998) found that 

only 39 of the 162 preventive interventions they examined contained information on program 

integrity, and only 13 of those considered the effect of fidelity on outcomes. Another examination 

of 181 experimental studies published between 1980 and 1990 in 7 journals known for behaviorbased interventions showed that only 15 percent of the studies had systematically measured and 

reported integrity data; only 35 percent had operationally defined treatments (Gresham et al., 

1993). 

When evaluations do examine program fidelity, many studies have found that the programs are 

not being implemented with strength and fidelity to the original model, although several hallmark 

studies of health programs have underscored the importance of the quantity and quality of 

implementation (Connell, Turner, and Mason, 1985; Taggart et al., 1990; Resnicow et al., 1992). 

Evaluations of prevention programs can lead to conclusions that specific programs do not work 

when, in fact, the failure to find treatment effects may be the direct result of weaknesses in 

program implementation. 

The National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools provides an example of the quality of 

implementation in the nation’s schools. Several criteria were applied to discretionary prevention 

activities, with the following representing the average level of intensity and fidelity to good 

prevention practice (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Czeh, 2000): 

 One or more persons is conducting the prevention activity(ies) from time to time. 

 The prevention activity employs 71 percent of the content elements identified as representing 

best practices. 

 The prevention activity employs 54 percent of the method’s elements identified as 

representing best practices. 

 The prevention activity involves 32 sessions or lessons (although there is a large range across 

activities of different types). 

 The prevention activity lasts about 25 weeks. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 65 
 Both students and staff participate about once per week. 

 Forty-one percent of the school’s students participate or are exposed. 

 There are approximately 4 program providers per 100 students in the school. 

 If it is a classroom or a schoolwide activity, it operates nearly all year. 

The researchers found that the average prevention activity (i.e., strategy) received a passing grade

on only 57 percent of the quality criteria examined (i.e., only 57 percent of the indicators of

quality or quantity were judged to be sufficiently strong enough to lead to behavior change), thus

concluding that the quality of prevention activities in the nation’s schools is generally poor and

that prevention activities are not being implemented with sufficient strength and fidelity to be

expected to produce a measurable difference in the desired outcomes.

Another example of the quality of program implementation in the nation’s schools comes from a

study of substance use prevention practice in 1,496 public and private middle schools. The study

assessed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for school-based

tobacco use prevention programs (Wenter et al., 2002). The seven CDC recommended guidelines

addressed the following areas:

 Policy development and enforcement.

 Instructional content.

 Comprehensive grade range.

 Program-specific teacher training.

 Family involvement.

 Cessation efforts.

 Program assessment.

On the positive side, two-thirds or more of schools reported addressing four or more of these

recommended areas, but only 4 percent addressed all seven. Instructional content that has been

shown to be effective in drug prevention was used in only 67 percent of the schools, and

program-specific teacher training occurred in only 18 percent of the sites. The potential for

reducing youth substance use will be dependent on the extent to which schools meet

recommended practice for substance use programming.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 66 
In another example, a study examined school-based programs sponsored by the U.S. Department 

of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program and found that these 

programs were not implemented with the same attention to core components and dosage as found 

in the research models (Silvia and Thorne, 1997). 

Ensuring that community providers understand and implement the core program components and 

dosage that are necessary for success is a serious challenge to program developers and 

disseminators. The original trials (i.e., efficacy studies) of programs are usually under the 

maximum control of the designer and under optimal conditions with high levels of funding, 

motivation, and support. The researcher generally exercises extreme care to ensure that the 

program is thoroughly understood and implemented with a high degree of quality. As programs 

are proven effective and implemented in settings under less favorable conditions (effectiveness 

studies), the chances for key program components to be modified and program delivery to be 

inconsistent become more likely (Dane and Schneider, 1998). This especially becomes 

problematic as programs are disseminated widely, and the program designer is no longer 

providing oversight or technical assistance. Depending on the type of modifications that are made, 

the program may become less effective in achieving the outcomes sought. In fact, the less the 

researcher is involved in the design, planning, and delivery of the intervention, the smaller the 

effect size on behavioral outcomes (Lipsey, 1999). 

Modifications may be made by some practitioners with full knowledge of the program in an effort 

to adapt the program to fit local needs. In other instances, adaptations may be made because the 

site does not have a thorough understanding of the program and its underlying causal mechanism. 

Gresham and colleagues (1993) found that only 35 percent of the studies they reviewed provided 

an operational definition of the intervention through a detailed description or reference to a 

manual. However, even when detailed descriptions and manuals are provided, implementation 

may still fall short of the ideal. For instance, a study to test the effectiveness of the Life Skills 

Training Program in 56 New York State schools (Botvin et al., 1990a) showed that only 27 

percent to 97 percent (mean of 68 percent) of the material in the curriculum was covered, with 

only 75 percent of the students in the prevention conditions exposed to 60 percent or more of the 

prevention program (i.e., one in four students had teachers who implemented less than 60 percent 

of the important points of the lessons). 

Because efficacy studies generally include youth who are receiving all available program 

components, one can only conclude that a program works if implemented in its entirety. If specific 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 67 
components are omitted, and if one of them is the mechanism that is causing much of the change 

in behavior, program effects could be lost. For example, the research design of the Adolescent 

Alcohol Prevention Trial (Donaldson, Graham, and Hansen, 1994) divided students into four 

groups. The students received either information about consequences of drug use only, resistance 

skills only, normative education only, or resistance skills training in combination with normative 

education. Refusal skills alone were not predictive of later substance use, although normative 

education alone was. Tests of the combined effects showed that the use of both resistance skills 

training and normative education resulted in the lowest rates of drug use. A school that fails to 

implement the lessons around both components, or that implements refusal skills alone, might be 

making little or no impact on drug prevention or reduction, thus wasting time and money. 

Meta-analyses also demonstrate that monitoring of program implementation and better 

implemented programs produce better outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002; Hansen et al., 1991; 

Gresham et al., 1993; Wilson and Lipsey, 2000). 

One meta-analysis showed that the best interventions can reduce recidivism by about 40 percent 

(Lipsey, 1999). Thorough implementation, however, was found to be a significant factor in 

recidivism effects. Intervention effects were larger when attention was given to the integrity of the 

program implementation. Additionally, programs of more than 6 months’ duration were, on 

average, more effective than those of shorter length. Table 2.1 shows the independent 

contribution of several program characteristics to recidivism rates by comparing the recidivism 

rate of routine probation, or treatment-as-usual services, found in the control groups of 200 

studies. 

Table 2.1. Expected Recidivism With Various Intervention Characteristics 

for Noninstitutionalized Offenders

Intervention Characteristic Recidivism 

Routine Probation (P) 50% 

P + Minimal Program 46 

P + Best Intervention Type (B) 40 

P + B + Good Implementation (I) 35 

P + B + I + Over 6 Months’ Duration 32 

A base rate of 50 percent approximates that found in these control groups. The table shows the 

successive decreases in recidivism if a minimal program (programs found to have smaller effect 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 68 
sizes in the meta-analysis, incomplete implementation, and less than 6 months’ duration) is added 

to routine services, if that minimal program is upgraded to a more effective intervention (with 

larger effect sizes), and if the program is thoroughly implemented, with a longer duration. Similar 

results were found for institutionalized offenders. 

A meta-analysis of 196 school-based violence prevention programs demonstrated that 

implementation quality made the largest contribution of any variable to effect size, with successful 

program implementation resulting in larger mean change (Wilson and Lipsey, 2000). A 

meta-analysis of 143 drug prevention programs (Tobler, 1986) showed that well-implemented 

programs achieved a mean effect size 0.34 greater than poorly implemented programs, a 

substantial difference over the 0.30 mean effect size derived from all the programs. 

Furthermore, several examinations of experimental studies published in scientific journals show 

positive correlations between the degree of treatment fidelity and level of treatment outcomes, 

indicating that higher fidelity is related to stronger program outcomes (Domitrovich and 

Greenberg, 2000; Gresham et al., 1993). Most outcome studies that have examined 

implementation have used measures of adherence and/or exposure. Fewer studies have examined 

the quality of program delivery, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation. In the 

several individualized studies described below, the preponderance of evidence supports the 

argument that programs must be implemented with fidelity to achieve behavioral outcomes similar 

to those achieved in efficacy trials. In fact, the generalized trend is that high fidelity samples 

generally achieve stronger and a greater number of outcomes, and some results are only achieved 

in high fidelity samples. 

Studies Examining Adherence 

When a fidelity of implementation analysis (i.e., process evaluation) is conducted, it almost 

consistently shows superior outcomes when the program has been implemented with high fidelity 

(Fors and Doster, 1985; Gray et al., n.d.; Gresham et al., 1993; McGrew et al., 1994). For 

example, analyses typically yield stronger prevention effects for high-fidelity samples than for full 

samples (Blakely et al., 1987; Dane and Schneider, 1998; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Hybl, 

1993). In an evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program (Botvin et al., 1995), results from the 

full sample indicated that the prevalence of heavy drinking, and weekly and monthly cigarette 

smoking, was significantly lower for the intervention groups than in the control group, and heavy 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 69 
smoking was significantly lower in one of the intervention groups than in the control group. 

However, no significant differences were seen for the monthly, weekly, or three drinks or more 

per occasion rates, nor were there significant differences for marijuana use. In contrast, in the 

high-fidelity sample, the results were stronger, and more outcomes became significant. The 

experimental groups were significantly lower than the control group on all measures of cigarette 

use, weekly alcohol use, three drinks or more per occasion, being drunk, weekly marijuana use, 

monthly marijuana use, and monthly alcohol use. 

In testing correctional interventions for chronically violent juvenile offenders in the Violent 

Juvenile Offender Program, two sites with stronger implementation of the program design (i.e., 

most of the core components of the program received moderate to strong implementation ratings) 

fared much better than two sites that had not implemented the program well (these two programs 

received weak to moderate ratings for most of the core components). The well-implemented 

programs had significant reductions in the number and severity of arrests for experimental youth 

compared with control youth, and significantly greater time until rearrest (Fagan, 1990). 

An evaluation of 13 Massachusetts Intensive Supervision Probation programs compared the 

degree of implementation with variation in outcomes across sites. This evaluation found that the 

more fully the program was implemented, the more likely recidivism decreased significantly across 

a range of alternative outcome measures (Byrne and Kelly, 1989). A study of New Jersey 

intensive supervision programs assessed the commitment of parole offices to the program and 

found an inverse relationship to recidivism (Paparozzi, 1994). Parole offices that were most 

supportive of the program (n=6) produced a 17-percent lower overall arrest rate than 

nonsupportive offices (n=5). 

An intensive case study of the Positive Action Program was conducted in a rural school in 

northern Florida in the first year of implementation (Flay, 2000). The program was fully 

implemented in 11 classrooms, partially implemented in 7 classrooms, and sporadically or not 

implemented in 7 classrooms. Data were obtained from teachers, students, and parents at the 

beginning and end of the school year. Overall, teachers who had implemented more of the 

program improved more in their attitudes about and perceptions of other teachers, their own 

teaching effectiveness, and parent involvement. Students who received more of the program 

improved their level of positive attitudes and behaviors and decreased their level of negative 

attitudes and behaviors such as disciplinary referrals, substance use, and violence. An increased 

level of implementation also improved parents readiness to take responsibility for their child’s 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 70 
character and behavioral development, decreased their rating of their child’s likelihood of giving 

in to peer pressure, increased the level of communication with their child, and improved their 

knowledge of their child’s friends and their parents. Furthermore, these effects were significant for 

students from both high and low socioeconomic status. Interestingly, the data suggest that 

receiving some or even most of the program is not sufficient for low-income students, and that 

these students need the complete program for substantial effects to occur. 

Multisystemic Therapy, a home-based family therapy program that targets violent and chronic 

juvenile offenders, has demonstrated in randomized trials substantial reductions in rearrests, 

incarceration, and self-reported offending, and a variety of effects on mediating variables related 

to family and peer relations, family functioning, and parental monitoring. However, in one study 

of violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families that omitted ongoing treatment fidelity 

checks, adolescent symptomatology and days incarcerated were reduced, but there were no 

significant effects on criminal behavior and other instrumental (mediating) outcomes. In cases 

where treatment adherence ratings were high, the outcomes were substantially better (Henggeler 

et al., 1997). Another sample of substance abusing juvenile offenders and their primary caregivers 

showed similar results (Huey et al., 2000). Furthermore, MST adherence had both a direct impact 

on delinquent behavior and an influence that was partially mediated through its effects on family 

functioning and cohesion, parent monitoring, and delinquent peer association (Huey et al., 2000). 

Some programs only have significant effects in the high-fidelity samples. For example, the Child 

Development Program was evaluated in 12 program schools; however, only 5 of these schools 

showed clear evidence of widespread program implementation. No clear evidence of positive 

program outcomes was seen for students at all 12 program schools. However, as compared with 

students in the control schools, students in the 5 high-fidelity schools had significant declines in 

alcohol and marijuana use and showed an increased sense of their school as a community 

(Battistich et al., in press). 

A study of the Life Skills Training Program in eight urban New York schools showed that the 

effects of the program reflected the high-implementation teachers, who had a mean completion 

rate of 78 percent of the material. The low-implementation teachers completed the material with a 

mean of 56 percent (Botvin et al., 1989). Another study of the Life Skills Training Program in 10 

suburban New York junior high schools showed no significant differences between the teacher-led 

implementation and the control group in the full sample on smoking, alcohol, and marijuana use 

(Botvin et al., 1990b). (It should be noted that a peer-led booster condition did reduce substance 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 71 
use.) Even worse, the control group had significantly fewer drinkers than the teacher-led group on 

several of the alcohol measures. However, in a restricted sample of students for whom teachers 

had implemented the program with a reasonable degree of fidelity (i.e., teachers who received a 

rating of 4 or 5 on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 in terms of implementation fidelity), the proportion 

of smokers, alcohol drinkers, and marijuana users declined. In one other Life Skills Training 

Program study (Botvin et al., 1990a), no positive effects were found in the sample of students 

whose teachers exposed them to less than 60 percent of the material. By using a 3-year 

cumulative implementation score of 60 percent as the inclusion criteria for the analysis of program 

effectiveness, significant treatment effects were found for three of five measures of substance use. 

A test of a theory-based intervention (Seattle Social Development Project) that tries to change the 

opportunity, skill, and reinforcement structures of mainstream classrooms by training teachers in 

educational strategies designed to promote academic achievement and school bonding showed 

that students’ levels of classroom opportunity, involvement, reinforcement, and bonding to school 

was increased only through thorough implementation of these teacher practices (Abbott et al., 

1998). 

Modifying or adding components to a program can present a serious threat to program fidelity, 

especially if the modification or addition consists of elements that have been found to be harmful 

to youth. For example, the use of scare tactics in drug or violence prevention has not been found 

to be effective (Botvin, 1990; Hansen et al., 1988) and in some cases has been found to be 

harmful (Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Finckenauer, 2000). Efforts to introduce elements into 

already proven programs may backfire and result in a reduction of program benefits that might 

have otherwise been expected. In the Midwestern Prevention Project (Pentz et al., 1990), 

although none of the teachers reported that he or she had deviated from the program substantially, 

68 percent of the teachers deviated slightly. All deviations included additional material, discussion, 

or sessions to the program. These deviations had no significant effects on cigarette, alcohol, or 

marijuana use. In some cases, local enhancements (i.e., additions) to a model may enhance 

effectiveness. In a study of 7 education and criminal justice projects in 70 sites, additions to the 

program model were positively related to positive outcomes, whereas modifications of the 

existing fidelity components were not related to greater program effectiveness (Blakely et al., 

1987). It also appeared that the greater the number of modifications present, the greater the 

likelihood that key components linked to effectiveness were changed. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 72 
Studies Examining Exposure 

Another serious compromise to implementation fidelity is related to program exposure 

(sometimes called dosage), i.e., the amount of program content received by participants. Although 

there are some inconsistent findings related to dosage (Conduct Problems Prevention Group, 

1999; Dane and Schneider, 1998), most programs are less effective when study participants do 

not receive the intended dosage (Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson, 1990). 

One example of incompleteness of delivery occurs when youth fail to complete the treatment. For 

instance, comparisons of youth completing the Family Empowerment Intervention (FEI) program 

(58 percent) versus those that did not complete FEI (42 percent) revealed that youth completing 

the program had lower rates of delinquency (self-reported crimes against persons and total 

delinquency, general theft, and index crimes) and drug use (drug sales and frequency of getting 

very high or drunk on alcohol, frequency of marijuana use, and positive hair tests for marijuana) 

than youth not completing FEI (Dembo et al., under review). 

Sometimes implementers fail to deliver the program in its entirety. In the Midwestern Prevention 

Project, the differences between high- and low-implementation schools, as measured by the 

amount of implementation or program exposure, were greater than the differences between the 

treatment and control schools for all measures of substance use. Additionally, the percentage of 

change in prevalence rates (i.e., proportion of youth using substances) from baseline to 1 year for 

cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use was lowest in the high-implementation schools and highest in 

the low-implementation and no-implementation schools. In the most dramatic example of change, 

the percentage of students who self-reported smoking within the past month increased from 13 

percent to 24 percent for the control group and increased from 13 percent to 20 percent in lowimplementation schools, but decreased from 15 percent to 14 percent in high-implementation 

schools (Pentz et al., 1990). 

A comprehensive middle school program, trying to increase social competencies, social bonding, 

and school success by using program components that had previously demonstrated success in 

reducing problem behaviors, failed to achieve the expected levels of implementation. The 

percentage of students receiving the dosage standard set for each component ranged from 0 

percent to 67 percent, with a mean of 28 percent across all components. Effects on youth 

behavior or attitudes were absent (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Skroban, 1998). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 73 
In a study of the Bullying Prevention Program, classes that showed larger reductions in 

bully/victim problems had implemented the three classroom components of the program to a 

greater extent than those with smaller changes (Olweus and Alsaker, 1991). 

In the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP), children whose teachers exposed them to a 

high number of lessons did better than children exposed to a low number of lessons or no lessons. 

Involvement in a high-lessons RCCP classroom slowed down by an entire year the normal 

developmental growth in aggression-related processes and the decline in competence-related 

processes. 

Though receiving the intended number of sessions is important, implementing staff are often 

responsible for compromising the dosage because of their own lack of time, commitment, and 

resources, which undermines any positive effects that the program may have. Although a common 

theme reported by implementers is that some exposure to the program elements is better than 

none, in the case of RCCP, children in the low-lessons group fared worse than children who 

received no lessons (Aber et al., 1998). 

Quality of Program Delivery and Participant 

Responsiveness 

Few studies have examined how the quality of program delivery and participant responsiveness 

influence program outcomes. One study used both of these measures of program integrity to 

create an integrity index, consisting of ratings by program specialists (who taught the program to 

students) on eight items: 

 Program specialist enthusiasm. 

 The degree to which the delivery met the goals of the program. 

 The degree to which the program specialist involved all (as opposed to a selected few) 

students. 

 Classroom control. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 74 
 Class enthusiasm. 

 Students’ responsiveness. 

 Students’ degree of participation. 

 Overall smoothness of the lesson. 

These ratings of program integrity were found to significantly moderate outcomes for three of 

seven mediating variables (Hansen et al., 1991). 

Conclusion 

These empirical studies make clear that implementation fidelity is important in achieving 

successful outcomes. In short, these studies show that the closer an intervention adheres to the 

original design, the greater the degree of behavior change. These findings underscore the need to 

understand and document the reasons leading to poor implementation and improve the conditions 

that can facilitate a high-quality implementation. 

High-quality implementation is more likely when core program components are defined in 

advance and then systematically monitored to ensure compliance (Center for Substance Abuse 

Prevention, 1997; Gresham et al., 1993). The Blueprints initiative emphasizes, through each 

Blueprints book (Elliott, 1997), all core program components and includes a chapter on 

implementation issues to help sites considering the adoption of a program to think through some 

of the obstacles that they may face. 

Federal and state agencies and private foundations should not be content to just provide money to 

implement a best practice program. Funding should also be provided to organizations that can 

help communities accomplish the following: 

 Identify empirically supported programs, assess the needs of the site, and help the site select 

an appropriate program. 

 Educate all key players as to the core components of the program and the need for quality 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 75 
implementation. 

 Help the site to implement the program with fidelity by providing training and technical 

assistance and some standard for assessing fidelity of implementation. 

Fidelity assessment instruments, designed by the program developers or the funding agency in 

collaboration with the program developers, should be used to provide feedback to the 

implementing agency and the funders. 

In large-scale projects, monitoring can be done by an outside agency, as has been done in the 

Blueprints project. Many of the replication sites and program designers have appreciated this role 

being assumed by the Blueprints team. Technical assistance providers have not wanted to assume 

this role, preferring to devote their time and energies to providing needed support through 

training and technical assistance. Ambivalence among TA providers regarding fidelity may also 

arise in the ongoing struggle to balance fidelity with the stated needs or demands of the site for 

adaptation. This struggle can become especially difficult if dissatisfaction with the program 

appears to be emerging. Implementing sites do not always have ample time and resources to 

devote to the monitoring process and often don’t recognize deviations or understand the 

importance of fidelity to all program components. Thus, the monitoring role is often more easily 

assumed by an independent agency since it has the least amount of conflicting interests and 

possesses the technical expertise to help community providers plan for implementation and 

develop and sustain a program infrastructure that will exist after the TA providers and evaluators 

are gone. 

The Blueprints experience has shown that adherence to a program can be increased by having an 

outside agency monitor implementation. For example, the Life Skills Training Program had an 

average implementation rate of 68 percent in a clinical trial monitored by the program designer 

(Botvin et al., 1990a). The intervention materials delivered in the replications of Life Skills 

Training in approximately 100 sites, which were monitored by Blueprints, ranged from an overall 

average of 80 percent to 86 percent (across 6 cohorts over 3 years), a substantial increase over 

that found in the clinical trial conducted under the most favorable of conditions. This suggests that 

implementation fidelity can be greatly enhanced in real-world applications of programs, where 

conditions are not usually as favorable for achieving a comprehensive implementation. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 76 
Although some implementing sites may at first resent the attention being paid by the monitoring 

agency to all the details of the project, over time most sites learn to appreciate the higher quality 

implementation they eventually achieve and its impact on outcomes. One of the Blueprints site 

coordinators stated the following: 

There was a demand for attention to “dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s” which was beyond 

the norm. Initially, this attention to detail was experienced as overly anal and as a pain in the 

[delete]. Eventually, however, over the course of a year of implementation, it became crystal 

clear that fidelity to the model is as important as the model itself. Now I can see that it is this 

painstaking fidelity that makes [name of program] (and undoubtedly the other Best Practices 

modalities) a truly effective program with juvenile offenders and their families. 

