Anchor

Scaling the Home Instruction for Parents of 

Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)

intervention: Insights from the experiences 

of Parent Possible

June 15, 2020 

Mary Anne Anderson, Katie Eddins, Karen Needels, and Scott Richman

Submitted to:

Corporation for National and Community Service 

Office of Research and Evaluation 

250 E Street SW

Washington, DC 20525

Project Officer: Anthony Nerino 

Contract Number: GS10F0050L/CNSHQ16F0049

Submitted by:

Mathematica 

1100 First Street, NE, 12th Floor 

Washington, DC 20002-4221 

Phone: 202-484-9220 

Project Director: Scott Richman

Reference Number: 50332
This page intentionally blank for double-sided copying.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

iii

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................vii

Research questions, site selection, and data collection methods........................................................vii

Overview of the HIPPY intervention......................................................................................................ix

Key findings from this case study report ...............................................................................................ix

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................... 1

A. Overview of the SEBM process study ........................................................................................... 2

B. Overview of the HIPPY intervention .............................................................................................. 4

II. HOW DID PARENT POSSIBLE DEFINE AND OPERATIONALIZE SCALING?.................................. 7

A. Replicating HIPPY......................................................................................................................... 7

B. Adapting HIPPY............................................................................................................................. 8

III. HOW DID PARENT POSSIBLE SCALE HIPPY? ............................................................................... 11

A. Organizational workforce............................................................................................................. 11

1. Approach to structuring and training the workforce............................................................. 11

2. Facilitators and challenges to structuring and training the workforce ................................. 14

B. Systems to monitor implementation and facilitate communication ............................................. 17

1. Monitoring implementation .................................................................................................. 18

2. Communication systems ..................................................................................................... 20

C. Funding and other resources to support scaling ......................................................................... 22

1. Funding for HIPPY scaling .................................................................................................. 22

2. Other resources ................................................................................................................... 24

D. Use of data systems and evaluation during scaling .................................................................... 25

1. Data systems ....................................................................................................................... 26

2. Use of evaluation................................................................................................................. 29

IV. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 33

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 35

APPENDIX: PROCESS STUDY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 39
This page intentionally blank for double-sided copying.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

v 

EXHIBITS 

1 Scaling readiness framework developed under the SEBM project................................................ 41

2 Characteristics of those interviewed .............................................................................................. 45
This page intentionally blank for double-sided copying.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scaling interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness can increase the likelihood that an 

organization’s activities will improve participants’ lives (National Implementation Research 

Network 2016). At the same time, scaling can be challenging because it goes beyond 

implementation—the focus is not only on implementing an intervention but also on reproducing 

the same effects for a larger or different population, in a new or different location, or perhaps 

while modifying some of the intervention’s components. 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has invested significant 

resources in supporting implementation of interventions designed to improve lives and 

strengthen communities through its AmeriCorps and Social Innovation Fund (SIF) programs. 

CNCS also invests in evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions and supporting the 

scaling of those that have evidence of being effective to serve new communities or populations. 

Recognizing that an increasing number of CNCS-funded grants were being used to scale 

interventions, CNCS contracted with Mathematica in 2016 to conduct the Scaling EvidenceBased Models (SEBM) project to deepen the agency’s understanding of the interventions and 

its knowledge base on scaling them. The project was also funded to generate systematic 

analysis on how the grantees planned to scale and what their experiences have been when 

doing so.

Using information gathered through the SEBM project’s 

process study, this report presents a case study of Parent 

Possible, a CNCS grantee implementing the Home 

Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 

intervention in Colorado. During home visits, HIPPY seeks to 

engage the parents of young children with activities designed 

to improve children’s development in reading, math, science, 

motor, and language skills. This case study provides insights 

about how Parent Possible is scaling HIPPY, as well as the 

factors that appear to facilitate and hinder scaling.

The intervention 

and grantee

This report describes 

the scaling of Home 

Instruction for Parents 

of Preschool 

Youngsters (HIPPY), a 

home visiting 

intervention that seeks 

to help parents improve 

their young children’s 

development, by Parent 

Possible and its 

partners.

Research questions, site selection, and data 

collection methods

More generally, the SEBM project’s process study examined

how three organizations that received CNCS grant funding 

and that were selected for in-depth investigation scaled their 

evidence-based interventions. We define evidence-based 

interventions as those that have been demonstrated, through rigorous evaluation studies, to 

improve participant outcomes. The process study focused on how grantees viewed scaling, the 

actions they took when they scaled, and what factors appeared to facilitate or challenge scaling. 

The process study aimed to