This sentiment was also reported in the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention’s replication 

initiative in 16 projects using 11 model programs. Most of the replicating agencies felt an 

obligation to implement with high fidelity. One site had complained to the Center’s staff about 

several of the core program components. However, 6 months later the site implementers were 

grateful for the encouragement to stick to the original program design because the results 

promised by the program materialized in a robust way (Gray et al., n.d.). 

Because implementation quality is related to program effectiveness, identifying and understanding 

the factors that impede and enhance high-quality implementation are important. Designers, 

implementers, and sponsors of programs all share responsibility for implementation quality, and 

they must work together to develop strategies to facilitate and enhance implementation. “The key 

to understanding how successful research can be translated into successful practice lies in 

understanding how programs and policies can be implemented so that quality is maintained and 

the programmatic objectives intended by the program developers are achieved” (Dusenbury et al., 

2001). 

The next two chapters of this report document ways to improve the quality of an implementation, 

beginning with a chapter on assessing site readiness and continuing with a chapter outlining the 

challenges of program implementation. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 77 
Table 2.2: Comparison of Full Sample and High Fidelity Results From Studies of Prevention Programs 

Program Type / Evaluation Design / 

Study/Program Target Population High Fidelity Sample Full Sample Results High Fidelity Results 

Abbott et al., 1998 Seattle Social Development Project 

Intervention to modify teaching practices in grades 1–6 (full intervention). This study focused on teachers in grades 5 and 6 (a late intervention condition). 

Nonrandomized field trial in which an intervention initiated in grade 1 was nested within a longitudinal panel study. All consenting 5th grade students in 18 public schools in Seattle were included in this study. Classroom observation ratings determined the extent that targeted teaching strategies were used by each teacher. Teaching practices applied with fidelity received +1, ineffective strategies received 0, and strategies in conflict with the program received -1. These scores were transformed into a single implementation score ranging from 23 to 46. 

Intervention produced higher student achievement. 

Results primarily amonThe degree of implemedifferences in opportuninvolvement in the clasclassroom involvementthe school. Student ach

Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson, 1990 Teen Outreach Program 

Dropout and pregnancy prevention for junior high and high school students at risk of dropout and teenage pregnancy 

Matched control groups in 35 sites in 30 schools nationwide Dosage—total volunteer hours and total classroom hours 

Overall results showed significantly lower levels of suspension, dropout, and pregnancy. 

Results stronger. Students in programs wperformed had fewer phours and higher levels fewer problems for youstudents. 

Battistich et al., in press Child Development Project 

School-based comprehensive, ecological intervention program for elementary school students (K–8) 

Quasi-experimental cohort in sequential design with 24 matched schools (12 experimental and 12 control). High fidelity sample included 5 schools in which most or all of the teachers showed at least moderate positive changes from baseline implementation scores over the 3 implementation years. 

Significantly less alcohol use among program students compared with controls. 

Results primarily in higHigh-implementation scalcohol and marijuana and intrinsic academic groups, conflict resolutof outcomes showed sstudents in the 5 high-isignificant effects favor

Botvin et al., 1990a Life Skills Training 

Drug prevention targeted at junior high/middle schools. 

Randomized trial including 56 public schools (n=4,466 

students). 3-year followup at end of grade 9. E1 condition—one day formal training. E2 condition—videotape training. High fidelity sample (n=3,684 from 50 schools) received 

60% of intervention over 3 years, based on classroom observations of objectives covered. 

No effects in full sample Results only among stu

teachers. Significant reductions iuse (E1 and E2 conditifrequency of getting drcontrols. 
Table 2.2: Comparison of Full Sample and High Fidelity Results From Studies of Prevention Programs (cont.) 

Program Type / Evaluation Design / 

Study/Program Target Population High Fidelity Sample Full Sample Results High Fidelity Results 

Botvin et al., 1995 (6-year followup of Botvin et al., 1990a, see above) Life Skills Training 

Drug prevention targeted at junior high/middle schools. 

Randomized trial including 56 public schools. 6-year followup at grade 12. E1 condition—one day formal training. E2 condition—videotape training. High fidelity sample received 60% of intervention over 3 years, based on classroom observations of objectives covered. 

Weekly and monthly cigarette smoking and heavy drinking in both intervention groups were lower than control group. Heavy smoking in E2 group only lower than control group. 

Results stronger and mThe experimental grouthe control group for alweekly alcohol use, 3 dand weekly marijuana ulower for E1 compared alcohol use was lower group. 

Botvin et al., 1990b Life Skills Training 

Drug prevention in junior high/middle schools. 

10 schools (7th graders) randomly assigned to (1) LST taught by older peer leaders, (2) LST taught by teachers, (3) LST with 8th grade booster taught by peers, (4) LST with 8th grade booster taught by teachers, and (5) control group (n=998 students at 1 year followup). 

Teachers were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 by field staff who had observed implementation. Teachers who received ratings of 4 or 5 constituted a restricted sample of high fidelity implementers. 

At the 1-year followup, the peerled booster condition was the only one to produce significant behavioral effects on smoking (4 of 4 measures), alcohol (1 of 5 measures), and marijuana (2 of 5 measures). No differences between teacherled conditions and controls. In some instances, the teacher-led 

Only results in high-impled condition. Differences favoring teof weekly and daily smfemales, ever use of malcohol use and drunke

booster condition produced results that were worse than the control condition. 

Botvin et al., 1989 Life Skills Training 

Drug prevention for junior high/middle schools. 

Random assignment of 8 schools (7th grade, n=345 students) whose student body was at least 50% Hispanic. Classroom observers rated teachers on points and objectives made in lessons, resulting in a quantity score based on proportion of points made. Also, assessment made of teacher effectiveness. Experimental group broken into 2 subgroups: high implementation (above the mean in terms of program completeness, n=156) and low 

implementation (n=99). 

Intervention shows marginally significant reduction on smoking (p = .0618). 

Effects due to high impHigh levels of interventreductions in smoking. implementation subgromarginally significant etreatment subgroups dproduced by the high-im
Table 2.2: Comparison of Full Sample and High Fidelity Results From Studies of Prevention Programs (cont.) 

Program Type / Evaluation Design / 

Study/Program Target Population High Fidelity Sample Full Sample Results High Fidelity Results

Project 

truct l f t

truct

i

 t tivities t

 fi to 

t

Signifi fclattitpracti

tronger. 

I it f

l 

cl that fpracti

Connell, Turner, and Mason, 1985 School Health Curriculum 

Health ins ion for grades 4–7. 

30,000 children in 1,071 c assrooms rom 20 s ates (article does not describe evaluation). Full implementation required ins ion hours equal or greater than m nimums prescribed by program designers, more than 80% of he program ac aught, and greater than the program average degree of delityprogram ma erials. 

cant dif erences between 

program and comparison 

assroom performance on 

program-specific knowledge, general knowledge, general 

ude, and self-reported 

ces. 

Results s

n comparison w h dif 

sample of program c as

assrooms ully im

program-specific knowknowledge, 90% greate

ce measures. 

Dembo et al., 2000 Family Empowerment Intervention 

Family preservation model using home visitation by paraprofessionals. Juvenile offenders and their families. 

Youth randomly assigned to intervention or minimal control with monthly phone contact after stratification by gender, race, and ethnicity. High fidelity sample completed 58% of program. 

Intervention youth reported getting high or drunk on alcohol less often than control subjects; they also had less marijuana use. 

More outcomes significLower rates of delinquepersons and total delinfrequency of getting vefrequency of marijuanaprogram. Lower rates of new cha

Fagan, 1990 Violent Juvenile Offender Program 

Reintegration program (transitional residential) for violent juvenile offenders. 

Random assignment to facility with treatment program or mainstream correctional facility (control) in 4 cities. A composite assessment (high, medium, low) of implementation was derived from implementation ratings for each of the program elements: case management, reintegration of multiple phases assessed through field observations, and reviews of program documents and individual case records. 

Results are reported by site only—high-implementation and low-implementation sites. 

Results only in high-imIn the 2 sites with stronfewer arrests for felonieinterval until the first arsites with weak implemdifferences over the 3 trecidivism indicators. 
Table 2.2: Comparison of Full Sample and High Fidelity Results From Studies of Prevention Programs (cont.) 

Program Type / Evaluation Design / 

Study/Program Target Population High Fidelity Sample Full Sample Results High Fidelity Results 

Flay, 2000 Positive Action Program 

Character education program that teaches students to feel good about themselves by doing positive actions. 

Case study of one rural Florida school that implemented program during the 1999–2000 school year. Classrooms were classified as fully implemented (n=11), 

partially implemented (n=7), and sporadic or no 

implementation (n=7). How these categories were 

derived was not reported. 

No full sample results. Results stronger. 

Kindergarten students positive behaviors with students in fully implemthis group is limited to some/most), showed mother people and themsattitudes about doing pin classrooms that did more time doing positivshowed greater improvbehaviors, displayed fesubstance use and vioreferrals with more impparents also improved implementation. 

Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Hybl, 1993 Multiyear, Multischool Study 

School, classroom, and individual level interventions aimed at reducing middle school student misbehavior (grades 6–8). 

Nonequivalent control group design with 8 public middle schools in Charleston, SC. Two schools were designated as the comparison group, primarily on the basis of demographics. Implementation data come primarily from an end-of-year teacher survey. Low implementation schools consisted of the 2 control schools that participated only in some aspects of the program. Medium implementation schools consisted of 3 treatment schools that experienced visible implementation problems or low levels of administrative support. High implementation schools consisted of 3 treatment schools that had no visible signs of implementation breakdown and had administrative 

Significant changes in the desired direction were found for 5 of the differences examined; 1 significant change in the undesirable direction. 

Positive results primariwith more outcomes siSignificant changes in for the high-, medium-, for 9, 2, and 1 of the 13 respectively. Significandirection were found foexamined for the 3 leve

support. 
Table 2.2: Comparison of Full Sample and High Fidelity Results From Studies of Prevention Programs (cont.) 

Program Type / Evaluation Design / 

Study/Program Target Population High Fidelity Sample Full Sample Results High Fidelity Results 

Henggeler et al., 1997 Schoenwald et al., 2000 Multisystemic Therapy 

Clinical, home-based family therapy. 

2x2x2 Condition (MST vs. Usual Juvenile Justice Services) x Time (pretest vs. posttest) x Site (Site 1 vs. Site 2) design, with random assignment to treatment conditions (n=155 chronic or violent juvenile offenders 

and their families). Factor analysis of a 26-item scale designed to measure family and therapist behaviors specific to the practice of MST (completed by parents, adolescents, and therapists) after randomly selected therapy sessions during the 4th and 8th weeks of therapy). Factor scores were derived from the average ratings from each time period, for each informant. Multiple regression was run against Time 2 outcome measures with the respective Time 1 variables and treatment adherence factors as independent variables. 

MST significantly improved adolescent psychiatric symptomatology at posttest and decreased incarceration by 47% at 1.7 year followup. No significant differences on arrests and criminal activity. 

Outcomes were better adherence ratings were Various aspects of adhoutcomes. Specifically, treatment adherence pTherapist ratings of treengagement predicted offenses and low proba

McGrew et al., 1994 Thresholds Bridge Programs 

Assertive community treatment (mental health service model—training in community living after discharge from state psychiatric hospital). Clients satisfied the state’s definition for 

18 programs were evaluated over a 10-year period—3 were the original Bridge program (1978–1980), 6 were first generation (1986–1987), 6 were second generation (1989–1991), and 3 were third generation (1990–1991). Individual studies are not described, but the outcome measure was effect size of reduction in number of days hospitalized. 

The mean effect size of .55 shows that these programs had a moderate impact on reducing days in hospital. 

Increased fidelity scoresubscale, and staffing strongly correlated with Only the service subsccorrelated; however, thcontacts—in this subsc

serious mental illness and showed evidence of high use of psychiatric hospital services. 

Fidelity was measured by a 17-item subset of expertidentified critical ingredients that formed a fidelity index with 3 subscales: staffing, organization, and service. 
Table 2.2: Comparison of Full Sample and High Fidelity Results From Studies of Prevention Programs (cont.) 

Program Type / Evaluation Design / 

Study/Program Target Population High Fidelity Sample Full Sample Results High Fidelity Results 

Olweus and Alsaker, 1991 Bullying Prevention Program 

Antibullying program for primary and secondary school students. 

Cohort longitudinal design with consecutive cohorts. Approximately 2,500 students, originally in grades 4–7 from 42 Bergen, Norway, schools. A composite score was computed at the classroom level for dosage (i.e., whether there were class rules against bullying , whether regular class meetings about bully/victim problems had been held, and whether the class had set up roleplays about bully/victim problems). 

Bullying/victimization was reduced; also reductions in general antisocial behavior such as vandalism, theft, and truancy were seen; increase in student satisfaction was noted. 

Results stronger in higThose classes that shobullying/victimization pcomponents of the progthose with smaller chan

Pentz et al., 1990 Pentz et al., 1989 Midwestern Prevention Project 

Community-based drug prevention with middle/junior high school students as primary focus. 

Quasi-experimental—50 middle and junior high schools in metropolitan Kansas City. 8 schools randomly selected for longitudinal assessment. In the other 42 schools, a 25% sample of students was randomly selected by classroom in a cross sectional cohort design. Exposure was calculated by multiplying the number of sessions by average time per session and dividing by 60. The median was used to construct high- and lowimplementation groups. 

1 year after intervention, drug use was significantly higher in control than program condition for all measures of drug use, i.e., alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use during last month and last week. 

Results stronger. Last month and last wemarijuana use (prevaleintervention group than high-implementation grlow-implementation groimplementation group hcompared with the concomparisons were sign
Chapter 3: Assessing Site Readiness

Readiness is a major factor in successful implementation. Communities, agencies, and schools may 

be at various stages of preparedness for implementing prevention programs. Simply making 

information on prevention available to potential users is not enough; technical assistance should 

also be provided to help communities assess the many types of programs and make determinations 

about which programs fit the identified problem and the local needs, resources, and mission of the 

community or agency. Failure to adequately prepare may lead to failed program implementation. 

The research on technology transfer (see especially Backer, David, and Soucy, 1995a; Brown, 

1995) has documented five fundamental conditions that must be met to facilitate the adoption of a 

new treatment or intervention program: 

 Information describing effective, research-based programs must be disseminated in a way that 

is accessible and understandable to individuals and organizations so that they are aware that 

such interventions exist and can be replicated without excessive costs or undesirable side 

effects. 

 The adoption of a new innovation is often met with resistance, fear, and anxiety, and 

prevention practitioners must take steps to help reduce this apprehension and enhance 

readiness for change. 

 Communities must conduct comprehensive needs assessments to determine the types of 

innovations that will best address their problems. 

 Practitioners must ensure that money, materials, and personnel are available to implement 

programs that can be sustained in the long-term. 

 Practitioners must carefully consider how new programs will be adopted, identify who will 

deliver the intervention(s), which population(s) will be targeted, how monitoring will occur, 

and so on. 

Achieving these goals is not easy for they require that communities demonstrate not only 

knowledge regarding successful, research-based programming and a willingness to adopt such 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 84 
strategies, but also careful planning and preparation to ensure a successful replication. The 

Blueprints initiative was designed to help prevention practitioners overcome these challenges, and 

strategies for doing so will be described in more detail below. The Blueprints’ mission was 

two-pronged. The first component involved identifying programs that effectively reduced problem 

behaviors and disseminating this information to communities. The second phase of the initiative 

entailed assessing and enhancing sites’ readiness and ability to replicate a Blueprints program. 

This work was achieved through the following efforts: 

 Creating applications that required applicants to specify their needs, resources, and 

commitment to the project. 

 Gathering additional information from sites through telephone and e-mail consultations. 

 Conducting site visits to better determine program support, validate information described in 

the application, and provide a forum for key participants to become better informed and 

supportive of the new initiative. 

Communicating Information Regarding Effective, 

Research-Based Programs 

To successfully transfer technology, information must be credible and available in a language and 

format that are accessible to prevention practitioners (Backer, David, and Soucy, 1995a; Brown, 

1995). Unfortunately, evidence regarding effective prevention programs is often not shared by 

researchers in a systematic way, is published in journals that are not available to those in the field, 

or is written in scholarly jargon and based on complicated statistical procedures that may be 

incomprehensible to prevention practitioners (Webster-Stratton and Taylor, 1998). Moreover, a 

recent trend has been the publication of numerous lists of “best practice” programs that typically 

vary from source to source, resulting in a plethora of information that is difficult for those in the 

field to assess. When faced with the obstacles of gaining access to and understanding research 

findings, practitioners often choose to continue current practices (Backer, David, and Soucy, 

1995a). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 85 
The Blueprints team attempted to overcome these problems by presenting information regarding 

the effectiveness of the Blueprints programs in a variety of formats easily accessible to 

practitioners. The team conducted oral presentations at workshops and conferences to outline 

strategies for effective intervention and to identify model programs most effective in reducing 

problem behavior. Next, the team created brief overviews of each program that were available on 

the Blueprints Web site and distributed to interested parties. Working with program developers, 

Blueprints staff designed comprehensive books (Blueprints) describing each program in detail. 

These volumes were specifically designed to translate the scientific rationale and research 

conducted on each program into an easy-to-read, practical handbook that could be used by 

prevention practitioners. Brief descriptions of the Blueprints programs were also published in 

trade magazines that are commonly read by the practitioner community. A videotape in which 

Blueprints program designers briefly described their programs was also produced and 

disseminated to the practitioner community. 

Enhancing Local Support for Empirically Based Programs 

and Readiness To Adopt New Initiatives 

Becoming more aware of the availability and effectiveness of research-based interventions 

is the first step in creating an environment that supports “best practice” programs. However, for 

such attitudes to become widespread takes time, and practitioners must be ready to exert 

considerable effort to enhance organizational and individual commitment to scientifically valid 

programs and show a readiness to adopt new initiatives (Backer, 1995; Webster-Stratton et al., 

2001). Although community leaders may realize the importance of supporting empirically valid 

programs (especially when funding is contingent on adopting such practices), this attitude is not 

always shared by program administrators or the front-line staff charged with delivering the 

service. It is especially difficult to persuade organizations to replace “home-grown” programs or 

interventions, which may not have been evaluated or that have not demonstrated effectiveness, 

with science-based programs (Everhart and Wandersman, 2000). In many cases, the former are 

adopted because they have been recommended by others, are easily accessible, and are considered 

easy, cheap, and convenient to implement. In comparison to such programs, research-based 

interventions, which tend to be long-lasting, comprehensive, and somewhat more difficult to 

implement (requiring, for example, that therapists spend many hours with clients or that teachers 

replace didactic strategies with behavioral rehearsal and demonstration), may not be immediately 

appealing to the individuals who will be charged with delivering them to a chosen population. For 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 86 
these reasons, researchers often advise that stakeholders agree on the need for change and the 

relevance of the intervention for the school or agency (Fullan, 1992). Programs that are selected 

after a more extensive information search are more likely to incorporate research-based practices 

and be implemented in a higher quality fashion (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002). One way to 

accomplish consensus about a prevention approach is to include key players in planning for 

program adoption, implement the program incrementally so that individuals slowly become more 

familiar with the rationale and techniques for using the innovation (Brown, 1995; 

Webster-Stratton et al., 2001), and assess at frequent intervals so that short-term goals might be 

met that build confidence and trust among partners (Nelson et al., 2000). 

Individuals may be reluctant to adopt new programs for other reasons. In many cases, prevention 

practitioners are satisfied with the status quo and do not wish to support new innovations, 

particularly if doing so will result in extra work. For example, many teachers involved in the 

Blueprints Life Skills Training (LST) Program reported that they preferred the DARE program to 

the LST curriculum, even when school administrators recognized that the former was not 

effective in reducing students’ drug use. Although teachers identified various reasons for this 

attitude (e.g., claiming that DARE was more interactive, students enjoyed the officers’ presence), 

at least part of the reason that instructors favored DARE may be that they did not have to deliver 

it themselves and were free to use the extra time to accomplish other tasks. Because overcoming 

this resistance is not easy, some researchers advocate that organizations seek volunteers from 

within the agency to become “early adopters” of the innovations (Webster-Stratton and Taylor, 

1998). However, many organizations cannot adopt this strategy, particularly if a program is meant 

to be implemented comprehensively by all individuals in the school or agency. Thus, a major 

challenge for implementing new strategies is ensuring that individuals be energized rather than 

overwhelmed when confronted with new programs (Backer, 1995; Brown, 1995). 

When motivation and support are lacking, projects are sure to fail. A lack of commitment can lead 

to resistance, limited implementation, and even program sabotage. For example, when teachers, 

who are typically working under enormous time pressures, are not involved in program planning 

and decisionmaking, they may refuse to implement new programs or may deliver them in an 

inconsistent or incomplete manner. Another situation occurred when several LST sites relied on 

outside prevention agencies to apply for and implement the curriculum. When these agencies 

failed to develop full support for the program within the school, their adoption of the curriculum 

was often challenged. The schools often delayed providing prevention specialists with access to 

students, and teachers showed disdain for the curriculum by not helping with classroom 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 87 
management, appearing bored by the program, and even being disruptive when prevention 

specialists attempted to deliver the curriculum. In an implementation of the PATHS program, the 

teachers at one site lost their initial zeal for the program when new education mandates from the 

state were issued, causing teachers to spend more time coaching students in the mandated areas. 

In the absence of strong principal support, that program failed. 

During the application process, the Blueprints team simultaneously assessed and enhanced sites’ 

readiness for change, although priority was given to sites that appeared most receptive to 

adopting the new program. The application asked sites to describe the groundwork conducted to 

prepare others for the introduction of a new initiative. For school-based interventions, applicants 

were asked whether or not they had informed school administrators, counselors, and teachers of 

the decision to implement a new curriculum and to describe how these individuals reacted to this 

initiative. If key participants had yet to be informed, applicants were urged to remedy this 

situation and were given information they could use to improve participants’ knowledge of the 

program. Not surprising, when school administrations thoroughly explained their reasons for 

choosing a particular program, described evidence of its effectiveness, and asked teachers if they 

would be willing to implement such a curriculum, the innovation was more likely to succeed. For 

complex programs that required interagency linkages and support, representatives from all 

pertinent agencies were requested to attend the feasibility visits. This ensured that all viable 

parties had information about the program before its adoption, helped garner motivation for the 

program, and allowed everyone to understand their own roles and responsibilities in the new 

effort. 

Applicants were also asked to describe other programs that had been adopted in the past to 

determine whether the site had a history of adopting new initiatives and whether these previous 

attempts were successful (Backer, 1995; Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, 1999). In some cases, 

applicants noted that previous efforts were often made half-heartedly, with some staff 

implementing the program but not others, or some delivering only parts of the intervention. 

Although preference was given to sites that did not have a history of failed innovations, sites with 

failures were sometimes included if it appeared past problems could be avoided. For example, 

several school administrators reported that staff had not received training for the earlier 

intervention, and, as a result, they had low motivation and few skills to teach the program. 

Because the Blueprints initiative included training for all participants, these were not 

insurmountable obstacles. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 88 
A number of authors have emphasized the importance of interpersonal contact in encouraging 

program adoption and implementation (Backer, David, and Soucy, 1995a; Brown, 1995), and 

conducting site visits was an important means of assessing and enhancing site commitment and 

readiness. Site visits were jointly conducted by members of the Blueprints team and the program 

designers to provide applicants with direct contact with those most knowledgeable about each 

program. The designers’ presentations of their programs and the ensuing discussions often created 

a stronger motivation within organizations to implement programs. In addition, they provided a 

deeper understanding of the program elements, decreased fear and resistance, and enhanced 

motivation to conduct the program with integrity to the design. For these reasons, all key 

participants were required to attend feasibility visits, and sites that could not comply with this 

requirement were rated lower. In fact, later experience confirmed that the most problematic sites, 

especially those that lacked strong commitment at either the organizational or individual level, 

were those without full attendance at feasibility visits. 

Conducting a Needs Assessment 

A critical step for communities preparing to adopt a science-based program is to 

conduct a thorough needs assessment that identifies protective and risk factors for problem 

behavior and prioritizes the most important areas for intervention (Arthur and Blitz, 2000; 

Wandersman et al., 1998). Such assessments must be comprehensive, analyzing strengths and 

weaknesses within neighborhoods, families, schools, and individuals. They should use multiple 

sources of information, including interviews with individuals and focus groups, self-report surveys 

of adolescents, and pre-collected data or records (Gendreau, Gaggin, and Smith, 1999; 

Wandersman et al., 1998). Encouraging community members to participate in this assessment is 

also important (Wandersman et al., 1998). In fact, many researchers have advocated the creation 

of community planning boards that include youth, parents, school administrators and teachers, 

healthcare and social services professionals, law enforcement agents, and business owners (Arthur 

and Blitz, 2000; Webster-Stratton and Taylor, 1998). This approach will result in a more accurate 

and broader assessment of the community’s problems and will ensure that new programs are 

consistent with the beliefs and values of the community. Moreover, it will foster a shared sense of 

responsibility for the community’s troubles. In fact, research has demonstrated that when 

communities take ownership of their problems and encourage members to be involved and active 

in addressing them, interventions have a greater likelihood for success (Arthur and Blitz, 2000; 

Everhart and Wandersman, 2000). In the Blueprints initiative, two of the most successful 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 89 
replications occurred in a state-sponsored effort in Washington that assessed the risk levels for 

future delinquency of juveniles entering the justice system and, based on this information, assigned 

them to one of the four research-based programs selected by the state. 

Needs assessments must also include detailed analyses of programs already occurring in the 

community, and also evidence of their quality of implementation and effectiveness (Wandersman 

et al., 1998). This approach should help prevent duplication of services, which can drain resources 

and frustrate both the implementors and targets of the intervention. For example, one of the 

Blueprints Nurse-Family Partnership sites was competing for clients with a similar program 

offered by another agency, and this situation led to some frustration among the nurses, who were 

not able to achieve the targeted number of clients they had anticipated. Competition for foster 

parents between child welfare agencies and the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care program 

resulted in startup delays in two MTFC sites. As a third example of the problem of program 

duplication, teachers implementing the LST Program often reported that their students “tuned 

out” alcohol- and drug-related lessons because “they had heard it all before.” 

Applicants were carefully screened to determine whether they had too many prevention programs 

and, if so, they were encouraged to either drop programs or implement them in other settings or 

at other times. It was recommended that sites rid themselves of programs that were not effective 

or were not being implemented with fidelity, and that they assess why and how their attempts to 

initiate a new program had failed so that they did not repeat these mistakes in the future. Across 

all the Blueprints sites, programs that complement rather than detract from or overlap with one 

another were found to have a much better chance of success (Arthur and Blitz, 2000; 

Wandersman et al., 1998). 

A final and related aspect of needs assessment is ensuring that the population targeted for change 

is an appropriate match for the program under consideration. To this end, stakeholders should be 

aware that research-based programs are typically designed for particular age, ethnic, or gender 

groups, and results cannot be generalized to other populations. For example, universal 

intervention programs are designed for all individuals in a specific setting, such as a school or 

classroom, regardless of risk, and this approach to prevention differs from an intervention that 

targets individuals already involved in or at risk for a particular behavior. In the LST initiative, 

local site coordinators and school administrators often wanted students with existing drug 

problems to receive this curriculum because they “needed it the most.” In these cases, schools 

were reminded that these students would very likely receive no benefit from the program because 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 90 
it was not designed for them, and resources would be better used to provide them with a 

treatment program designed to reduce use rather than prevent it. Similarly, agency administrators 

that had adopted Multisystemic Therapy for their chronic and violent juvenile offenders often 

wanted to use the program to treat less serious problem behaviors or younger children with 

conduct disorders (i.e., populations for which the program was not intended or evaluated). 

Although many of the techniques may be useful with other populations, administrators were 

reminded that one of the major goals of the program is to prevent serious crime and out-of-home 

placements at a cost savings. Implementing this program with less serious populations may not 

achieve the cost-savings benefit that makes this program an attractive alternative to incarceration. 

Assessing and Maintaining Resources 

When considering a potential program, communities must assess whether they have the financial 

and human resources needed to successfully implement it. It is also important for program 

designers to be clear and comprehensive in identifying the costs incurred when replicating 

programs. Often hidden costs associated with programs do not become apparent until after 

implementation begins, and when organizations cannot meet those costs, implementation failure is 

a possibility. For example, one Functional Family Therapy site failed when they did not 

understand the costs necessary to provide clients with the required assessment tools or the onsite 

travel costs for technical assistance visits. Although these costs were minimal, they were a major 

barrier to this agency, although this was only one of several major obstacles. 

If communities strongly support a particular program, they should be prepared to spend some 

time garnering financial resources. Often, this can be achieved by soliciting federal, state, or local 

grants, particularly if sites are replicating science-based programs. Interagency collaboration can 

also help generate financial resources. For example, in the school-based initiatives, school districts 

often collaborated with outside prevention agencies who provided personnel to teach or 

coordinate the project, and these agencies often pledged to raise money to sustain the project 

after the Blueprints grant ended. 

In terms of human resources, most research indicates that the presence of a program champion is 

critical for the successful adoption of a new initiative. Having even one strong advocate for the 

new initiative within an organization can be crucial for garnering support, motivation, and 

resources to launch the new program. As noted above, readiness for change is not easy for all 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 91 
individuals, and program champions are often responsible for sharing information regarding a new 

program and inspiring others to undertake new projects. Champions that come from a mid-range 

position of authority work out quite well (Backer, 1995). Typically, these individuals have enough 

power to effect change but do not appear to be forcing others into action. For example, within 

schools, school principals make excellent champions/coordinators, while this role is not as easily 

filled by either teachers or school district personnel. The former are typically too busy to 

undertake this job and do not have the authority needed to adopt new programs, while the latter 

are too far removed from the reality of the classroom in which the new curriculum is to be 

delivered. Also, the most effective and long-lasting champions tend to be self-appointed and have 

a natural interest in the new initiative. Too often, personnel find themselves thrust into the role of 

champion/coordinator without the necessary skills, time, or inclination to perform the duties. For 

example, the Blueprints experience has revealed several instances when school district personnel 

were forced into a coordinating position, despite the fact that they did not have a good rapport 

with others, were unused to coordinating a multischool project, and were not particularly 

motivated to ensure that program replication ensued in a timely manner and in accordance with 

project guidelines. The project champion is also critical in monitoring implementation and 

ensuring continued support and resources for the project. These factors will be discussed in more 

detail in the next chapter. 

In addition to the program champion/coordinator, employing an outside consultant who is familiar 

with the program, will assist in preparing an implementation plan, and can help sites avoid 

common implementation problems is important (Backer, David, and Soucy, 1995a; 

Webster-Stratton and Taylor, 1998). Typically, the consultant is also charged with providing 

training for key participants and emphasizing the necessity of program fidelity. For this initiative, 

the Blueprints team was fortunate to be able to provide this assistance in a variety of ways. The 

Blueprints staff monitored sites’ performance in replicating the program and communicated the 

problems and solutions generated in other sites. In addition, the designers of the programs (or 

their designated trainers and representatives) provided ongoing training and technical assistance to 

sites. These providers were not only able to generate support and enthusiasm for the program 

during the feasibility visit and subsequent training workshop(s), but also provided support 

throughout the project. Often, individuals implementing new programs feel isolated and may 

become easily discouraged if they do not see immediate results or if they are having difficulty 

bringing a program to life. In these cases, program consultants can work one-on-one with 

practitioners to make implementation more successful. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 92 
Preparing for Implementation 

For maximum success, prevention practitioners should develop a well-conceived plan for 

implementation that details the staff who will implement it, the coordinator(s) who will oversee 

implementation, and the population who will receive the services (Backer, David, and Soucy, 

1995a; Wandersman et al., 1998). In addition, practitioners must be aware of potential obstacles 

to successful implementation and consider strategies for overcoming these problems. This requires 

a thorough understanding of the program requirements. In the Blueprints initiative, applicants 

were strongly recommended to read the Blueprints books to learn more about the nature of the 

programs, the content of core components, and potential barriers to success (as well as 

recommendations for how to avoid or overcome these obstacles). Thus, planners were more fully 

aware of the requirements of the program and how to achieve them. In addition, applications 

described important aspects of the program and forced practitioners to consider how these 

requirements would be achieved. For example, applicants were asked to describe the dosage of 

the program that would be provided and how often elements would be delivered, by whom, to 

whom, and so on. Applicants also were encouraged to discuss implementation details with the 

individuals who would be directly involved in the project to ensure that these goals could be met. 

Unfortunately, sites’ implementation plans were sometimes inaccurate or misleading. In many 

cases, this occurred because applications (and grants) were completed by persons with little or no 

knowledge of the problems that may be encountered by front-line staff in adopting a new 

innovation. For example, one outside agency that had carefully detailed the times and dates when 

the LST Program would be offered had never consulted the participating school. (Not 

surprisingly, this site was to become the first failure.) Events like this highlight the importance of 

verifying application details at feasibility visits and asking key participants for their assessments of 

stated plans. 

Once sites were selected for inclusion in the project, a contract was created between the 

Blueprints team and the applicants. The contract detailed the major requirements of the program 

and clearly stated each party’s responsibilities in fulfilling them. Researchers have stressed the 

importance of such documents (Everhart and Wandersman, 2000; Lynch et al., 1998; Orpinas et 

al., 1996). These contracts were instrumental in informing key participants of their obligations 

early on in the project. In fact, for the school-based programs, these contracts were required to be 

signed and returned with applications, so that school superintendents and principals fully 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 93 
understood the extent of their involvement in the program and were committed to fulfilling these 

obligations. The documents provided a written record of responsibilities and could be used to 

remind sites of their pledge to support the program if they were having implementation 

difficulties. 

Once an organization or community begins program implementation, it faces additional challenges 

that can diminish the effectiveness of even the most exemplary prevention programs. For example, 

failure to commit time and resources to adequate training, hiring implementors who lack the 

appropriate skills to deliver the program, insufficient organizational and key leader support, failure 

to provide ongoing support and technical assistance, and lack of program monitoring can all 

weaken implementation efforts. These factors will be described in detail in chapter 4. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 94 
Chapter 4: Challenges of Implementation

In the past 10 years, several federal, state, and local agencies have become increasingly concerned 

that the programs they support should demonstrate positive effects. Most federal agencies, 

including the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

have supported the effort to evaluate and replicate programs showing positive or promising 

results. In fact, through a national effort to understand “what works” and outline a series of “best 

practices,” federal agents, legislators, researchers, and practitioners have produced several lists of 

preferred programs. 

Discovering what works, however, does not solve the problem of program effectiveness. Once 

models, blueprints, or best practices are developed, 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. As Harris and Smith (1996, p. 183) have argued, “the primary cause of 

failure and success rests with the ways in which policies and programs have been implemented.” 

While discussions regarding program development and evaluation have often ignored the topic of 

implementation quality (Dane and Schneider, 1998; Durlak, 1997; Domitrovich and Greenberg, 

2000; Gresham et al., 1993), a few researchers have begun to systematically examine ideal 

implementation conditions (Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983; Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002). 

Some have noted a number of organizational, staff, and environmental features necessary for 

program success. Others have argued that the key conditions for program success will vary by 

program, agency, and stage in implementation (Goodman, 2000). More often than not, the lists of 

key ingredients for implementation success are based on case studies or researchers’ practical 

experiences rather than on systematic analyses of common implementation barriers (for 

exceptions, see Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Skroban, 1998; 

Petersilia, 1990). 

Blueprints Process Evaluation 

The Blueprints process evaluation was designed to systematically measure common 

implementation barriers experienced across a variety of contexts and programs. Focusing on the 

quality of implementation of nine different programs, the Blueprints team closely monitored and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 95 
evaluated the quality of implementation across 147 sites. The types of agencies responsible for 

implementing these programs included elementary schools, middle/junior high schools, high 

schools, state-supported health agencies, private treatment organizations, and nonprofit 

community agencies. In addition, organizations differed in their structure, mission statement, 

leadership, funding sources, and staffing policies. The Blueprints team used several methods to 

evaluate implementation quality. In the violence initiative, in which eight of the Blueprints 

programs were implemented, a series of questionnaires were constructed to measure how well 

and to what extent agencies had accomplished such key program elements as securing funds and 

resources, establishing linkages with other agencies, hiring and training staff, completing core and 

critical program elements, and providing the recommended dosage and duration of the treatment. 

Whereas a set of common questions were asked across eight programs, a series of questions were 

developed to measure the quality of implementation within each program. These questionnaires 

were administered once every 4 months for 2 years. In the Life Skills Training (LST) initiative, 

questionnaires were administered once a year over the 3-year implementation period. This change 

in the standard procedure was necessary because of the brevity of the program (15 sessions in 

year one, which could be implemented once a week or more frequently as a mini-course). During 

LST implementation, teacher adherence was monitored by local observers who made 

unannounced visits to each teacher’s classroom to observe lessons. Such quantitative instruments 

provided the tools to understand which components were the most powerful determiners of 

implementation success. A series of qualitative questions were developed to allow the researchers 

to describe and evaluate implementation barriers. 

With this systematic research design (see appendix A), the Blueprints team discovered and 

validated the importance of a number of conditions necessary for successful implementation (see 

also Fagan and Mihalic, 2003; Mihalic and Irwin, 2003) The following provides a discussion of 

the ways that organizational, staffing, program champion, and proactive technical assistance 

factors influenced implementation quality. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 96 
Critical Components of Successful Program 

Implementation 

Effective Organization 

Organizational features remain the most commonly documented factors determining 

implementation success. Such characteristics as the nature, structure, history, philosophic 

traditions, economic standing, and stability of organizations have been considered influential 

forces in program implementation. Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith (1999) have argued that 

organizations need to remain flexible, efficient, and nonconflictual when solving problems. In 

addition, others have reported that agencies with clear lines of authority are most likely to solve 

problems in a timely manner (Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983). Timely problem solving was an 

important factor in implementation success. During the early stages of implementation, most 

programs found it difficult, yet necessary, to complete a number of tasks including hiring and 

training staff, gaining legal approval, setting up administrative systems, raising funds, and 

recruiting clients. Sites that had failed to complete these startup tasks quickly were at risk for 

implementation failure. These tasks were more difficult when large agencies were involved in 

implementation. Though such organizations tended to have clear authority hierarchies (i.e., 

everyone knew who was in charge), they were often very slow in achieving goals due to lengthy 

administrative and bureaucratic requirements. For example, it was often difficult and 

time-consuming for large districts to plan teacher training workshops. Such workshops required 

the presence of several teachers from many schools. School administrations not only had to 

approve the release time for teachers, but also had to determine the best days for training and the 

best methods for allotting substitute teachers. 

Another influential organizational feature cited in the literature is the presence of administrative 

support for the implementation (Coolbaugh and Hansel, 2000; Dunworth et al., 1999; Ellickson 

and Petersilia, 1983; Gager and Elias, 1997; Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, 1999; Petersilia, 

1990). Data from the Blueprints study confirm this finding. Lack of administrative support was 

present in every case of failed implementation. In some cases, administrators had expressed 

support during early stages of implementation, but became less interested over time. For example, 

one elementary school principal initially welcomed the implementation of the PATHS program. 

The principal’s initial zeal soured, however, as he learned from teachers how much time and 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 97 
energy were needed to implement the program. After 8 months of implementation, the principal

decided to appease overworked teachers by stopping the implementation of PATHS. In other

cases, administrative turnover resulted in either site failure or decreased motivation among staff.

For example, during the implementation of LST, principal turnover resulted in two schools

withdrawing from the project.

Four ingredients made administrative support a key factor in program success: resources,

leadership, power, and communication. New programs required considerable resources including

staff time, money, and materials. In most cases, administrators controlled resource allocation.

Administrators also were influential and respected organizational leaders who articulated the

overall goals and vision of the agency and encouraged cooperation and coordination.

Administrators who openly communicated support for a new program within and outside of the

agency increased staff motivation for programs and helped everyone recognize the importance of

the work at hand.

In school-based programs, strong principal support is a primary consideration (Gingiss, 1992;

Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002; Kramer, Laumann, and Brunson, 2000; McMahon et al.,

2000). Encouragement was critical early in implementation, when principals could build favorable

philosophic climates for the new innovation. Administrators who spoke about the importance of

violence prevention helped teachers see the larger importance of difficult as well as mundane

tasks. Principal support was also important in fostering teachers’ commitment to the program.

Heavy demands on teachers’ time often made many teachers leery of implementing new programs.

Administrators who remained enthusiastic about the program helped maintain teachers’

motivation and interest in these new, and often time-consuming, programs.

Unfortunately, teachers often remarked that their principals knew little about the new curriculums

and, in some cases, this lack of knowledge threatened to undermine the quality of implementation

and left teachers feeling frustrated and angry. For example, in one site, principals had determined

that the program would be taught during physical education classes but did not consult with

teachers regarding this decision. Even after teachers emphasized that this plan was not conducive

to successful implementation—physical education classes typically lacked adequate classroom

facilities and had very large enrollments—principals refused to change their decision. Lack of

principal support led, either directly or indirectly, to all instances of program failure in Blueprints

school-based projects. In two sites, teachers demanded that the new program be dropped so that

they could resume teaching a drug prevention program that had been implemented previously and,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 98 
in both cases, principals yielded to these demands. These principals may have lacked full 

commitment to the program from the beginning of the initiative, as the program was applied for 

and taught by outside agencies. 

Administrators also held the power to make changes within the agency to accommodate new 

programs. The Blueprints programs presented new intervention approaches. With these new 

approaches came the need to make many structural, policy, and work routine changes. For 

example, the Blueprints therapeutic programs required that therapists work intensively with a few 

clients. In agencies where large caseloads were the norm, administrative mandates were necessary 

to ensure that therapists could decrease their caseloads enough to comply with the model 

program. In fact, the failure of administrators to make key changes in work routines threatened 

the success of two Functional Family Therapy sites. In both sites, therapists failed to work with 

the optimum number of clients recommended by the FFT technical assistance providers. In both 

cases, therapists were not relieved of their non-FFT caseloads and did not have the time to work 

with new FFT cases. In both scenarios, administrators were the only individuals who had the 

power to make the necessary changes. In addition to being able to reduce caseloads, 

administrators also held the power to change flex time compensation policies—a necessary 

requirement for interventions providing 24-hour services to clients. 

School-based programs also relied on the power wielded by administrators. Most important was 

the school administrators’ ability to ensure that teachers attend mandatory training workshops, 

especially when these trainings occurred during vacation breaks or necessitated arranging for 

substitute teachers. It was also essential that principals allow teachers flexibility in their delivery of 

the new curriculums. In many cases, teachers found completing a lesson in a standard, 50-minute 

period difficult, and principals often approved and helped arrange extensions of class time so that 

teachers could cover the requisite amount of material. 

Another important organizational feature is open and clear communication among all key players 

involved in the innovation (Harris and Smith, 1996; Kegler et al., 1998). The organizational leader 

must be a good communicator who is able to convince staff to embrace the values and ideals of 

the new program. This means openly communicating with staff about the program and involving 

others in the planning and decisionmaking processes. Failure to openly communicate with staff 

who will be responsible for implementing the program can lead to resistance and ultimate failure. 

An example of communication failure occurred in one of the treatment programs when two 

agencies fought to have final jurisdiction over the client. The involved staff failed to communicate 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 99 
about the treatment regimen and, in the absence of any coordination between the agencies, a client 

was sometimes pulled in two opposing directions. The Blueprints team became involved in this 

situation, which threatened the viability of the program, by convening a meeting that involved 

staff from both agencies, the technical assistance provider, and Blueprints staff. Problems were 

discussed, and the resolution was to appoint the case manager in the treatment agency as the lead 

person in the management of the youth. It was also suggested that regular meetings be set up to 

keep both agencies informed about the clinical progress of the youth and to discuss problems. 

Researchers have noted that agency stability, including low staff turnover, remains a key to 

implementation success (Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, 1999; Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 

2002; Lynch et al., 1998; Mears and Kelly, 2002; Petersilia, 1990). Loss of staff proved to be a 

problematic and stressful aspect of the Blueprints replication project, but rarely caused failure. 

Staff turnover, however, did present sites with many challenges. In many cases, the loss of key 

participants slowed implementation progress as work was typically suspended until replacements 

could be found. In the case of FFT, sites that had lost therapists were unable to maintain 

implementation fidelity for periods of time and often had to wait until new therapists were hired 

and trained before they could build their optimal caseload size. Each step (hiring, training, 

building a caseload) could take several weeks to several months. Thus, staff turnover meant that 

FFT sites would periodically fall in and out of fidelity. Although implementation was delayed and 

program fidelity suspended for short periods of time, the hiring of new staff proved to be a 

periodic upset to the implementation of therapy programs rather than a more serious, long-term 

threat. 

Contrary to the trend in Blueprints’ data, staffing problems did prove threatening to the 

implementation of one school-based site. In this particular case, the site’s school district 

superintendent left the district early in the implementation process, and the participating schools 

could not hire staff to deliver the curriculum or plan a teacher training until a replacement was 

found. This process lasted several months and threatened to drag on until the end of the school 

year, which would have resulted in site failure. (Sites often did not notify the Blueprints staff in a 

timely manner when attrition occurred, which delayed implementation even further.) Once the 

problem was identified, the site had to scramble to find replacements, solidify their commitment to 

the initiative, and, in nearly all cases, provide additional training to new staff. 

Teacher turnover was one of the primary problems confronting school sites. Many schools 

preferred to schedule their annual training workshop in the spring, but often lost staff over the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 100 
summer, which necessitated additional training in the fall of the new school year. When teacher 

loss occurred during the school year, school administrators often hired short-term substitutes and 

required that they teach the new program, even though they were unfamiliar with the goals and 

objectives of the curriculum. As others have found (Connell, Turner, and Mason, 1985; Taggart 

et al., 1990; Ross et al., 1991), these untrained staff often had less motivation to teach the 

program than trained staff and often did so in an incomplete manner that did not adhere to the 

program model. Thus, the Blueprints team worked closely with the site to train new teachers, 

which often entailed the TA provider making an unscheduled site visit to work one-on-one with 

the instructor. (This alternate form of training was usually not as efficient or thorough as having 

teachers attend a typical training workshop where they could interact with other teachers.) 

Fortunately, close contact with the TA provider and strong administration support often 

compensated for staff turnover so that problems were resolved once staff were replaced and 

trained. When sites experienced high turnover and low administrative support, however, 

implementation failure was inevitable. For example, in one of the school-based sites, failure 

occurred when an outside agency could no longer supply prevention specialists to deliver the 

curriculum and the participating school, which lacked both teacher and principal commitment to 

the project, refused to take on the responsibility of using school personnel to teach the program.. 

Competing philosophies can compromise implementation efforts (Mears and Kelly, 2002). For 

example, when agencies have historically embraced theories that compete with the philosophies 

and perspectives underlying a newly implemented program, ideological conflicts can ensue and 

disrupt implementation. In fact, the implementation of Blueprints programs usually required staff, 

administrators, and agencies to make particular philosophic leaps. A few individuals found 

accepting these new approaches and their underlying philosophies difficult. Since Blueprints staff 

screened for extreme philosophical differences in the early stages of a project, few of the 

philosophic conflicts ended in site failure. TA providers usually detected and directly addressed 

ideological conflicts early in the planning stage or at initial training. In addition, TA providers 

often presented empirical data supporting the effectiveness of their program. After this 

information was presented, many staff members eventually bought into the new modes of service 

provision. Although staff members who completely failed to embrace the new initiative usually left 

the project, personnel sometimes remained who were skeptical about certain aspects of the 

program’s underlying philosophy or approach to prevention. For example, teachers implementing 

the Life Skills Training curriculum often refused to teach a social skills lesson that included 

references to dating, even though trainers stressed the importance of providing students with this 

information. Although these teachers asserted that their middle school students were not 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 101 
developmentally ready to discuss physical attraction to others, other teachers at the same school 

often remarked that students did need to discuss these issues and were, in fact, initiating dating 

relationships. In other situations, instructors often inserted scare tactics into the LST curriculum 

(such as showing students blackened lungs) or neglected the use of interactive teaching techniques 

for the use of more standard and comfortable didactic methods. Though trainers relayed that such 

techniques had not been proven effective in reducing adolescent drug use, teachers felt that these 

methods worked and wanted to continue using them as they had in the past. 

Philosophic conflicts also emerged during the replication of therapy programs. A few therapists 

were at odds with the newly adopted programs because they were accustomed to and believed in 

the value of individualized therapy. In one extreme, but very rare, example, a technical assistance 

provider for the Multisystemic Therapy program encountered a vocal opponent to some of MST’s 

drug intervention approaches. During a training session where agents from numerous state 

agencies were invited to attend, the TA provider described how MST encourages parents to link 

children with prosocial activities. The TA provider noted an example of an MST therapist who 

worked with a family to initiate a neighborhood basketball team. Once the team was established, 

the parents were delighted to find that their son maintained an involvement in the team and 

decreased his illegal activities. As an aside, the TA provider noted that the neighborhood 

basketball team also had a positive effect on the coach, an individual who, before the inception of 

the team, had been a notorious drug dealer in the neighborhood. Although he did not cease his 

drug dealing altogether, the coach refrained from dealing drugs while he coached. Where the 

MST therapist felt that this was, given the circumstances, a positive outcome for all concerned, an 

administrator from one state agency disagreed. Noting that this particular state held a strict “zero 

tolerance” approach to drug use and drug dealing, he argued that the fledgling MST team would 

not be able to implement such “creative” interventions in that state. 

Although not frequently addressed in the literature, strong linkages among multiple agencies can 

bolster implementation quality (Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983; Freudenburg, 1998). Petersilia 

(1990) alludes to the importance of interagency linkages by arguing that programs fare better 

when “larger systems” are receptive to the program. Programs that require but do not obtain 

cooperation across agencies typically attain only low or moderate levels of effectiveness 

(Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983). Within the Blueprints project, a few sites confronted linkage 

barriers. Threatened with failing to get enough clients to keep programs afloat, these sites often 

found themselves reaching out to such agencies as healthcare services and juvenile courts to 

establish better rapport and increase interagency support. To foster these relationships, key 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 102 
participants from all organizations were invited to feasibility visits, where program designers 

presented the history, philosophy, and effectiveness of the program so that all parties were aware 

of the nature and requirements of the program. During implementation, TA providers and 

Blueprints staff worked closely with sites that were having trouble recruiting clients and/or 

maintaining close ties to other agencies to resolve their problems. Sites were encouraged to 

establish better lines of communication among parties—by meeting informally with one another to 

discuss barriers to implementation and working together to solve these problems. For example, 

when outside agencies provided prevention specialists to deliver the LST curriculum, teachers 

were often skeptical about the teaching ability of the outsiders or upset by what they considered 

an intrusion into their classrooms. However, these problems were often easily resolved once 

teachers and prevention specialists collaborated to allow increased teacher participation in 

delivering the curriculum or better scheduling of classes. Thus, linkage barriers were eventually 

overcome once relationships were built and trust and communication were established. 

Qualified Staff 

Whereas administrators can determine program success through the many decisions that must be 

made during the initiation and implementation processes, staff members also exert a powerful 

influence on implementation quality. Data from the Blueprints study support the common 

assumption that staff support and motivation are necessary for replication success (Elias and 

Clabby, 1992; Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983; Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, 1999; Hunter, Elias, 

and Norris, 2001; McCormick, Steckler, and McLeroy, 1995; Petersilia, 1990; Taggart et al., 

1990). Within the Blueprints initiative, lack of staff support usually resulted in a generalized low 

morale and eventual staff turnover. Loss of nonsupportive staff members, however, occasionally 

increased general staff satisfaction. Staff members needed to encourage each other to maintain 

enthusiasm for the project. Often, program implementers feel isolated in their attempts to master a 

new initiative and believe they are the only ones facing challenges. To realize that others 

encounter similar problems is extremely beneficial. To this end, program personnel were 

encouraged to meet periodically to discuss the program and share their insights regarding 

implementation problems and solutions for overcoming them. This collaboration often saved time 

for others, which further enhanced their satisfaction with the program. For example, teachers 

often shared ideas for making classes more lively or creating assessment tools to test students’ 

knowledge of the program. In the family therapy programs, regular meetings in which client 

progress was discussed provided insights to new therapeutic techniques or methods for 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 103 
intervening with clients. Sites where staff meet regularly tend to have greater support and 

enthusiasm for the program, as well as greater fidelity to the research-based model (Ellickson and 

Petersilia, 1983). 

Staff buy-in and support functioned differently in this study than past research has suggested. For 

example, Gendreau and colleagues (1999, p. 184) have argued that staff need to “participate 

directly in designing the new program.” None of the direct line staff hired in 147 sites had any 

direct involvement in program design or early planning. Whereas participation can theoretically 

enhance staff support, data from the Blueprints project support the idea that buy-in can be 

obtained through training and ongoing technical assistance. 

Staff support was tied to the quality of training and TA provision. Although many staff members 

reported being unsure about their abilities to implement their programs, insecurity usually 

decreased after their second training. Program participants reported increased comfort and skill in 

delivering the program once they had gained familiarity with the new practices involved. For 

example, teachers generally reported more satisfaction and support for the LST curriculum in the 

second year of implementation, after initial scheduling problems were overcome and instructors 

had to spend less time preparing lessons. Additionally, fidelity increased in the second year of the 

project as teachers became more confident in using the curriculum. 

Staff skills play an important part in implementation quality (Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith 1999). 

Outcome and process research findings generally support the idea that staff credentials and skills 

can improve program effectiveness (Kegler et al., 1998; Lynch et al., 1998; Taggart et al., 1990). 

Blueprints data support this finding. Many of the Blueprints programs clearly stipulated that staff 

members should have completed special training and/or have credentials in particular modes of 

service provision. For example, in the Nurse-Family Partnership program, designers suggested 

that staff members should be trained and certified nurses. The underlying rationale is that trained, 

experienced nurses are able to provide better health-related services and will have more credibility 

with clients. Therapy programs often required organizations to hire therapists with master’s 

degrees or equivalent experience. Training for therapy programs was designed to build on a base 

of clinical knowledge—a difficult task when staff had not gained this knowledge. Although the 

Life Skills Training programs did not require delivery by certified teachers (it could be taught by 

counselors or prevention specialists, for example), the interactive lessons were more effectively 

taught by those experienced in classroom management, time management, and ability to deliver a 

formal curriculum. Less experienced instructors tended to report more difficulty in completing 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 104 
lessons in a standard class period or in making the lessons exciting for students, whereas 

experienced instructors intuitively knew when and how to curb student discussions and how to 

utilize a combination of didactic and interactive teaching techniques. Thus, sites that hired and 

utilized staff with the requisite credentials faced fewer staff-level implementation barriers. In fact, 

sites hiring staff with less than required credentials, less experience, or less training had higher 

turnover rates, more resistance, and less staff satisfaction. Although this finding does not negate 

the need and value of volunteer staff, organizations should be aware that these individuals may 

need additional training and support to improve their ability to deliver programs with effectiveness 

and fidelity. 

In addition to staff credentials, findings from the Blueprints initiative, as well as other 

implementation projects (Coolbaugh and Hansel, 2000), demonstrate that adequate financial 

compensation afforded to staff members makes a difference in implementation. Some Blueprints 

programs allowed sites to use volunteer staff in coordinating roles, but findings suggest that sites 

relying on volunteer staff progressed more slowly than those with paid members who could 

devote the time and energy to keep the program alive and functioning smoothly. Early 

implementation work proved considerably time consuming. Volunteer staff members often found 

themselves tackling enormous demands and, without adequate financial compensation, sometimes 

lost motivation. Often they found themselves tackling the demands of program implementation on 

top of their full- or part-time job. In these cases, few found themselves with the same amount of 

time to devote to implementation development as paid practitioners. 

Although payment to instructors for teaching prevention lessons is considered by some a 

dangerous precedent, the highest quality implementation of the PATHS program occurred in a 

site where teachers were provided 4 hours pay per month for planning lessons. This small stipend 

highlighted the administration’s commitment to carry out this program, despite facing similar 

obstacles (especially lack of time) as encountered in other sites. The determination of the key 

players in this site motivated these teachers to find innovative ways to integrate the PATHS 

curriculum into their daily routines. One of the Bullying Prevention Program sites also provided 

their coordinating committee members with a small stipend of up to $100 each year as an 

incentive for their time spent in planning the details of the schoolwide program. This site also 

achieved a full and high-quality implementation of the program. The money is not what 

necessarily causes success since the stipends are quite small, but it represents the determination of 

the administration to make the program work. Although the Blueprints initiative does not endorse 

payment of stipends, it is understandable how a monetary incentive would demonstrate to 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 105 
teachers the importance of the project and their role in it. However, this type of motivation can be 

engendered in many other ways, especially when a principal shows active support of the program 

by attending training, observing classes, and setting up meetings with the teachers to discuss the 

implementation. 

Lack of time is often cited by program staff as a major barrier to implementation (King, Wagner, 

and Hedrick, 2001). Many paid staff members implementing Blueprints programs suggested that 

the time demands of starting a new program were daunting. Therapists suggested that 

implementing new therapy programs demanded much more time than they had anticipated. In fact, 

one implementation failure came when clinical staff found themselves unable to gain financial 

reimbursement for the extra time spent working on FFT. This agency relied on medicaid 

reimbursement. Since their time spent learning to work with a new clinical model did not count as 

billable time for Medicaid, and because they had fewer billable cases with the smaller caseloads 

demanded by FFT, they could not continue implementation. In addition, therapy programs such as 

Multisystemic Therapy required therapists to be on 24-hour call. Sites implementing this program 

found that they needed adequate flex time policies to accommodate this aspect of the program. 

Coordinating a new initiative requires a tremendous investment of time. Many schools had 

assigned a half-time position to these duties, usually as a requirement of the grant. Schools that 

could not afford this position were phased out in the initial selection process. Over the course of 

implementation, a half-time position was often not adequate to fulfill the many duties required, 

especially in the first year of the project and if multiple schools were involved. 

Teachers frequently mentioned time constraints as a major barrier to implementation (see Kramer, 

Laumann, and Brunson, 2000). Given the high state and national demands to increase the test 

performances of public school students, many instructors were understandably worried that 

teaching drug or violence prevention programs would take away from time that should be spent 

on core subjects and test preparation. In the case of Life Skills Training, many schools integrated 

the program into their health classes, where it fulfilled many curriculum requirements. Other 

schools did not have health classes and were forced to deliver the program in classes such as 

science, math, or English. Teachers had to work harder to integrate LST into these subjects, and 

many were creative in using the concepts to reinforce basic academic skills, such as requiring 

students to write essays in English classes or determine the annual cost of cigarette smoking in 

math classes. A few teachers were even motivated to match the program to their state curriculum 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 106 
standards, which helped persuade teachers (and parents and school administrators) that the 

program was a worthwhile use of classroom time. 

Integration into the school’s daily operation has been identified as a key factor in ensuring 

program success and longevity (Gager and Elias, 1997; Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, 1999; 

Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002; Kramer, Laumann, and Brunson, 2000). When teachers and 

administrators recognize that new programs serve a larger purpose for the school, they are not 

only more likely to adopt the initiatives, but also feel ownership for them (Fullan, 1992). 

Moreover, students can also sense when their teachers feel lessons are important and worthwhile 

and are likely to react in a similar manner. For example, many teachers have characterized the 

LST program as fluff. This is particularly evident when outside prevention specialists teach 

programs in schools and teachers feel they are wasting class time. In many cases, students’ 

behavior mimics that of their teacher: when teachers are disruptive or obviously uninterested in 

lessons, so are students. Similarly, school-based programs are often placed in auxiliary subjects 

such as physical education or home economics and are considered easily disposable. For example, 

many teachers implementing a program in physical education classes did not have adequate 

classroom facilities in which to teach or were burdened by combined classes totaling more than 50 

students, which made implementation very difficult. In these cases, principals were often reluctant 

to make space for the program because they felt doing so would detract from more important 

subjects. In interviews with school administrators, those most committed to continuing the 

program when the Blueprints project ends are those who believe the curriculum fills a need and 

where it is well integrated into school operations. 

Program Champion 

According to the literature, successful implementation efforts need strong leadership and key 

personnel to coordinate and conduct the program (Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983; Petersilia, 

1990). A distinction is usually made in the literature between top leadership and a project director 

or coordinator who champions the innovation and guides its day-to-day operations. Projects that 

have a highly committed champion have greater success (Ellickson and Petersilia, 1983). Data 

from the Blueprints project generally support this finding. Those directing or coordinating 

implementation efforts needed to be influential members of an organization and have considerable 

rapport with organization administrators and other staff members. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 107 
Having good rapport with administrators ensured that leaders would receive the necessary 

authority and resources from the organization to make a program work, which became 

particularly important in school-based implementations. In several examples, outside agencies 

received grants to manage the implementation of programs in schools. In some cases, program 

champions from the outside failed to establish good rapport and communication with the 

participating schools and, as a result, faced resistance from both principals and teachers. In fact, 

three school-based program failures occurred when outside agency members failed to garner 

support from teachers and principals. However, effective collaboration between outside agencies 

and participating schools was often achieved, particularly when agencies had a long history of 

providing needed services to students, were well respected in their communities, and espoused the 

same philosophy towards prevention as the schools. In these cases, principals and teachers 

appreciated having extra help implementing and organizing the program, and prevention 

specialists often reported that students were excited to have new instructors in the classroom. 

Classroom teachers were particularly supportive when outside teachers were knowledgeable 

about the program and skilled in classroom management. 

However, program champions who were “inside” the implementing agency could also be 

ineffective, particularly if they had little power to effect change. For example, one program 

champion lacked substantial authority within her agency. Although highly motivated, she was not 

able to garner much support for the program among administrative staff. In the end, 

administrators failed to commit the money necessary to implement the program. For the 

school-based programs, champions were often district-level personnel such as Safe and Drug-Free 

School Coordinators. Although they theoretically had ties to all schools within their district, these 

individuals were nonetheless removed from the daily activity of teachers and schools and often did 

not understand the realities of making a program work at the individual level. As a result, school 

district administrators often failed to establish the communication and support needed to achieve 

basic tasks, such as organizing teacher training workshops, gathering schedules of 

implementation, and keeping teachers and principals informed of the overall progress of 

implementation. Moreover, principals who failed to fully support the project often asserted that 

the initiative was forced on them by the school district, and they resented not being included in 

such an important decision. This experience lends further support for the importance of local (or 

school) initiations in adopting and implementing a program (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002). 

When agencies choose to adopt new programs, many philosophical and structural changes need to 

take place to allow the new programs to thrive. Similar to charismatic leaders, strong champions 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 108 
pique individual excitement for new approaches. Moreover, they can ease the tensions associated 

with change by espousing an appealing vision for the future and inspiring motivation among those 

around them. Not only must staff members support new methods of “daily business,” but they 

often find themselves committing more time and resources to the project. The implementation of 

the Bullying Prevention Program in one school provides an example of the importance of program 

champions. During the first year of implementation of the program, staff expressed reluctance to 

create and clearly communicate specific antibullying rules (a core component of the program) for 

fear that specific antibullying rules would undermine a pre-existing code of conduct in the school. 

The program champion at the school creatively solved this problem by hosting an antibullying 

poster contest. The winning poster (one that expressed a basic antibullying rule) was clearly 

displayed throughout the school. Thus, through creativity and dedication to the spirit of the 

program, champions can help ease conflicts and resistance within their agencies. 

Garnering widespread support for the new innovation is particularly important because 

champions, no matter how committed to a cause, may leave organizations for various reasons, 

and a possibility always exists that a program will fail once the key stakeholder has left. For 

example, in the LST project, one site failed when the champion was no longer respected by her 

peers and had not elicited much support for the program in the participating schools. When she 

was asked to step down from her role as teacher and coordinator, no one was willing to fill these 

positions. In a similar example, one site implementing a family therapy program failed after the 

program champion left the agency. In this case, the program champion, although a strong 

advocate for the therapy model, had done little to generate motivation within the implementing 

agency. Instead, she tried to carry the full burden of startup and implementation without the 

involvement of others. Once she left the agency, the agency staff had little interest in this 

intervention and decided to end the program. 

Proactive Technical Assistance 

The Blueprints team found that the training, guidance, advice, and monitoring offered as technical 

assistance helped agencies overcome and even avoid multiple implementation barriers. This 

finding remains consistent with studies suggesting that training is a key ingredient of 

implementation success (Connell, Turner, and Mason, 1985; Fors and Doster, 1985; Gager and 

Elias, 1997; Gingiss, 1992; Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 2002; Hunter. Elias, and Norris, 2001; 

Parcel et al., 1991; Perry, Murray, and Griffin, 1990; Ross et al., 1991; Taggart et al., 1990). The 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 109 
technical assistance (TA) offered to Blueprints sites was a unique aspect of the Blueprints 

implementation initiative. As mentioned previously, local staff had played no role in designing 

programs and, in fact, were prohibited from making major modifications to the model. When 

becoming a Blueprints site, agencies agreed to implement programs according to the original and 

scientifically validated design. The original developers and those with extensive experience with 

the program served as the primary TA providers who helped agencies implement the program 

with fidelity. 

The technical assistance included extensive initial training lasting from 1 to 5 days. This initial 

training was designed to provide knowledge on such key issues as how the program operates, the 

effects demonstrated by the program during research trials, how the individual components of the 

program influence change, and how best to carry out the elements of the program. Initial training 

was followed by one or more booster sessions designed to increase staff members’ knowledge, 

skills, motivation, and comfort with the model. Beyond the basic goal of transferring the 

knowledge and experiences of the trainers, these sessions helped to decrease resistance to the 

program and generate enthusiasm and commitment to the program, which are necessary elements 

for success. All trainers were experts in the model program and successfully transmitted the 

necessary skills to agency staff. The initial training also helped trainers identify and address early 

problems. After assessing the special needs at a particular site, trainers often altered aspects of 

their workshops to boost the skill level of agency staff and increase staff members’ competence in 

service provision. 

After the completion of several initial training workshops, TA providers and Blueprints staff 

discovered some common challenges and began to identify steps that members of the sites, the TA 

providers, and Blueprints staff could take to make the initial training more productive. One 

common problem was the failure of sites to hire all staff before an initial training. In addition, 

some TA providers found that individuals talked during sessions, arrived late, or failed to attend 

parts of their workshops. School programs faced unique training challenges as principals needed 

to release some or all teachers from their classes to attend workshops. This was sometimes 

difficult to arrange and required considerable advance planning. Training workshops that included 

members of the administration tended to be higher quality sessions. Administrator presence sent a 

strong message to key personnel that the program was a priority within the agency. 

Administrators who attended training also understood programs better and were able to 

accommodate and support implementation efforts more effectively. After confronting attendance 

problems in a few sites, Blueprints staff sent a one-page “Training Protocols” brochure to each 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 110 
site before its workshop and asked that the information be distributed to persons scheduled to 

attend the training. Training protocols were individualized for each program and briefly outlined 

the purpose of the workshop, listed all staff members that needed to attend, and outlined the 

Blueprints team’s behavioral expectations of staff during each training. 

Another problem occurred when sites arranged for all staff to attend training sessions, but failed 

to inform them that they would be implementing a new program. Staff members arrived to 

workshops without knowing why they needed to attend and thus became resistant and 

uncooperative. Trainers spent much time reviewing the program and informing staff of the sites’ 

implementation plans. Sites should inform staff members of plans to implement a program, inform 

them of their role in the implementation, and review the basic principles and design of the chosen 

program before training so that staff can come as prepared as possible. 

One common problem across most Blueprints 

sites was high staff turnover. Once an initial 

Blueprints Training Recommendations 

training was completed, many sites found that  Hire all staff before training. 

staff left the project, requiring sites to hire 

and re-train new staff. To address this issue, 

Blueprints staff recommended that sites 

 Review program and implementation 

plans with staff before training. 

include ongoing training costs in their budgets 

and that TA providers should build the 

 Arrange for administrators to attend 

training. 

capacity to provide this ongoing training. 

During process evaluation visits, Blueprints 

 Arrange for substitute 

teachers/providers for training days. 

staff also learned that some programs had not 

effectively recruited clients and were unable to 

immediately use the principles and skills they 

 Communicate behavioral expectations 

of staff during training. 

had learned in the initial training. Therefore,  Plan for staff turnover. 

sites should plan to start serving clients 

immediately after initial training, while the 

material is still fresh in everyone’s minds. In a 

 Be ready to implement program 

immediately after training. 

few sites where teacher training occurred late 

in the spring or early summer, teacher 

turnover during the summer months required that a second training had to be delivered in the fall 

when the program was scheduled to begin. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 111 
After initial training, TA providers were available for regular consultation with sites. For a few 

programs, TA providers contacted sites once a week and scheduled onsite visits every 3 months. 

During these contacts, TA providers served as valuable consultants and experts who could 

identify implementation problems and offer useful suggestions to overcome them. For example, 

TA providers often detected dissatisfaction and low motivation among teachers implementing the 

school-based programs. In these cases, they often used telephone or e-mail consultation to 

suggest ways to make the lessons less demanding for teachers and more enjoyable for students 

while still maintaining fidelity to the model. For more problematic sites, trainers made site visits to 

observe classroom practices in order to provide more specific feedback and assistance. For two of 

the therapy programs, TA providers closely monitored therapists’ skills. Multisystemic Therapy 

designed and validated an instrument designed to assess the extent of therapists’ adherence to the 

principles of the program. In a few cases where therapists consistently struggled, TA providers 

stepped in and recommended ways to increase therapists’ skills, motivation, and knowledge. In 

two cases, TA providers arranged for therapists to attend additional training workshops. In this 

way, TA providers served a monitoring role by helping to maintain fidelity to the model and a 

consultant role by advising sites about the ways to overcome problems. Those receiving TA 

seemed to value this direct contact, and, as a result, were not only more adept in providing 

services, but also became more energized and supportive of the initiative. 

Programs that failed to provide comprehensive technical assistance often found that their sites 

were lagging behind in implementation and were unsure of how to proceed or how to overcome 

challenges. Members of some sites sought help outside their own agency by initiating contact with 

others who were implementing the same program in another part of the country. Some TA 

providers who did not have regular contact with sites often assumed that sites would inform them 

when they were having implementation problems. However, program staff and administrators did 

not always recognize their own weaknesses, or they assumed they would have to handle them on 

their own. Although the Blueprints staff and trainers stressed that technical assistance was 

available, those directly implementing the programs were often unaware that they could receive 

additional help or were uncomfortable asking for it. 

More problematic, staff who were uncomfortable with the new initiative often reverted to 

previous modes of intervention and failed to realize that doing so contradicted the philosophy of 

the program. For example, many Life Skills Training teachers were uncomfortable or unskilled in 

facilitating classroom discussion, modeling appropriate behaviors, or monitoring behavioral 

rehearsals and would often revert back to didactic modes of teaching, including reading directly 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 112 
from a teacher’s manual. In the absence of a curriculum, many teachers using the Bullying 

Prevention Program either discontinued most of their classroom sessions or searched for other 

programs to implement in the classroom. One site began implementing a conflict resolution 

program in direct contradiction to a major goal of the Bullying Prevention Program, which states 

that bullying will not be tolerated (i.e., it is not an act to be mediated). These teachers were tired 

of the routine activities of the program and sought aids from outside the program, thus 

discounting their needs for further TA. 

Data suggest that having manuals or a set curriculum with designed activities that are viewed as 

relevant, attractive, and easy to use enhances program adoption in the classroom (Blakely et al., 

1987; Perry, Murray, and Griffin, 1990; Schinke, Gilchrest, and Snow, 1985; Taggart et al., 

1990). In other cases, staff may have recognized their need for additional assistance and 

welcomed help but were too busy to solicit it. Thus, they would have greatly appreciated more 

proactive technical assistance. In such cases, the implementation efforts stagnated until Blueprints 

staff actively sought TA assistance for the site. 

To date, the literature suggests that training and technical assistance are extremely valuable parts 

of any implementation effort. During the Blueprints initiative, Blueprints staff, members at sites, 

and TA providers confronted numerous challenges that revealed, in detail, how ongoing training 

and technical assistance function during program replication. Findings from the Blueprints 

initiative generally resonate with the literature that suggests that practitioners who receive 

complete trainings are able to implement programs more effectively (Connell, Turner, and Mason, 

1985; Flay, 1999; Fors and Doster, 1985; Taggart et al., 1990), and that the most successful types 

of trainings tend to be those that include knowledgeable and enthusiastic trainers and site 

administrators (McCormick, Steckler, and McLeroy, 1995). These findings also support the idea 

that ongoing formal or informal training sessions can reinvigorate implementation efforts (Gager 

and Elias, 1997; Gingiss, 1992; Parcel et al., 1991). 

Blueprints findings also point to training and technical assistance themes that may emerge in the 

future. For example, program designers used a variety of different approaches to training and 

technical assistance. Some designers decided to form for-profit organizations charged with the 

task of disseminating their program and providing ongoing training and technical assistance. Other 

designers preferred to disseminate the program through nonprofit organizations. Data from the 

Blueprints initiative suggest that strengths and weaknesses exist within both profit and nonprofit 

models. The one model that was not successful was the attempt by some programs to provide 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 113 
assistance to sites before setting up an organization for TA delivery. TA providers assumed these 

additional responsibilities on top of a full-time job at their own organizations. This often resulted 

in a nonproactive TA delivery system, with TA given when requested, usually because of major 

problems at the site. 

The Blueprints initiative helped most of the designers of these programs to create a TA delivery 

system that would work, not just for the Blueprints project but for the many other requests for 

TA that were streaming in. Throughout the 2 years (3 years for LST) of the project, these 

delivery systems were fine-tuned and modified. By the end of the project, most programs were 

able to deliver a quality package of training and TA that included both telephone consultation and 

site visits. 

In addition, types of training and TA differed in terms of the amount of independence they 

encouraged in new sites. Some designers preferred that sites engage in an ongoing relationship 

with their training and TA organizations, which required sites to continue paying for ongoing 

assistance every year—a daunting expense for several sites. Other designers chose to provide 

training and TA for a limited time. On completing the course of training and TA, these sites were 

deemed proficient implementers of the model. In this model, members of particular sites, usually 

the program coordinators, gained the necessary expertise (as determined by program designers) to 

act as the trainer and TA provider for their site in the future. Thus, the expense of training and TA 

lasted only until site staff gained the necessary skills to sustain the program. 

Findings from the Blueprints initiative suggest that every type of training and TA has strengths 

and weaknesses and, thus, it is impossible to advocate one model over another. Findings do 

suggest, however, that the way training and TA is designed (profit versus nonprofit, independent 

versus dependent) will emerge as core debates in the literature in the future. Also, Blueprints staff 

would recommend that sites examine the training philosophy of a program and compare it to their 

own goals before a decision is made about implementing the program. 

Outside Evaluators 

Although not charged with providing implementation assistance directly to sites, Blueprints staff 

members actively monitored sites’ replication efforts and often identified times when site staff 

needed additional technical assistance. To assess the quality of implementation, and to gather 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 114 
information regarding the barriers faced by each site, Blueprints staff visited sites every 4 months 

during the 2-year implementation grant. Moreover, onsite classroom observers were hired to 

monitor the effectiveness of the Life Skills Training program in more detail. This intense 

monitoring often led to the discovery of problems, particularly for sites that had little contact with 

trainers. When problems were discovered, Blueprints staff members were quick to contact TA 

providers and urge them to work with the site to develop solutions. For example, during the 

implementation of the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care program, Blueprints staff learned 

that a few sites were having difficulty recruiting and retaining foster parents. Blueprints staff 

informed the TA providers of this challenge, arranged conference calls between TA providers and 

the sites to discuss possible solutions, and then arranged for a TA visit to one of the sites to 

provide additional training to recruiters. 

Blueprints staff also encouraged LST sites to organize feedback sessions between teachers and 

TA providers at the end of implementation so that instructors could share their experiences with 

one another and brainstorm ways to make implementation more successful in the following year. 

Thus the Blueprints staff members often acted as liaisons between program implementors and TA 

providers and urged both parties to be more proactive in seeking and providing assistance. 

Monitoring and accountability were novel experiences for most sites. Many did not at first 

understand the role of the Blueprints staff, but most came to appreciate the level of 

implementation quality they achieved through the emphasis on fidelity. In the violence prevention 

initiative, which included eight of the Blueprints programs, 61 percent of the site coordinators 

rated Blueprints as “very” or “exceptionally” helpful in implementing programs with greater 

fidelity. Another 34 percent believed that Blueprints was “somewhat helpful” or “helpful.” Almost 

half (45 percent) of the site coordinators believed that the emphasis on program fidelity helped 

implementation quality “significantly” or a “great deal.” Another 16 percent believed it 

“moderately” improved implementation quality. Only four site coordinators reported that it did 

little (n=3) or nothing (n=1) to improve quality. Eighty-four percent of the site coordinators 

reported implementing “most” or “all” program components, and 87 percent were “exceptionally” 

or “very satisfied” with the program. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 115 
Conclusion 

Once an organization or community determines that it is ready to begin program implementation, 

a number of factors can exist that may diminish the effectiveness of even the most exemplary 

prevention programs. The Blueprints initiative has been undertaken to enhance the understanding 

of the human and systems factors that challenge the successful implementation of programs. 

Failure to commit time and resources, hiring implementers who lack the appropriate skills to 

deliver the program, insufficient organizational and key leader support, lack of motivation and 

buy-in of implementing staff, failure to provide ongoing support and technical assistance, and lack 

of program monitoring are all factors that can weaken the implementation effort. If these factors 

are not overcome, the result may be an inability to sustain effective programs. 

Note: This chapter was published in slightly altered form as Blueprints for Violence Prevention 

Replications: Factors for Implementation Success, 2002. Sharon Mihalic, Abigail Fagan, 

Katherine Irwin, Diane Ballard, and Delbert Elliott. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center 

for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 116 
Chapter 5: Recommendations

Although information on best practices and effective programs has been developed and 

disseminated at federal, state, and local levels, information alone is not enough to create beneficial 

and enduring prevention programming. Dissemination of best practices is only the first step. The 

second step is promoting the actual use of research-based information (Backer and David, 1995). 

Information on the experiences and problems encountered in replicating programs and effective 

methods for sustaining quality implementation is extremely important. Prevention practitioners 

experience a number of problems when they begin to implement new programs, including 

financial, psychological, and organizational challenges. If these factors are not overcome, the end 

result may be poor implementation or program failure. The research on program implementation 

must begin to document and disseminate the significant factors facilitating individual and 

organizational behavior change that will sustain effective programs. Unfortunately, little concrete 

information is available on the factors that result in successful or unsuccessful program adoption, 

implementation, and institutionalization (Morrisey et al., 1997; Wandersman et al., 1998; 

Weissberg, Caplan, and Harwood, 1991), and limited formal study exists of intervention diffusion 

strategies (Backer, David, and Soucy, 1995b; Spoth, 1999). 

Several federal agencies, however, have begun this important research. The National Institute on 

Drug Abuse (NIDA) has taken the lead by creating the Technology Transfer Program in 1989. 

This program is responsible for disseminating drug-related research and findings on effective 

interventions to treatment and prevention practitioners and for encouraging adoption and 

implementation of such programs. NIDA also commissioned a group of experts from different 

disciplines to create a monograph on technology transfer (Backer, David, and Soucy, 1995b). The 

monograph documents their research on and experiences with changing behavior in the individual, 

the organization, and the community. 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention convened a symposium in 1999 composed of 

researchers and practitioners to address three questions: 

 What does the research state about effective programs? 

 Why are research findings not applied in prevention practice? 

 What can be done to overcome this gap? 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 117 
Other organizations (e.g., the Institute of Medicine’s Prevention Research Cycle) have identified 

technology (i.e., knowledge) transfer as an important component of prevention research (Mrazek 

and Haggerty, 1994; Morrissey et al., 1997). 

Replication and Program Strategies, Inc. (RPS) has begun documenting potential strategies for 

expanding the scale of effective programs (i.e., disseminating programs to multiple sites). It finds 

that most programs spread, not because of deliberate public policy and effective programming, 

but as a result of a private entrepreneurial effort, the charisma of the program designer, or the 

reputation of its organizational home (Replication and Program Strategies, Inc., 1994). RPS 

argues that replication involves two steps: (1) developing credible knowledge about the 

effectiveness of programs and their potential for broader adoption, and (2) based on that 

knowledge, reproducing programs that have been found to work (Furano et al., 1995). 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has also taken a lead in the 

area of technology transfer and replication. OJJDP’s funding of the Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention initiative is a major effort to disseminate information on effective programs and 

provide funding for training and technical assistance to help these programs get established in 

communities. It is also an attempt to systematically gather information on the challenges that arise 

in adopting new programs, implementing them, and in taking these programs to scale in a 

widespread dissemination effort. The Blueprints programs were adopted and implemented in 

different settings with widely varying problems and process outcomes. The lessons learned in this 

project can be applied by implementing agencies, designers of programs, and funders. 

Recommendations for Implementing Agencies and 

Organizations 

Choose a Program After Careful Research 

Assess Need for Prevention 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 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 118 
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 adoption decisions and ultimately higher quality implementation (Gottfredson and 

Gottfredson, 2002). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 119 
Choose a Program That Fits the Need and the Target Population 

After careful planning and research, the time comes to choose a program that matches the needs 

of the community and that is consistent with the stated goals or mission of the school, agency, or 

community. Carefully matching a program to community or agency 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 research-based 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, should be implemented with whole classrooms and not with 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 major goal of MST is reduction in out-of-home placement at 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. 

Enhance Readiness of Site 

Blueprints simultaneously assessed and enhanced readiness through a comprehensive selection 

process that included an application and a subsequent feasibility visit to the site. The selection 

process focused on need, ability to garner the necessary human and financial resources, and 

motivation and commitment by key leaders. Most agencies that adopt a program will not have the 

benefit of an outside organization to help with front-end assessment and planning. However, 

several things can be done by a school or agency to enhance readiness to support a new program 

once the decision to implement a program has been made. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 120 
Build an Environment That Is Supportive of the New Program 

The adoption of a model program does not necessarily ensure that a program will be implemented 

successfully. The environment in which the program is imported must be supportive of the 

innovation for the implementation to proceed smoothly. Although several tangible factors (such as 

financial and human resources) need to be in place to support a new program, the key to creating 

a supportive environment is information. Keeping all relevant staff informed about the program 

and maintaining a regular flow of information among all key participants throughout the process 

are integral to reducing apprehension and fears about the innovation. The following represent 

some steps that can be taken to build a supportive environment: 

 Provide detailed information about the program before implementation to all key 

participants to build motivation and support. 

 Arrange meetings with staff to discuss the program and how it might be integrated into the 

organization; listen to staff and try to alleviate fears around change. 

 Arrange a site visit for program representatives to deliver a presentation on the program; 

invite all agency staff and relevant community members. 

 Confront competing philosophies (i.e., philosophic arguments against program elements or 

rationales) early in the process. A presentation of the theoretical rationale and research 

findings that demonstrate the program’s effectiveness is often sufficient to alleviate these 

fears. 

Plan for Implementation 

Create an implementation plan that details the logistics of program operation (e.g., who will 

implement, where, when, how long, how will clients be recruited, when is the best time to 

schedule a training so that all staff can attend). Remember that the implementing staff are the ones 

who will be most aware of conflicts; gather their input so that obstacles to the plan might be 

resolved before implementation. Don’t wait until implementation begins to work out these 

important details. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 121 
Ensure That Money, Materials, and Personnel Are Adequate 

Once a program is chosen that matches the needs of the community, then the time to seek funding 

and other resources has come. All too often, a program is chosen on the basis of available 

funding. Although this strategy may work for some communities, agencies, or schools, the 

commitment to the program is usually not as great as for one that is chosen after an exhaustive 

information search to find a program that fits the needs of the community. Learn about hidden 

program costs (such as evaluation instruments, program accessories, ongoing technical 

assistance), and garner all necessary resources and materials. If the program has a curriculum or 

manual, it should be purchased for all implementing staff to assure that their job can be performed 

as easily as possible. Ensure that the program is fully staffed to avoid burnout and loss of 

motivation. All implementing staff should be hired and in place before training to avoid additional 

training costs. 

Understand the Importance of Implementation Fidelity 

Ensure that administrators and implementers understand why fidelity is important. Provide 

indoctrination in the theoretical underpinnings of the program and ensure that all staff understand 

the core elements of the program that must be maintained to achieve the same results as those in 

research trials. These elements are best accomplished through training sessions provided by the 

program designers. 

Improve the Quality of Implementation 

Build Organizational Capacity Through Administrative Support 

Develop administrative support. Administrative support is crucial to all implementation efforts 

because decisionmaking authority exists at this level. Programs are most successful when 

administrators, or top leaders, show support and encourage cooperation and coordination 

(Dunworth et al., 1999; Gager and Elias, 1997; Petersilia, 1990). Effective leaders have the power 

to instigate changes in the organization, allocate money and resources, and communicate a vision 

for the agency (and how the new program fits into that vision). In school-based programs, the 

principal should assume this role. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 122 
Demonstrate active support for the program. Merely stating support for the program is not 

enough. Leaders must demonstrate active support of the program (e.g., attendance at training, 

meeting periodically with implementing staff, listening to and making efforts to resolve problems, 

allocating necessary resources, changing policies and work routines that facilitate the program, 

and participating directly in the program). 

Strive for internal stability. The organization should strive for internal stability (i.e., if staff 

turnover is high, the organization should examine the causes and make changes to increase staff 

stability). 

Develop interagency linkages, as necessary. Although many programs can function in a school 

or agency without other linkages, programs in general are more successful and are better able to 

garner resources when they have the support of the surrounding community. Some programs need 

the support and assistance of other organizations that may refer clients or have some jurisdiction 

over clients after referral. Regular meetings attended by relevant staff from these organizations 

can help everyone remain informed of client progress and keep programs running smoothly. 

Begin program efforts incrementally. Start the program in one or two schools, or in one 

division of an organization, and expand the program as success and capacity to conduct the 

program increase. Initiatives that start too large may end in failure because of the difficulty in 

coordinating large-scale efforts and in building support and motivation among numerous staff. As 

knowledge, skills, motivation, and comfort with the new model increase, expansion can begin. 

Build Staff Support 

Include staff in planning and decisionmaking. Building staff motivation and support is a 

continuous process, beginning during the planning stages and continuing through implementation. 

Staff should be included in decisions about the program, and information must constantly flow 

between the administrators and the implementing staff. Implementing staff were seldom involved 

in the planning for the Blueprints initiative; however, buy-in and motivation were garnered at 

feasibility visits and training sessions. 

Hire staff with the appropriate credentials and requisite skills. Failure to hire capable staff 

may result in staff that are lacking in skills necessary for comprehending subsequent training 

sessions. This can slow the progress of training as remedial work must be done with some staff, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 123 
while others may become bored with this background information. Hiring staff with less than the 

necessary skills will often result in less motivation for the program, resistance, and, possibly, staff 

turnover. 

Build skills through training in the new program. An ongoing system of training and technical 

assistance helps to build confidence while imparting new skills. 

Provide the resources, materials, and financial compensation necessary to conduct the 

program. Examples include therapists who may need cell phones if the new program requires 

home visits; new flextime policies that may need to be instituted if therapists/nurses visit client 

homes in the evenings or at nights; higher pay scales that may need to be provided to staff who 

are on-call 24–7; incentives that may be necessary to entice families to attend group sessions. 

Provide the time necessary to accomplish all aspects of the job. Lack of time is one of the 

biggest barriers to implementation success. The time required to learn the new program and to 

incorporate it into the daily routine must be considered. Adding a new program or duties on top 

of regular duties will seldom work. One of the worst mistakes made by agencies is the assignment 

of staff to a new program before releasing them from their old duties. Learning a new program 

requires time and dedication. This type of overload may result in dissatisfaction, low morale, and 

resistance to the new program. 

Coordinating a new project also requires a great deal of effort and a tremendous investment of 

time. Implementation will usually suffer if a dedicated half- or full-time person is not assigned to 

this role. The Blueprints experience has demonstrated that half-time is usually not adequate to 

accomplish all the details of a new project and that additional time is required, especially in the 

first year. Volunteers can be a tremendous asset to any program; however, few volunteers will 

have the enormous amount of time required to coordinate a new initiative or program. 

Coordinating a program almost always requires more time than the volunteer or the host 

organization anticipates, so accomplishing all the necessary tasks becomes difficult. The best 

solution is to assign coordinating roles to agency staff rather than voluteers. Learn about the time 

commitments that are necessary and then plan for them. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 124 
Ensure That Site Has Program Champion(s) 

Every program must have a “champion” who is responsible for directing or coordinating the 

program. This person keeps the program moving forward and motivates other staff. The program 

champion may come from the administrative ranks of the agency, but is more commonly directly 

involved in program implementation as a coordinator, project director, team leader, or nurse 

supervisor. The champion must have a voice in the organization to garner the necessary resources 

and help establish needed policy or work routine changes and must have good rapport and 

communication with all staff. 

Develop a coordinating committee, if possible. Having several people involved in planning 

program details can be a great asset. Many programs fail because the program champion left the 

organization. Developing a committee builds multiple champions and decreases the chances of 

program failure when staff leave. 

Provide Training and Technical Assistance 

Training and technical assistance provide staff with the necessary skills, confidence, and 

motivation to implement a new program. A good package of training and TA can help an agency 

overcome a multitude of problems, including staff turnover, passive administrative support, and 

low fidelity. TA providers generate motivation and support for the program. They also enhance 

the quality of implementation by helping staff understand the basic theoretical underpinnings of 

the model they are implementing. When problems arise, TA providers can recommend solutions 

based on their years of experience with the program. An ongoing and proactive system of TA 

keeps programs moving forward and successfully accomplishing goals. The following are some 

specific issues related to training that should be noted: 

 Inform staff about a new program prior to training. 

 Hire all staff prior to training. 

 For a school-based program, plan in advance for substitutes or incentive pay so that all 

teachers can attend. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 125 
 Have protocols detailing who should attend training and appropriate behavior during 

training (e.g., must be present for all training days, arrive on time, have someone cover 

duties during training days so no work disturbances occur, turn off beepers and cell 

phones). 

 Start implementing immediately after training, while information is fresh and motivation 

high. 

 Build ongoing training costs into the budget so that new staff may be trained. 

Recommendations for Designers 

Develop Materials for Program 

Manuals, curriculums, and other materials—such as handouts, structured activities, and 

implementation standards—provide a framework that makes implementation easier and keeps it 

on track with fewer deviations from the intended content. Materials should be relevant, attractive, 

and easy to use. 

Monitoring and other survey instruments should be developed and available to implementing sites 

to enable internal monitoring of the program, provide feedback, and ensure accountability to 

funders. 

Develop Internal Capacity To Deliver Program 

Most program designers are researchers and thus not well equipped to deliver their programs on a 

wide-scale basis. Yet, research-based programs are now appearing on various lists of effective 

programs, accelerating demand for them by the public. Program developers must meet the 

challenge of dissemination. Various methods of dissemination are possible, and program designers 

must decide on the method that makes sense to them. If a designer chooses to maintain control 

over the program, then she or he must set up a dissemination branch, separate from research, with 

the capacity to deliver the program. Full-time staff must be assigned to this endeavor; it cannot be 

done efficiently on top of research or other full-time duties. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 126 
Capacity-building grants are available through the National Institutes of Health, Small Business 

Innovation Research (SBIR) program. SBIR is a set-aside program designed to support 

innovative research and dissemination conducted by small businesses. 

Develop Proactive Training and Technical Assistance 

 Develop training and TA that can be delivered to sites efficiently and economically. Don’t 

wait for sites to contact you with problems because this often doesn’t happen even though 

they may be struggling with implementation issues. Be proactive! TA should include 

regular telephone consultation with the site and periodic site visits to provide additional 

training or assistance with problems. 

 Create a system that enables sites across the nation to train new staff (i.e., periodic 

regional or national training sessions). 

 Facilitate site independence. Few sites have the resources to pay for training and TA 

indefinitely. The assistance should, therefore, encourage site independence within a 

reasonable time period. This can be done by providing additional training to site 

coordinators that will enable them to sustain the program by training new staff. 

 Include information on program fidelity in the training. Provide information on all core 

elements that must be implemented to ensure fidelity. If information on fidelity is not 

provided at training, most implementing staff will not become aware of its importance. 

Pilot Test Training and TA 

Experience in delivering training and TA often illuminates problems, and some fine-tuning may 

need to occur. Initiate the new TA package at a few sites and make necessary adjustments before 

going to scale with the program. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 127 
Assess Site Readiness To Adopt Program 

Sometimes program curriculums or manuals are purchased and implemented with little or no 

training and TA. This is very common among school-based programs that have commercially 

available curriculums. However, many programs are complex and require the assistance of 

program designers and their designated TA providers. (Blueprints recommends that even school 

programs that have detailed curriculums should be provided with training.) In these more complex 

cases, designers should make some assessment of the readiness of an agency or school to 

implement the program. Readiness assessment and enhancement can be facilitated by the 

following: 

 Develop an application for the program that assesses the need, resources (financial and 

human), commitment, and implementation plan. 

 Conduct a feasibility visit to provide information, validate the application, and help in 

initial planning. 

 Create a contract between the TA providers and the applicant that details the major 

requirements of the program and clearly states each party’s responsibilities in fulfilling 

them. 

Some sites may not be ready to implement a new program. For instance, they may not have 

adequate funding to purchase all the necessary resources or to fully implement all the program 

components. The fact that adequate buy-in has not been achieved to successfully implement the 

program may become evident. Working with the site to enhance its readiness to implement the 

program, while delaying implementation, may be advantageous. Although some people at a new 

site will be anxious to move forward with implementation and confront problems as they arise, 

this approach may diminish existing buy-in, create apprehension, and result in a lower quality 

implementation, if not failure. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 128 
Recommendations for Funders 

Support Research-Based Programs 

Funders should support programs that have been evaluated and proven effective. Programs that 

have not established their effectiveness should be funded with an evaluation to determine their 

effect. Money is often wasted implementing programs that make no improvement and, even 

worse, may be harmful to youth. 

Support Implementation Research 

The causes of program failure are often associated with poor implementation. Much work needs 

to be done in this area to understand the reasons for low-quality implementation. At this point, 

Blueprints only has evidence that a program works if it is implemented with all core components 

and with the prescribed dosage achieved in research trials. Research must be conducted to 

determine which core components are necessary to achieve successful outcomes and which 

components may be more adaptable. Determining the dosage threshold required to obtain results 

is also important. These cannot be subjective judgements, but must be determined empirically. 

Studies should be conducted to identify the factors that influence fidelity of implementation. For 

example, studies could examine how differences in training and technical support, implementer 

characteristics, and organizational support systems affect implementation. 

Support Capacity Building Among Program Designers 

Many programs have proven their effectiveness through scientific trials and are ready to be 

implemented on a broader basis. However, many program designers do not have the capacity to 

deliver their programs. Support of small-scale replication, including funding designers to build a 

delivery system, can help program developers become established as they begin to hire full-time 

staff to deliver the program and field-test their training and TA. As demand grows, the designers 

should be able to sustain project staff through the training and TA fees charged to sites; thus 

funding these efforts will not need to continue indefinitely. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 129 
Require Accountability With Funding 

Accountability should be required to ensure that programs are being implemented with fidelity. At 

a minimum, funders of small grants should require grantees to complete internal monitoring 

(process) forms that identify which core elements of the program are being delivered and in what 

dosage. Larger grants that support wide-scale replication should include money for outside 

consultants to monitor implementation. The money may be given to the site to hire an outside 

consultant or the funder might contract with an outside consultant directly. This type of 

accountability helps to ensure that the funded program is, in fact, the program that is delivered. 

Monitoring also helps to ensure higher quality implementation, which ultimately leads to stronger 

outcomes. 

Conclusion 

The Blueprints initiative identifies effective programs and provides funding for their replication. 

Selected sites were provided training and TA for 2 to 3 years to help establish the program and to 

build skills and confidence in implementing the program. A process evaluation was also conducted 

at each site to ensure accountability and fidelity to the model. Widely varying issues and problems 

arose throughout the implementation. One of the major goals was to learn what these problems 

revealed about the factors that led to successful versus unsuccessful implementations. The broad 

scope of this project, which included prevention to treatment programs for every developmental 

stage, illuminated many factors that could make or break a program. The qualitative data gathered 

by the Blueprints initiative strongly support the importance of the following factors: 

 Planning for implementation. 

 Buy-in from all key staff (including administrators, coordinators/project directors, and 

implementing staff). 

 A strong and motivated program champion(s). 

 Proactive and consistent training and technical assistance. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 130 
Sites that want to adopt a new program should consider these factors and make every effort to 

create a supportive environment that includes these characteristics. The reward will be higher 

quality implementation and, ultimately, stronger outcomes. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 131 
References

Abbott, R., O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J.D., Hill, K., Kosterman, R., and Catalano, R. 1998. 

Changing teaching practices to promote achievement and bonding to school. American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry 68:542–552. 

Aber, J.L., Jones, S.M., Brown, J.L., Chaudry, N., and Samples, F. 1998. Resolving conflict 

creatively: Evaluating the developmental effects of a school-based violence prevention program in 

neighborhood and classroom context. Development and Psychopathology 10:187–218. 

Alexander, J.F., Pugh, C., Parsons, B.V., Sexton, T., Barton, C., Bonomo, J., Gordon, D., 

Grotpeter, J.K., Hansson, K., Harrison, R., Mears, S., Mihalic, S.F., Ostrum, N., Schulman, S., 

and Waldron, H. 2000. Functional Family Therapy. In Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Book 

3, edited by D.S. Elliot. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute 

of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. 

Allen, J.P., Philliber, S., and Hoggson, N. 1990. School-based prevention of teenage pregnancy 

and school dropout: Process evaluation of the national replication of the Teen Outreach Program. 

American Journal of Community Psychology 18:505–524. 

American Youth Policy Forum. 1999. More Things That Do Make a Difference for Youth: A 

Compendium of Evaluations of Youth Programs and Practices. Volume II. Washington, DC: 

American Youth Policy Forum. 

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., and Lieb, R. 2001. The Comparative Costs and Benefits of 

Programs To Reduce Crime, Version 4.0. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public 

Policy. 

Arthur, M.W., and Blitz, C. 2000. Bridging the gap between science and practice in drug abuse 

prevention through needs assessment and strategic community planning. Journal of Community 

Psychology 28:241–55. 

Backer, T.E. 1995. Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for technology 

transfer. In Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer, edited 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 132 
by T.E. Backer, S.L. David, and G. Soucy. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Backer, T.E., and David, S.L. 1995. Synthesis of behavioral science learnings about technology 

transfer. In Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer, edited 

by T.E. Backer, S.L. David, and G. Soucy. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Backer, T.E., David, S.L., and Soucy, G. 1995a. Introduction: The challenge of technology 

transfer. In Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer, edited 

by T.E. Backer, S.L. David, and G. Soucy. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Backer, T.E., David, S.L., and Soucy, G., eds. 1995b. Reviewing the Behavioral Science 

Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Barnett, W.S. 1993. Benefit-cost analysis of preschool education: Findings from a 25-year 

followup. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 63:25–50. 

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., and Lewis, C. In press. Effects of the Child 

Development Project on students’ drug use and other problem behaviors. Journal of Primary 

Prevention. 

Bauman, L.J., Stein, R.E., and Ireys, H.T. 1991. Reinventing fidelity: The transfer of social 

technology among settings. American Journal of Community Psychology 19:619–639. 

Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M.W. 1978. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change: 

Implementation and Sustaining Innovations. Vol. 8. Contract No. R–1589/8. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Office of Education. 

Berrueta-Clement, J.R., Schweinhart, L.J., Barnett, W.S., Epstein, A.S., and Weikart, D.P. 1984. 

Changed Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 19. 

Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, No. 8. Ypsilanti, MI: 

High/Scope Press. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 133 
Biglan, A., and Taylor, T. 2000. Why have we been more successful in reducing tobacco use than 

violent crime? American Journal of Community Psychology 28:269–302. 

Blakely, C.H., Mayer, J.P., Gottschalk, R.G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W.S., Roitman, D.B., and 

Emshoff, J.G. 1987. The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public 

sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology 15:253–268. 

Botvin, G.J. 1990. Substance abuse prevention: Theory, practice, and effectiveness. In Drugs and 

Crime, edited by M. Tonry and J.Q. Wilson. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 

461–519. 

Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E., and Diaz, T. 1995. Long-term follow-up 

results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population. Journal of 

the American Medical Association 273:1106–1112. 

Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S., and Botvin, E. 1990a. Preventing adolescent 

drug abuse through a multimodal cognitive-behavioral approach: Results of a 3-year study. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58:437–446. 

Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Filazzola, A., and Botvin, E. 1990b. A cognitive-behavioral approach to 

substance abuse prevention: One-year follow-up. Addictive Behaviors 15:47–63. 

Botvin, G.J., Dusenbury, L., Baker, E., James-Ortiz, S., and Kerner, J. 1989. A skills training 

approach to smoking prevention among Hispanic youth. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 

12:279–296. 

Botvin, G., Mihalic, S., and Grotpeter, J. 1998. Life Skills Training. In Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention: Book 5, edited by D.S. Elliot. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute of 

Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Brewer, D.D., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Neckerman, H.J. 1995. Preventing serious, 

violent, and chronic juvenile offending. In Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile 

Offenders, edited by J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 134 
Brook, J.S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A.S., and Cohen, P. 1986. Dynamics of childhood and 

adolescent personality traits and adolescent drug use. Developmental Psychology 22:403–414. 

Brown, B.S. 1995. Reducing impediments to technology transer in drug abuse programming. In 

Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer, edited by T.E. 

Backer, S.L. David, and G. Soucy. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. 

Bry, B.H. 1982. Reducing the incidence of adolescent problems through preventive intervention: 

One- and five-year follow-up. American Journal of Community Psychology 10:265–276. 

Bry, B.H., and George, F.E. 1980. The preventive effects of early intervention on the attendance 

and grades of urban adolescents. Professional Psychology 11:252–260. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1994. Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs. 

Assessment and Evaluation Handbook Series No. 1. Washington DC, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

Byrne, J., and Kelly, L. 1989. Restructuring Probation as an Intermediate Sanction: An 

Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation 

Supervision Program. Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Research Program on the Punishment and Control 

of Offenders. 

Capaldi, D.N., and Patterson, G.R. 1996. Can violent offenders be distinguished from frequent 

offenders: Prediction from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Research on Crime and 

Delinquency 33:206–231. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 2002. Finding the Balance: Program Fidelity and 

Adaptation in Substance Abuse: A State-of-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 Substance Abuse Prevention. 2001. Finding the Balance: Program Fidelity and 

Adaptation in Substance Abuse Prevention, Executive Summary of a State-of-the-Art Review. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 135 
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 1997. Guidelines and Benchmarks for Prevention 

Programming: Implementation Guide. 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. 

Chamberlain, P. 1990. Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously delinquent 

youths: A first step. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care 2:21–36. 

Chamberlain, P., and Mihalic, S. 1998. Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care. In Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention: Book 8, edited by D.S. Elliot. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, 

Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Conduct Problems Prevention Group (K. Bierman, J. Coie, K. Dodge, M. Greenberg, J. 

Lochman, R. McMahon, and E. Pinderhughes). 1999. Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention 

urial for conduct problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67:631–657. 

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. 

Coolbaugh, K., and Hansel, C.J. 2000. The Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned from the 

Pilot Sites. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Cowen, E.L., and Durlak, J. 2000. Social policy and prevention in mental health. Development 

and Psychopathology 12:815–834. 

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. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 136 
Davis, L., and Tolan, P. 1993. Alternative and preventive interventions. In Handbook of Clinical 

Research and Practice With Adolescents, edited by P.H. Tolan and B.J. Cohler. New York, NY: 

John Wiley and Sons. 

Dehar, M.A., Caswell, S., and Duignan, P. 1993. Formative and process evaluation of health 

promotion and disease prevention programs. Evaluation Review 17:204–220. 

Dembo, R., Shemwell, M., Pacheco, K., Seeberger, W., Rollie, M., Schmeidler, J., and Wothke, 

W. 2000. A longitudinal study of the impact of a Family Empowerment Intervention on juvenile 

offender psychosocial functioning: An expanded assessment. Journal of Child and Adolescent 

Substance Abuse 10:1–7. 

Derzon, J.H. 2001. Antisocial behavior and the prediction of violence. Psychology in the Schools 

38:93–106. 

Dishion, T.J., Patterson, G.R., Stoolmiller, M., and Skinner, M.L. 1991. Family, school, and 

behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental 

Psychology 27:172–180. 

Domitrovich, C.E., and Greenberg, M.T. 2000. The study of implementation: Current findings 

from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. Journal of 

Educational and Psychological Consultation 11:193–221. 

Donaldson, S.I., Graham, J.W., and Hansen, W.B. 1994. Testing the generalizability of 

intervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug use prevention 

interventions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17:195–216. 

DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., and Cooper, H. 2002. Effectiveness of mentoring 

programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology 

30:157–197. 

Dunworth, T., Mills, G., Cordner, G., and Greene, J. 1999. National Evaluation of Weed and 

Seed: Cross-Site Analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 137 
Durlak, J.A. 1997. Successful Prevention Programs for Children and Adolescents. New York, 

NY: Plenum. 

Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., and Hansen, W.B. 2001. A Review of Research on 

Fidelity of Implementation: Implications for Drug Abuse Prevention in School Settings. 

Greensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research. 

Dusenbury, L., and Falco, M. 1995. Eleven components of effective drug abuse prevention 

curricula. Journal of School Health 65:420–425. 

Eddy, J.M., Reid, J.B., and Fetrow, R.A. 2000. An elementary-school-based prevention program 

targeting modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency and violence: Linking the Interests of 

Families and Teachers (LIFT). Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 8:165–176. 

Elias, M.J., Bruene-Butler, L., Blum, L., and Schuyler, T. 2000. Voices from the field: Identifying 

and overcoming roadblocks to carrying out programs in social and emotional learning/emotional 

intelligence. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 11:253–272. 

Elias, M.J., and Clabby, J.F. 1992. Building Social Problem Solving Skills: Guidelines From a 

School-Based Program. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss. 

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. 

Elliott, D.S., and Tolan, P.H. 1998. Youth violence, prevention, intervention, and social policy. In 

Youth Violence: Prevention, Intervention, and Social Policy, edited by D.J. Flannery and C.R. 

Huff. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, pp. 3–46. 

Everhart, K., and Wandersman, A. 2000. Applying comprehensive quality programming and 

empowerment evaluation to reduce implementation barriers. Journal of Educational and 

Psychological Consultation 11:177–191. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 138 
Fagan, J.A. 1990. Treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders: Experimental results. 

Justice Quarterly 7:233–263. 

Fagan, A.A., and Mihalic, S. 2003. Strategies for enhancing the adoption of school-based 

prevention programs: Lessons learned from the Blueprints for Violence Prevention replications of 

the Life Skills Training Program. Journal of Community Psychology 31:235–253. 

Farrington, D.P. 1994. Childhood, adolescent, and adult features of violent males. In Aggressive 

Behavior: Current Perspectives, edited by L.R. Huesmann. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 

Felner, R., and Adan, A. 1988. The School Transitional Environment Project: An ecological 

intervention and evaluation. In 14 Ounces of Prevention: A Casebook for Practitioners, edited by 

R.H. Price, E.L. Cowen, R.P. Lorion, and J. Ramos-McKay. Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

Felner, R., Favazza, A., Shim, M., Brand, S., Gu, K., and Noonan, N. 2001. Whole school 

improvement and restructuring as prevention and promotion: Lessons from STEP and the Project 

on High Performance Learning Communities. Journal of School Psychology 39:177–202. 

Felner, R.D., Ginter, M., and Primavera, J. 1982. Primary prevention during school transitions: 

Social support and environmental structure. American Journal of Community Psychology 

10:277–290. 

Flay, B.R. 2000. An Intensive Case Study of the Positive Action Program as a Comprehensive 

School Reform Demonstration Program. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois, Health Research and 

Policy Centers. 

Flay, B.R. 1999. Effects of Positive Action Program and Positive Action Training on Outcomes. 

Twin Falls, ID: Positive Action, Inc. 

Fors, S.W., and Doster, M.E. 1985. Implication of results: Factors for success. Journal of School 

Health 55:332–334. 

Fraser, M.W. 1996. Cognitive problem solving and aggressive behavior among children. Families 

in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 77:19–32. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 139 
Freudenburg, N. 1998. Barriers to Implementing Promising Systemic and Programmatic 

Approaches for Working With Substance-Abusing Youthful Offenders. Annapolis, MD: Robert 

Wood Johnson Foundation. 

Fullan, M. 1992. Successful School Improvement: The Implementation Perspective and Beyond. 

Buckingham, England: Open University Press. 

Furano, K., Jucovy, L.Z., Racine, D.P., and Smith, T.J. 1995. The Essential Connection: Using 

Evaluation To Identify Programs Worth Replicating. Philadelphia, PA: Replication and Program 

Strategies, Inc. 

Gager, P.J., and Elias, M.J. 1997. Implementing prevention programs in high-risk environments: 

Application of the resiliency paradigm. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 67:363–373. 

Garmezy, N. 1985. Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In Recent 

Research in Developmental Psychopathology, edited by J.E. Stevenson. Oxford, England: 

Pergamon Press, pp. 213–233. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., and Smith, P. 1999. The forgotten issue in effective correctional 

treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology 43:180–187. 

Gingiss, P.L. 1992. Enhancing program implementation and maintenance through a multiphase 

approach to peer-based staff development. Journal of School Health 62:161–166. 

Goldberg, L., MacKinnon, D.P., Elliott, D.L., Moe, E.L., Clarke, G., and Cheong, J. 2000. The 

Adolescents Training and Learning To Avoid Steroids Program. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent 

Medicine 154:332–33. 

Gomby, D., Culross, P., and Behrman, R. 1999. Home visiting: Recent program evaluations. The 

Future of Children 9:4–26. 

Gomby, D., Larson, D., Lewit, E., and Behrman, R. 1993. Home visiting: Analysis and 

recommendations. The Future of Children 3:6–22. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 140 
Goodman, R.M. 2000. Bridging the gap in effective program implementation: From concept to 

application. Journal of Community Psychology 28:309–321. 

Gordon, D.A., and Arbuthnot, J. 1987. Individual, group, and family interventions. In Handbook 

of Juvenile Delinquency, edited by H.C. Quay. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 

290–321. 

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P.H., and Henry, D.B. 2000. A developmental-ecological model of the 

relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 

16:169–198. 

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P.H., Zelli, A., and Huesmann, L.R. 1996. The relation of family 

functioning to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family Psychology 

10:115–129. 

Gottfredson, D. 1998. School-based crime prevention. In Preventing Crime: What Works, What 

Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report to the United States Congress, edited by L.W. Sherman, 

D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Gottfredson, D.C. 1990. Changing school structures to benefit high-risk youths. Understanding 

Troubled and Troubling Youth: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Gottfredson, D.C., and Gottfredson, G.D. 2002. Quality of school-based prevention programs: 

Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39:3–35. 

Gottfredson, D.C., Gottfredson, G.D., and Hybl, L.G 1993. Managing adolescent behavior: A 

multiyear, multischool study. American Educational Research Journal 30:179–215. 

Gottfredson, D.C., Gottfredson, G.D., and Skroban, S. 1998. Can prevention work where it is 

needed most? Evaluation Review 22:315–340. 

Gottfredson, D.C., Wilson, D.B., and Najaka, S.S. 2002. School-based crime prevention. In 

Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, edited by L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh, and 

D.L. MacKenz. London: Routledge. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 141 
Gottfredson, G.D., Gottfredson, D.C., and Czeh, E.R. 2000. Summary: National Study of 

Delinquency Prevention in Schools. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc. 

Gray, D.O., Emshoff, J., Jakes, S., and Blakely, C. n.d. ESID and dissemination research: A case 

study and critique of a change model’s fidelity. Draft. College Station, TX: Texas A&M 

University. 

Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., and Bumbarger, B. 1999. Preventing Mental Disorders in 

School-Age Children: A Review of the Effectiveness of Prevention Programs. Washington, DC: 

Pennsylvania State University, Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human 

Development, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. 

Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., Graczyk, P., and Zins, J. 2001. The Study of Implementation in 

School-Based Preventive Interventions: Theory, Research, and Practice. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. 

Greenberg, M., Kusche, C., and Mihalic, S. 1998. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies. In 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Book 2, edited by D.S. Elliott. Boulder, CO: University of 

Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P., and Chiesa, J. 1996. Diverting Children From a 

Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation. 

Gresham, F.M., Cohen, S., Rosenblum, S., Gansle, K.A., and Noell, G.H. 1993. Treatment 

integrity of school-based behavioral intervention studies: 1980–1990. School Psychology Review 

22:254–272. 

Hall, G.E., and Loucks, S.F. 1978. Innovation configurations: Analyzing the adaptation of 

innovations. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 1978. 

Hamburg, D.A. 1992. Today’s Children: Creating a Future for a Generation in Crisis. New 

York, NY: Times Books. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 142 
Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Wolkenstein, B.H., Lundy, B.Z., Pearson, J.L., Flay, B.R., and 

Johnson, C.A. 1988. Differential impact of three alcohol prevention curricula on hypothesized 

mediating variables. Journal of Drug Education 18:143–153. 

Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Wolkenstein, B.H., and Rohrbach, L.A. 1991. Program integrity as 

a moderator of prevention program effectiveness: Results for fifth-grade students in the 

Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 52:568–579. 

Harrell, A.V., Cavanagh, S., and Sridharan, S. 1998. Impact of the Children At Risk Program: 

Final Report II. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Harris, P., and Smith, S. 1996. Developing community corrections: An implementation 

perspective. In Choosing Correctional Options That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating 

the Supply, edited by F.X. Hartmann. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., and Hill, K.G. 1999. Preventing 

adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of 

Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 153:226–234. 

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Morrison, D., O’Donnell, J., Abbot, R., and Day, E. 1992. The 

Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and 

problem behaviors. In Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions From Birth Through 

Adolescence, edited by J. McCord and R.E. Trembly. New York, NY: The Guildford Press. 

Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., and Harachi, T.W. 

1998. A review of predictors of youth violence. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk 

Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications. 

Hawkins, J.D., Von Cleve, E., and Catalano, R.F. 1991. Reducing early childhood aggression: 

Results of a primary prevention program. Journal of the American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry 30:208–217. 

Henggeler, S. 1989. Delinquency in adolescence. In Developmental Clinical Psychology and 

Psychiatry, edited by A.E. Kazdin. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 24–35. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 143 
Henggeler, S.W., Melton, G.B., Brondino, M.J., Scherer, D.G., and Hanley, J.H. 1997. 

Multisystemic Therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of 

treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 

65:821–833 

Henggeler, S.W., Mihalic, S.F., Rone, L., Thomas, C., and Timmons-Mitchell, J. 2001. 

Multisystemic Therapy. In Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Book 6, edited by D.S. Elliott. 

Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute for Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and 

Prevention of Violence. 

Herrenkohl, T., Huang, B., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R., and Smith, B. 2001. A 

comparison of social development processes leading to violent behavior in late adolescence for 

childhood initiators and adolescent initiators of violence. Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 38:45–63. 

Huey, S.J., Henggeler, S.W., Brondino, M.J., and Pickrel, S.G. 2000. Mechanisms of change in 

Multisystemic Therapy: Reducing delinquent behavior through therapist adherence and improved 

family and peer functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 3:451–467. 

Hunter, L., Elias, M.J., and Norris, J. 2001. School-based violence prevention: Challenges and 

lessons learned from an action research project. Journal of School Psychology 39:161–175. 

Johnson, D., and Breckenridge, J.N. 1982. The Houston Parent-Child Development Center and 

the primary prevention of behavior problems in young children. American Journal of Community 

Psychology 10:305–316. 

Johnson, D.L., and Walker, T. 1987. Primary prevention of behavior problems in 

Mexican-American children. American Journal of Community Psychology 15:375–385. 

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P., 

Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J. 1998. Investing in Our Children: What We Know and Don’t Know 

About the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Washington, DC: RAND 

Corporation. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 144 
Kazdin, A.E. 2000. Treatments for aggressive and antisocial children. Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatric Clinics of North America 9:841–857. 

Kazdin, A.E. 1987. Treatment of antisocial behavior in children: Current status and future 

directions. Psychological Bulletin 102:187–203. 

Kazdin, A.E. 1985. Treatment of Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents. Homewood, 

IL: Dorsey Press. 

Kegler, M.C., Steckler, A., Malek, S.H., and McLeroy, K. 1998. A multiple case study of 

implementation in 10 local Project ASSIST coalitions in North Carolina. Health Education 

Research 13:225–238. 

Kellam, S.G., Rebok, G.W., Ialongo, N., and Mayer, L.S. 1994. The course and malleability of 

aggressive behavior from early first grade into middle school: Results of a developmental 

epidemiologically-based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 

35:259–282. 

King, K.A., Wagner, D.I., and Hedrick, B. 2001. Safe and drug-free school coordinators’ 

perceived needs to improve violence and drug prevention programs. Journal of School Health 

71:236–241. 

Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K., and Zhu, K. 1997. Effects of a preventive 

parent-training intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing 

for the Drug Free Years. Journal of Community Psychology 25:337–352. 

Kramer, L., Laumann, G., and Brunson, L. 2000. Implementation and diffusion of the Rainbows 

Program in rural communities: Implications for school-based prevention programming. Journal of 

Educational and Psychological Consultation 11:37–64. 

Lally, J.R., Mangione, P.L., Honig, A.S., and Wittner, D.S. 1988. More pride, less delinquency: 

Findings from the ten-year follow-up study of the Syracuse University Family Development 

Research Program. Zero to Three April:13–18. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 145 
Land, K.C., McCall, P.L., and Williams, J.R. 1992. Intensive supervision of status offenders: 

Evidence on continuity of treatment effects for juveniles and a “Hawthorne Effect” for counselors. 

In Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions From Birth Through Adolescence, edited by J. 

McCord and R. Tremblay. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Lipsey, M. 1999. Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? Annals [of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science] 564:142–166. 

Lipsey, M.W. 1992. The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquents: Results from meta-analysis. 

In Psychology and Law, edited by F. Losel, D. Bender, and T. Bliesener. New York, NY: Walter 

de Gruyter. 

Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D. 1998. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In 

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. 

Loeber and D. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. 2000. Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, 

developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and 

Psychopathology 12:737–762. 

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. 1998. Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and 

Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Lynch, K.B., Geller, S.R., Hunt, D.R., Galano, J., and Dubas, J.S. 1998. Successful program 

development using implementation evaluation. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the 

Community 17:51–64. 

MacKenzie, D. 1998. Criminal justice and crime prevention. In Preventing Crime: What Works, 

What Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report to the United States Congress, edited by L.W. 

Sherman, D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Masten, A.S., and Garmezy, N. 1985. Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors in developmental 

psychopathology. In Advances in Clinical Child Psychology: Volume 8, edited by B.B. Lahey and 

A.E. Kazdin. New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 1–52. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 146 
McCormick, L.K., Steckler, A.B., and McLeroy, K.R. 1995. Diffusion of innovations in schools: 

A study of adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco prevention curricula. American 

Journal of Health Promotion 9:210–219. 

McGee, R., Silva, P.A., and Williams, S. 1984. Perinatal, neurological, environmental and 

developmental characteristics of seven-year-old children with stable behavior problems. Journal 

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 25:573–586. 

McGill, D.E., Mihalic, S.F., and Grotpeter, J.K. 1997. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. In 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Book 2, edited by D.S. Elliott. Boulder, CO: University of 

Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

McGraw, S.A., Stone, E.J., Osganian, S.K., Elder, J.P., Perry, C.L., Johnson, C.C., Parcel, G.S., 

Webber, L.S., and Luepker, R.V. 1994. Design of process evaluation within the child and 

adolescent trial for cardiovascular health (CATCH). Health Education Quarterly (Supplement) 

2:S5–S26. 

McGrew, J.H., Bond, G.R., Dietzen, L., and Salyers, M. 1994. Measuring the fidelity of 

implementation of a mental health model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 

62:670–678. 

McMahon, T.J., Ward, N.L., Pruett, M.K., Davidson, L., and Griffith, E.E. 2000. Building 

full-service schools: Lessons learned in the development of interagency collaboratives. Journal of 

Educational and Psychological Consultation 11:65–92. 

Mears, D.P., and Kelly, W.R. 2002. Linking process and outcomes in evaluating a statewide drug 

treatment program for youthful offenders. Crime and Delinquency 48:99–115. 

Mednick, S.A., Brennan, P., and Kandel, E. 1988. Predisposition to violence. Aggressive 

Behavior 14:25–33. 

Mihalic, S.F., and Aultman-Bettridge, T. 2004. A guide to effective school-based prevention 

programs. In Policing and School Crime, edited by W.L. Turk. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice 

Hall Publishers. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 147 
Mihalic, S.F., and Irwin, K. 2003. From research to real world settings: Factors influencing the 

successful replication of model programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1(4):307–24. 

Mihalic, S.F., Irwin, K., Elliott, D., Fagan, A., and Hansen, D. 2001. Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Moffitt, T.E. 1993. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A 

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100:674–701. 

Moffitt, T., and Caspi, A. 2001. Adulthood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and 

adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and 

Psychopathology 13:355–375. 

Morrissey, E., Wandersman, A., Seybolt, D., Nation, M., Crusto, C., and Davino, K. 1997. 

Toward a framework for bridging the gap between science and practice in prevention: A focus on 

evaluator and practitioner perspectives. Evaluation and Program Planning 20:367–377. 

Mrazek, P.J., and Haggerty, R.J. 1994. Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for 

Preventive Intervention Research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy 

Press. 

Mueller, J., and Mihalic, S.F. 1999. Blueprints: A Violence Prevention Initiative. Fact Sheet. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Nelson, G., Amio, J.L., Prilleltensky, I., and Nickels, P. 2000. Partnerships for implementing 

school and community prevention programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological 

Consultation 11:121–145. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2001. The 8% Solution. Fact Sheet. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 148 
Olds, D.L., Henderson, C.R., Kitzman, H.J., Eckenrode, J.J., Cole, R.E., and Tatelbaum, R.C. 

1999. Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses: Recent findings. The Future of Children 

9:44–65. 

Olds, D., Hill, P., Mihalic, S., and O’Brien, R. 1998. Prenatal and infancy home visitation by 

nurses. In Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Book 7, edited by D.S. Elliott. Boulder, CO: 

University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of 

Violence. 

Olds, D., and Kitzman, H. 1993. Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and 

parents of young children. The Future of Children 3:53–92. 

Olweus, D., and Alsaker, F.D. 1991. Assessing change in a cohort-longitudinal study with 

hierarchical data. In Problems and Methods in Longitudinal Research: Stability and Change, 

edited by D. Magnusson, L.R. Bergman, G. Rudinger, and B. Torestad. Cambridge, England: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Olweus, D., Limber, S., and Mihalic, S.F. 1999. Bullying Prevention Program. In Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention: Book 9, edited by D.S. Elliott. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, 

Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Orpinas, P., Kelder, S., Murray, N., Fourney, A., Conroy, J., McReynolds, L., and Peters, R. 

1996. Critical issues in implementing a comprehensive violence prevention program for middle 

school: Translating theory into practice. Education and Urban Society 28:456–472. 

Paparozzi, M. 1994. A comparison of the effectiveness of an intensive parole supervision program 

with traditional parole supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers 

University. 

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. 

Parks, G. 2000. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 149 
Patterson, G.R. 1982. Coercive Family Processes. Eugene, OR: Castalia. 

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., and Dishion, T.J. 1992. Antisocial Boys: A Social Interactional 

Approach, Vol. 4. Eugene, OR: Castalia. 

Pentz, M.A., Dwyer, J.H., MacKinnon, D.P., Flay, B.R., Hansen, W.B., Wang, E.Y., and 

Johnson, C.A. 1989. A multicommunity trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse: 

Effects on drug use prevalence. Journal of the American Medical Association 261:3259–3266. 

Pentz, M.A., Mihalic, S., and Grotpeter, J. 1997. The Midwestern Prevention Project. In 

Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Book 1, edited by D.S. Elliott. Boulder, CO: University of 

Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Pentz, M.A., Trebow, E., Hansen, W.B., MacKinnon, D.P., Dwyer, J.H., Johnson, C.A., Flay, 

B.R., Daniels, S., and Cormack, C. 1990. Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug 

use behavior: The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review 14:264–289. 

Perry, C.L., Murray, D.M., and Griffin, G. 1990. Evaluating the statewide dissemination of 

smoking prevention curricula: Factors in teacher compliance. Journal of School Health 

60:501–504. 

Perry, C., Williams, C., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Toomey, T., Komro, K., Anstine, P., McGovern, 

P., Finnegan, J., Forster, J., Wagenaar, A., and Wolfson, M. 1996. Project Northland: Outcomes 

of a community wide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence. American Journal 

of Public Health 86:956–965. 

Petersilia, J. 1990. Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime and 

Delinquency 36:126–145. 

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Finckenauer, J. 2000. Well-meaning programs can have 

harmful effects! Lessons from experiments of programs such as Scared Straight. Crime and 

Delinquency 46:354–379. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 150 
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. 

Reid, J.B., Eddy, J.M., Fetrow, R.A., and Stoolmiller, M. 1999. Description and immediate 

impacts of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community 

Psychology 27:483–517. 

Replication and Program Strategies, Inc. 1994. Building From Strength: Replication as a 

Strategy for Expanding Social Programs That Work. Philadelphia, PA: Replication and Program 

Strategies, Inc. 

Resnicow, K., Cohn, L., Reinhardt, J., Dross, D., Futterman, R., Kirschner, E., Wynder, E.L., and 

Allegrante, J.P. 1992. A three-year evaluation of The Know Your Body Program in inner-city 

schoolchildren. Health Education Quarterly 19:463–480. 

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: The Free Press. 

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. 

Ross, R.R., and Ross, B.D. 1989. Delinquency prevention through cognitive training. 

Educational Horizons (Summer):124–130. 

Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E., and Lipsey, M.W. 1999. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 6th ed. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Santisteban, D.A., Coatsworth, J.D., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W.M., Schwartz, S.J., LaPerriere, 

A., and Szapocznik, J. 2003. Efficacy of Brief Strategic Family Therapy in modifying Hispanic 

adolescent behavior problems and substance use. Journal of Family Psychology 17:121–133. 

Sarason, I.G., and Sarason, B.R. 1981. Teaching cognitive and social skills to high school 

students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 49:908–918. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 151 
Schinke, S.P., Gilchrest, L.D., and Snow, W.H. 1985. Skills intervention to prevent cigarette 

smoking among adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 75:665–667. 

Schoenwald, S.K., Henggeler, S.W., Brondino, M.J., and Rowland, M.D. 2000. Multisystemic 

Therapy: Monitoring treatment fidelity. Family Process 39:83–103. 

Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., and Weikart, D.P. 1993. Significant Benefits. Ypsilanti, MI: 

High/Scope Press. 

Schweinhart, L.J., and Weikart, D.P. 1980. Young Children Grow Up: The Effects of the Perry 

Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 15. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. 

Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L.K., and Apfel, N.H. 1985. Effects of family support intervention: A 

ten-year follow-up. Child Development 56:376–391. 

Sherman, L.W. 1998a. Communities and crime prevention. In Preventing Crime: What Works, 

What Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report to the United States Congress, edited by L.W. 

Sherman, D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Sherman, L.W. 1998b. Family-based crime prevention. In Preventing Crime: What Works, What 

Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report to the United States Congress, edited by L.W. Sherman, 

D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S. Bushway. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

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. 

Shure, M.B., and Healey, K.N. 1993. Interpersonal problem solving and prevention in urban 

school children. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, 

Toronto. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 152 
Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1982. Interpersonal problem-solving in young children: A cognitive 

approach to prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology 10:341–355. 

Shure, M.B., and Spivack, G. 1980. Interpersonal problem solving as a mediator of behavioral 

adjustment in preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 

1:29–44. 

Silvia, E.S., and Thorne, J. 1997. School-Based Drug Prevention Programs: A Longitudinal 

Study in Selected School Districts. Research Triangle, NC: Research Triangle Institute. 

Snyder, J., and Patterson, G. 1987. Family interaction and delinquent behavior. In Handbook of 

Juvenile Delinquency, edited by H.C. Quay. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 

Spivack, G., Platt, J.J., and Shure, M.B. 1976. The Problem-Solving Approach to Adjustment. 

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Spoth, R. 1999. Toward universal family and youth competency promotion through 

science-informed public education prevention partnerships. Concept paper working draft. Ames, 

IA: Iowa State University. 

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Lepper, H. 1999. Alcohol initiation outcomes of universal 

family-focused preventive interventions: One- and two-year follow-ups of a controlled study. 

Journal of Studies on Alcohol 13:103–111. 

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Shin, C. 2001. Randomized trial of brief family interventions for 

general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69:627–42. 

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., and Shin, C. 1998. Direct and indirect latent-variable parenting 

outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public 

health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66:385–399. 

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. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 153 
Thompson, L.A., and Kelly-Vance, L. 2001. The impact of mentoring on academic achievement 

of at-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review 23:227–242. 

Thornton, T.N., Craft, C.A., Dahlberg, L.L., Lynch, B.S., and Baer, K. 2000. Best Practices of 

Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

Tobler, N.S. 1986. Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitative 

outcome results of program participants compared to a control or comparison group. Journal of 

Drug Issues 16:537–567. 

Tolan, P., and Guerra, N. 1994. What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An Empirical 

Review of the Field. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science. 

Tremblay, R.E., Masse, L., Pagani, L., and Vitaro, F. 1996. From childhood physical aggression 

to adolescent maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment. In Preventing Childhood 

Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency, edited by R.D. Peters and R.J. McMahon. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Tremblay, R.E., McCord, J., Bioleau, H., Charlebois, P., Gagnon, C., LeBlanc, M., and Larivee, 

S. 1991. Can disruptive boys be helped to become competent: Psychiatry 54:149–161. 

Tremblay, R.E., Vitaro, F., Bertrand, L., LeBlanc, M., Beauchesne, H., Bioleau, H., and David, 

L. 1992. Parent and child training to prevent early onset of delinquency: The Montreal 

Longitudinal Experimental Study. In Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions From Birth 

Through Adolescence, edited by J. McCord and R. Tremblay. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

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. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 154 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1993. The Prevention of Youth Violence: a 

Framework for Community Action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 

Wandersman, A., Morrissey, E., Davino, K., Seybolt, D., Crusto, C., Nation, M., Goodman, R., 

and Imm, P. 1998. Comprehensive quality programming and accountability: Eight essential 

strategies for implementing successful prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention 

19:3–30. 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 2001. The Comparative Costs and Benefits of 

Programs To Reduce Crime: Version 4.0. Olympia, WA: Evergreen State College. 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 1998. Watching the Bottom Line: Cost-Effective 

Interventions for Reducing Crime in Washington. Olympia, WA: Evergreen State College. 

Wasserman, G., Miller, L., and Cothern, L. 2000. Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile 

Offending. Bulletin. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice Programs, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Webster-Stratton, C. 1990. Long-term follow-up of families with young conduct-problem 

children: From preschool to grade school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 19:144–149. 

Webster-Stratton, C., and Hammond, M. 1997. Treating children with early-onset conduct 

problems: A comparison of child and parent training interventions. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology 65:93–109. 

Webster-Stratton, C., Mihalic, S., Fagan, A., Arnold, D., Taylor, T., and Tingley, C. 2001. The 

Incredible Years: Parent, Teacher and Child Training Series. In Blueprints for Violence 

Prevention: Book 11, edited by D.S. Elliott. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Institute of 

Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J., and Hammond, M. 2000. Preventing conduct problems, promoting 

social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership for a multi-ethnic, Head Start 

population. Unpublished. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, School of Nursing, Department 

of Family and Child Nursing, Parenting Clinic. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 155 
Webster-Stratton, C., and Taylor, T. 1998. Adopting and implementing empirically supported 

interventions: A recipe for success. In Parenting, Schooling and Children’s Behaviour, edited by 

A. Buchanan and B.L. Hudson. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing. 

Weikart, D.P., Bond, J.T., and McNeil, J.T. 1978. The Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: 

Preschool Years and Longitudinal Results Through Fourth Grade. (Monographs of the 

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, No. 3). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. 

Weissberg, R.P., Caplan, M., and Harwood, R.L. 1991. Promoting competent young people in 

competence-enhancing environments: A systems-based perspective on primary prevention. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59:830–841. 

Wenter, D.L., Ennett, S.T., Ribisl, K.M., Vincus, A.A., Rohrbach, L., Ringwalt, C.L., and Jones, 

S.M. 2002. Comprehensiveness of substance use prevention programs in U.S. middle schools. 

Journal of Adolescent Health 30:455–462. 

Werner, E.E. 1990. Protective factors and individual resilience. In Handbook of Early Childhood 

Intervention, edited by S. Meisel and J. Shonkoff. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Werner, E.E. 1989. Vulnerability and resiliency: A longitudinal perspective. In Children at Risk: 

Assessment, Longitudinal Research, and Intervention, edited by M. Brambring, F. Losel, and H. 

Skowronek. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 

Werner, E.E. 1987. Vulnerability and resiliency in children at risk for delinquency: A longitudinal 

study from birth to adulthood. In Primary Prevention of Psychopathology: Volume 

10—Prevention of Delinquent Behavior, edited by J.D. Burchard and S.N. Burchard. Newbury 

Park, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 16–43. 

Werner, E.E., and Smith, R.S. 1992. Protective Factors and Adult Adaptation: Overcoming the 

Odds: High Risk Children From Birth to Adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 

Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H.P., and Newcomer, K.E. 1995. Handbook of Practical Program 

Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 156 
Widom, C., and Maxfield, M.G. 2001. An Update on the “Cycle of Violence.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Wilson, S.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: 

Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology, Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy. 

Yeager, C.A., and Lewis, D.O. 2000. Mental illness, neuropsychologic deficits, child abuse, and 

violence. Juvenile Violence 9:793–813. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 157 
Appendix A: Monitoring the Quality of Implementation 

(Process Evaluation Research Design) 

Definition of Program Evaluation 

Program evaluation is the systematic assessment of program results. It demonstrates how well a 

program is achieving its goals. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (1994:1) defines program 

evaluation as: 

a systematic assessment of the results or outcomes of program efforts to measure actual 

outcomes against the intended outcomes of the program; to discover achievement and 

results; to discover deviations from planned achievements; to judge the worth of the 

program; to identify unintended consequences; and to recommend expansion, contraction, 

elimination, or modification of the program. 

Although evaluators employ differing definitions of terms, two types of program evaluation exist. 

Outcome (impact) evaluation confirms that specific programs and/or activities are effective. 

Process evaluation provides information to assist in developing and implementing similar 

programs (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1994). 

Outcome evaluations determine the effectiveness or outcomes of service programs. They are 

designed to measure whether the service delivered produced a measurable change in the desired 

direction (i.e., toward the defined objectives) in those exposed to the program. This evaluation is 

usually accomplished by comparing baseline data collected on individuals (or other types of 

recipients, such as organizations and schools) before the program with data collected at the end of 

the program, with efforts made to control for other factors that might influence the outcomes. For 

example, an outcome evaluation might assess whether a drug prevention program had a 

measurable change in the alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco use rates of youth who participated in 

the program compared with youth who did not participate in the program. The objectives 

measured may be specific risk or protective factors that were targeted by the program (e.g., 

changing family management practices) or behavior change targeted by the program (e.g., 

reduction in marijuana use). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 158 
Outcome evaluations attempt to prove that the changes were caused by the program. Many 

factors in the real world may account for the outcomes, necessitating a rigorous research design 

that is capable of establishing causal links. Various evaluation designs may be used to assess 

impact and establish causality. The most reliable technique is random assignment of participants to 

treatment and control groups. If randomization is not possible, a technique that incorporates a 

matching control group can be used to compare those who received the program with a matched 

group who did not receive the program. The best outcome evaluations include and are informed 

by process evaluations that give insight into the outcomes that are obtained. If a program is not 

implemented as intended, with the appropriate quantity and quality of services, then attitudinal or 

behavioral changes observed during an outcome evaluation may be more difficult to attribute to 

the intervention. A recent shift in the field of evaluation research broadens the focus from a heavy 

concentration on program outcomes to include issues of program implementation and 

development (Dehar, Casswell, and Duignan, 1993). 

All of the Blueprints programs have previously conducted multiple outcome evaluations according 

to rigorous scientific standards and have shown a clear relationship between the program activities 

and reductions in the behavioral outcomes of violence, delinquency, and/or substance abuse, and 

outcome evaluations of these programs are continuing (typically funded by the federal 

government). Therefore, when going to scale, the need to evaluate all or even most 

implementation sites is minimal in the short term. Instead, determining via a process evaluation 

whether the program is operating according to design specifications and being implemented 

properly becomes imperative. Because program success is dependent on implementation of 

services as intended or mandated, service delivery accountability is crucial. If the program is being 

implemented as designed and with high quality, then assuming that the program is also having an 

impact on the outcomes previously assessed is reasonably safe. 

Process evaluations (i.e., formative evaluation, summative evaluation, or implementation 

monitoring) assess the delivery of a program by describing and documenting how well the 

program is being implemented, or the integrity or fidelity of the implementation in comparison 

with the program’s stated intent. They primarily describe what services were provided to whom, 

the intensity and duration of services provided (dosage), and what problems were experienced. 

This involves documenting whether the program is delivering the program service or intervention 

as it was designed (adherence). In other words, is the program delivered by appropriately trained 

staff using the correct protocols in totality and in the intended order and with the appropriate 

techniques and materials, for the required number of hours, sessions, or activities, and in the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 159 
locations or contexts prescribed? For example, if a program is designed to be taught in the 

classroom three times a week, a process evaluation would document whether the required number 

of lessons were actually taught, as fewer sessions might dilute the effectiveness of the program. 

Generally an assessment of the quality of the implementation as well as its content is made. For 

example, the process evaluation might document whether all of the major content areas of the 

lessons were taught, or if all the core components of an intervention were implemented. It also 

involves documenting that the persons receiving the program or intervention are those targeted in 

the program design to receive this service or treatment. 

In the process of obtaining information regarding the quality and quantity of implementation, 

keeping records of the problems or difficulties encountered in the process of implementing the 

program and the ways these problems were addressed is important. Problems that have been 

encountered in earlier implementations and the solutions achieved can provide important and 

timesaving information to sites thinking about replication. The lessons learned are useful to others 

interested in replicating the program, allowing them to anticipate potential problems and adopt 

successful strategies for dealing with them. The careful documentation of replication failures, 

successes, problems, and solutions provides others thinking of replicating a specific program with 

information that may help them in their decision to adopt a program. Unfortunately, the lessons 

learned during a program implementation are seldom recorded, and mistakes are often repeated in 

subsequent replications. 

Purposes of Implementation Monitoring 

Rossi, Freeman, and Lipsey (1999) describe three major purposes of implementation monitoring: 

 To provide a process evaluation (stand-alone or to inform outcome evaluation).

 To provide feedback for managerial purposes.

 To demonstrate accountability to sponsors and decisionmakers.

Each purpose is briefly discussed below.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 160 
Process Evaluation (Stand-alone or To Inform Outcome 

Evaluation) 

The primary purpose of process evaluation is to improve the understanding of how a program 

achieves its results. It is used primarily to interpret program outcomes and inform others wishing 

to learn from the experiences of the program (Dehar, Caswell, and Duignan, 1993). The 

evaluation can stand alone as a management tool to answer questions about the effectiveness of 

program operations, service delivery, etc., or it may be conducted in conjunction with an outcome 

evaluation to determine the quantity and quality of services to use, with findings on the impact of 

those services. Although some variability in program delivery may reflect local adaptations to a 

program, which in some cases may be desirable, other variability may reflect differences between 

the intended program and the program that is actually delivered. The more variability expected in 

the implementation of a program, the greater the need for a process evaluation. If program 

implementation is not monitored and assessed, an outcome evaluation may be assessing elements 

that are vastly different from those developed by the program designer, and may result in 

erroneous conclusions about the effectiveness of the program. For example, the impact of a 

program may be diminished by the failure to implement correctly. This information is important to 

ascertain, especially if the outcome evaluation shows no impact on behaviors and attitudes, for 

this failure to achieve results may not be the result of a poorly conceptualized program, but rather 

a poor quality of implementation. Left unanswered is whether the program would have worked if 

it had been implemented correctly. Although researchers generally agree that process evaluation 

should be conducted hand-in-hand with outcome evaluation, this is seldom done. 

Feedback for Managerial Purposes 

Process evaluation is best viewed as a feedback mechanism that can guide future planning and 

implementation, resulting in programs that are increasingly more effective. Since program failures 

are often a result of faulty implementation (Fagan, 1990; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Skroban, 

1998), program monitoring can be used as a management tool to provide feedback to 

administrators, designers, and practitioners for assessing their own progress and making decisions 

about day-to-day activities. Data are often collected in a systematic manner and incorporated into 

a management information system that is periodically summarized. Data may include information 

on amount of services provided, number and sociodemographic characteristics of clients receiving 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 161 
services, diagnoses, and staff providing services. Importantly, the evaluation also helps to identify 

areas where goals are being met or exceeded, or where the program is failing to meet goals. Some 

understanding about why goals are not being achieved should lead to modifications in the 

program to improve services and help achieve these goals. This information enables administrators 

to fine-tune a program. 

Accountability to Sponsors and Decisionmakers 

A strong demand exists today for accountability. Program sponsors—federal agencies, states, 

private foundations, politicians, and other funders—demand to know how money is being spent, 

whether a high-quality program is being delivered, and whether the outlay of money is producing 

sufficient outcomes. Evaluation provides one source of input that can be used by policymakers in 

the decision to commit financial and other resources. Program monitoring may provide the basis, 

either alone or in conjunction with an outcome evaluation, for judging program effectiveness. It 

provides program sponsors with information on accountability (e.g., what resources are being 

provided, who is being provided the resources, and how the resources are being provided). 

Performance measurement provides information both on program processes and program 

outcomes (the results of services). Although the measurement of program outcomes falls short of 

a formal outcome evaluation, the patterns and trends of indicators that would be examined more 

formally in an outcome evaluation are measured in some quantitative fashion (e.g., the number of 

youth who were diverted from out-of-home placements, improved health for participants served, 

increased awareness of the harm from cigarette smoking). These indicators provide evidence of 

program performance and can be used to demonstrate program accountability to managers, 

politicians, and sponsors. Because major decisions about funding are sometimes made on the basis 

of evaluation results, assessment is often feared by community practitioners. Elias and colleagues 

(2000:257) state, “One should not fear unwanted results. One should fear unwanted results that 

one does not know about.” 

Data for process evaluation are primarily gathered through service records (e.g., forms and logs), 

focus groups, direct observation by the evaluator, and information gathered from program staff 

and participants through written questionnaires or telephone or in-person interviews. Process 

evaluation may be conducted at one point in time or may be conducted over an extended period 

of time by an outside evaluator, or it may be set up as a management tool and monitored by a 

person employed in the implementing agency. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 162 
Blueprints Process Evaluation 

For the Blueprints project, a process evaluation was conducted at each of the replication sites. 

This evaluation was designed to answer four questions: 

 Program coverage. Is the program reaching the intended target population (i.e., the 

appropriate population, the correct number of recipients, and the right 

characteristics—age group, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.)? 

 Fidelity and dosage. Is the program being implemented as designed (i.e., is the program 

delivering the services it was intended to deliver in the way it was designed to deliver 

them, in terms of number and quality of program components)? 

 Barriers. What are the obstacles and barriers that prevent a complete implementation? 

 Satisfaction. Is the program perceived by the implementers as worthwhile? 

Little is known about implementation problems, even though many programs fail. Typically, 

program failure is the result of unsuccessfully implementing the program as designed (Fagan, 

1990; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Skroban, 1998). One objective of the Blueprints initiative is 

to build the body of knowledge about implementation by accumulating data on Blueprints 

replications: ingredients for successful implementation, problems encountered, and attempted 

solutions—which worked or didn’t work and why. The Blueprints evaluation has endeavored to 

describe the implementation of each program and to record lessons learned within and across 

prevention programs so that future implementers can benefit from earlier successes and failures. 

The Blueprints initiative has also collected useful data for screening potential replications and 

identifying elements needed to ensure a high probability of success, such as organizational 

capacity, funding stability, commitment, and resources. Because the quality of implementation is 

highly related to the type and degree of technical assistance provided (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, 

and Czeh, 2000), the effectiveness of the technical assistance delivered was also assessed in this 

project. Monitoring all these processes has enabled Blueprints to gain valuable information about 

what works best. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 163 
Measuring Program Fidelity 

Although the concept of program fidelity is not new, the methods to measure fidelity are only 

recently emerging. Program components must be fully described in order to measure fidelity. The 

core components of a program are basically the practical applications of the theoretical elements 

of the program that most likely account for its positive outcomes. Components are the strategies, 

activities, behaviors, media products, and technologies needed to deliver the program, along with 

specifications of the intended recipients and delivery situations (Wholey, Hatry, and Newcomer, 

1995). Wholey and colleagues (1995) identify the following criteria for specifying measurable 

program components: 

 Activities identified as behaviors that can be observed rather than as goals or objectives. 

 Each component is distinguishable from other components so that each one can be 

measured separately. 

 Each component is linked to its underlying theoretical rationale. 

 All activities and materials intended for use in the intervention have been included. 

 Aspects of the intervention that are intended to be adapted to the setting, as well as those 

that are intended to be delivered as designed have been identified. 

The core components of each of the Blueprints programs are clearly specified in the Blueprints 

books, which were created by Blueprints staff and each program designer. In year 1 of this grant, 

Blueprints staff worked with each of the program developers to define a set of performance 

measures and specific criteria for determining the quality and level of implementation being 

achieved at each site. Because Blueprints compares implementation across projects, some 

common measuring tools were developed in addition to tools that were specific to a program. 

A core instrument with eight milestones (funding acquired; resources acquired; key contacts and 

organizational linkages made; staff hired; staff trained; target population identified, recruited, and 

being served; program components implemented; client activities or services provided at correct 

dosage) common to all Blueprints programs was used as an adjunct to Blueprints-specific forms. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 164 
This instrument (see Appendix C for an example of the core form for Multisystemic Therapy), 

which also lists all core program components, allowed comparison of the quality of the 

implementation across all sites and within Blueprints-specific sites. The core form was completed 

by both the TA providers and by Blueprints representatives after a site visit. The form gave insight 

on implementation progress in achieving all goals, including whether or not all of the core 

components of the program were being implemented. Each core component of the program was 

assessed as to whether it had been achieved or not achieved (primarily through interviews and 

surveys with staff). The level of treatment integrity at each site was obtained by summing the 

number of components correctly and fully implemented (attainment of 100 percent of the process 

objectives for a particular activity) and dividing this number by the total number of components to 

yield percent integrity (Gresham et al., 1993). This summary score of overall progress by each site 

provided a succinct, concise measurement; however, it revealed little about the problems 

encountered in achieving progress goals. Therefore, qualitative data on barriers and obstacles to 

achieving each of the eight milestones were also collected. 

Additional forms that were specific to each program were created to monitor implementation and 

to document the number and demographic characteristics of clients receiving services, completion 

of program elements, and staff satisfaction with the program and satisfaction with the technical 

assistance provided. These forms were completed by the Blueprints representatives at each 

process evaluation site visit. An exit interview was conducted with the coordinator of the program 

at each site to gain the site’s perspective on implementation success and future goals. At the end 

of the grant period, a survey questionnaire was completed by each site coordinator or director 

stating (on a 5-point scale) how much of an asset or barrier various implementation factors (e.g., 

program characteristics, agency and staff characteristics, training and TA, community support) 

were. Followup interviews were also conducted at 6 months and 1 year to determine the 

sustainability of the program after Blueprints funding ceased. 

Data Collection Methods 

The Blueprints process evaluation was conducted over a 2-year period for most Blueprints 

programs. The evaluation of Life Skills Training replication sites, still ongoing, takes place over a 

3-year period. Monitoring the integrity of the implementation at each site is accomplished through 

four distinct channels that use several data collection methods: reports from Blueprints staff 

gathered in site visits and telephone interviews; reports from the TA providers gathered in training 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 165 
and technical assistance visits; surveys of staff and program participants gathered onsite and via 

telephone and mail; and program documents and records. 

Site Visits 

Blueprints staff collect process evaluation data from the replication sites three times per year (two 

data collections are onsite and one is conducted by phone). Program staff are asked to respond to 

a survey form during each data collection. This core form indicates implementation progress, 

adherence to core program components, problems that may have arisen and how they were 

handled, and quality of and satisfaction with services provided by the TA provider. Blueprints 

representatives gather other information through the program-specific forms, mentioned above. 

Information gathered at a site through the survey forms and observations is summarized in written 

reports after each visit. 

The process evaluation for Life Skills Training involved different procedures. Because of the 

shorter timespan of the program each year (15 weekly sessions in year 1, 10 in year 2, and 5 in 

year 3), only 1 site visit was made each year. Random classroom observations of each teacher 

were also made to monitor the delivery of core program objectives in each lesson. Four 

observations of all level 1 teachers, three of level 2 teachers, and two of level 3 teachers were 

made each year. 

Site visits enable a rich collection of data from multiple informants, but many qualities of a 

program cannot be described by completing survey forms and gathering official site documents or 

records (e.g., the quality of relationships among participants in a program, among program staff, 

and among staff and participants; the physical environment of the treatment setting; obstacles 

encountered during the implementation). The information collected in site visits should be based 

on an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings and the goals and objectives of each 

program. For example, the information gathered in a site visit for Life Skills Training might 

include the extent to which teachers are following the program curriculum and using interactive 

teaching methods as opposed to didactic methods. Since information collected on one day may 

not be representative of the program activities, asking questions about problems or deviations 

from the program design is important. Unusual activities that are uncovered during a site visit may 

be atypical or they may represent deviations from the program design; determining which is the 

case is important. Usually several onsite observations will shed light on the matter. Multiple 

observations will enable the observer to gather a more accurate and representative picture of 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 166 
day-to-day program activities. Observations may elucidate implementation problems that can be 

corrected. Multiple observations enable the observer to determine whether the program has 

implemented the necessary modifications to bring the program in line with the original design. 

TA Provider Reports 

TA providers must also complete a report after each technical assistance visit documenting the 

services provided, problems encountered, and how problems were addressed (this is the same 

survey, core form, that the Blueprints field representatives complete). This report provides some 

assessment, from a TA provider’s point of view, of whether or not the program site is on track for 

a quality implementation. Program sites that lag behind may require extra effort and resources to 

elevate them to a predetermined standard. Ensuring that program sites make steady progress 

toward their implementation goals is important. Each Blueprints program defines standardized 

goals that should be achieved by a certain time. The progress that has been made in achieving 

these goals is documented in each site visit report. 

Interviews and Staff Surveys 

Obtaining data from the program participants and staff, through a combination of one-on-one 

interviews and paper and pencil surveys, is another method used to document program 

implementation. Interviews with program directors and coordinators, therapists, teachers, or other 

critical program staff provide useful information on the barriers encountered during 

implementation and how problems were addressed. This information will be useful to other 

programs as they begin operations. Interviews and surveys with staff and program participants 

provide an opportunity to gather data on perceptions of the program, satisfaction with and 

commitment to the program, and problems encountered. Interviews with multiple staff members 

provide a broader perspective on implementation. Again, this information will be useful to other 

sites in their own replication efforts. 

Program Documents and Records 

A great deal of archival data that program sites have already collected (such as program 

attendance sheets, listings of activities, phone logs, program budgets, and records from in-house 

management information systems) can be used for a process evaluation. When practical and not 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 167 
overly burdensome to the replication sites, such documents have been used by Blueprints. For 

example, the Nurse-Family Partnership (formerly Home Visitation by Nurses) program has an 

indepth management information system that collected most of the quantitative data necessary for 

the Blueprints process evaluation, such as number of clients, number of visits to clients 

(completed and uncompleted), and services rendered to clients. Blueprints supplemented this data 

with the core form documenting progress and adherence to core program components. The 

Multisystemic Therapist Adherence Checklist was used to assess therapist adherence to the 

treatment principles of MST; this form can be completed by adolescents, parents, and/or 

therapists. This type of archival data is generally easy to access and relatively inexpensive to 

obtain. Care should always be taken, however, in approaching the sites for this information to 

ensure that the information can be obtained in a nondisruptive manner and without threats to 

confidentiality. 

The data obtained from these methods are summarized in a report every 6 months that is shared 

with the program designers, TA providers, and the sites. In the Life Skills Training initiative, the 

data are shared at the end of each school year. This enables the sites to use the information to 

determine whether goals have been achieved and to make midstream changes in program 

implementation, if necessary. Although TA providers are usually already aware of most of the 

problems at a site, both through their own contacts with the site and through immediate feedback 

to them when problems are identified at the site visits, this systematic collection and collation of 

the data enable them to see the progress of one site compared to others, which may help identify 

systematic delays or problems in implementation. Because the survey forms and reports to the 

sites emphasize implementing all core components and highlight areas where the site may be 

failing to do so, the process evaluation feedback is a strong reminder to the replication sites that 

implementation fidelity is extremely important, and it offers encouragement to everyone to stay on 

track to achieve successful outcomes. As mentioned earlier, the number one cause of program 

failure is poor implementation. This has been empirically demonstrated in several scientific 

studies. 

In sum, these site visits and other data collection efforts are conducted to monitor the program 

implementation, answer questions, provide support and encouragement for implementing with 

integrity, and provide feedback to the site on its efforts. The evaluation was designed to enhance 

fidelity and program dosage and reduce variation in program implementation (McGraw et al., 

1994). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 168 
____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix B: Site Visit Questionnaire 

Site Visit Questionnaire for Multisystemic Therapy 

This questionnaire should be filled out after each technical assistance site visit to document the 

ongoing developmental process at the replication site. Extra sheets may be used to answer 

questions in greater detail. 

TA Provider: _____________________________________________ Date: ____________ 

Replication Site: __________________________________________ Site Visit #: _______ 

Number of people you met with: ____________________________ 

PROGRESS OUTCOME 

Exceptional 

Not Yet Started In Progress Achieved Achievement Not Achieved NA 

0 1 2 3 4 9 

Circle one 

1. Funding acquired 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

2. Resources (other than funding) for program implementation acquired 0 1 2 3 4 9 

A. Client referral base 0 1 2 3 4 9 

B. Cellular phones/pagers 0 1 2 3 4 9 

C. Computer and Internet access (if applicable) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

D. Speaker phone 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

3. Key contacts made/community and organizational linkages established 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 169 
____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

A. Juvenile Justice 0 1 2 3 4 9 

B. Social Welfare 0 1 2 3 4 9 

C. Mental Health 0 1 2 3 4 9 

D. School 0 1 2 3 4 9 

E. Family Court (if applicable) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

4. Staff hired (with appropriate credentials) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

A. Full-time MST Therapist (M.A. or M.S.W.) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

B. MST Clinical Supervisor (M.S.W. acceptable; Ph.D. preferred) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

5. Staff trained (considered done when 5A completed) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

A. Initial 0 1 2 3 4 9 

B. 2nd quarter year 1 booster session 0 1 2 3 4 9 

C. 3rd quarter year 1 0 1 2 3 4 9 

D. 4th quarter year 1 0 1 2 3 4 9 

E. 1st quarter year 2 0 1 2 3 4 9 

F. 2nd quarter year 2 0 1 2 3 4 9 

G. 3rd quarter year 2 0 1 2 3 4 9 

H. 4th quarter year 2 0 1 2 3 4 9 

I. All Supervision completed (considered done when 5B–H completed) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 170 
____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

6. Target population identified, recruited, and being served 0 1 2 3 4 9 

A. Selection criteria established 0 1 2 3 4 9 

B. Recruitment strategies for referral source established 0 1 2 3 4 9 

C. Recruitment strategies implemented 0 1 2 3 4 9 

D. Target population served 0 1 2 3 4 9 

E. Strategy for expansion, if desired 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

7. Program components implemented as planned 0 1 2 3 4 9 

A. Core program components 0 1 2 3 4 9 

a. Treatment teams do not exceed 4 therapists per clinical supervisor 0 1 2 3 4 9 

b. Delivery of service in community setting (home, school, etc.) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

c. Low caseloads (4 to 6 families per therapist) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

d. Time limited duration of treatment (3 to 5 months) 0 1 2 3 4 9 

e. Provision of comprehensive services 0 1 2 3 4 9 

f. Nine principles of treatment adhered to by all therapists 0 1 2 3 4 9 

g. 24 hours a day and 7 days a week availability of therapists 0 1 2 3 4 9 

h. Policies allowing flex/comp time 0 1 2 3 4 9 

B. Critical nontechnical elements implemented 0 1 2 3 4 9 

a. MST adherence measure implemented properly 0 1 2 3 4 9 

b. Treatment team committed to MST model 0 1 2 3 4 9 

c. Administration supportive of MST model 0 1 2 3 4 9 

d. Weekly case paperwork maintained 0 1 2 3 4 9 

e. Policies regarding the use of personal vehicles 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 171 
____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

8. Client activities or services provided, as designed 0 1 2 3 4 9 

A. Sessions scheduled according to the needs of clients 0 1 2 3 4 9 

B. Weekly phone consultations with MST expert 0 1 2 3 4 9 

C. Weekly group clinical supervision 0 1 2 3 4 9 

Progress to date: ______________________________________________________________ 

How were problems addressed (what worked and what didn't)? ________________________ 

Total number of clients ____ Discharged successfully ____ Discharged unsuccessfully ____ 

9. Describe problems which remain unresolved at present? 

10. What changes to the original design of the program were made to make it work in this 

setting and why? 

11. What strategies were adopted to make the program culturally competent in this setting 

(e.g., bilingual staff, staff training on cultural group values or gender-specific issues)? 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 172 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

12. What conclusions and recommendations can be made (include how the program can be 

improved)? 

13. For CSPV Rep: Is information provided in this form consistent with the TA provider's last 

report? Please explain. 

14. For TA provider: What was the reason for your visit (circle one)? 

A. Feasibility visit 

B. Training 

C. Routine visit 

D. Site requested a visit with you. Please explain. 

E. You felt a visit was necessary. Please explain. 

F. Other _____________________________________________________________________ 

15. Attachments to report: 

A. MST adherence plots for each therapist at the time of booster training 

Comments: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention BLUEPRINTS for VIOLENCE PREVENTION 173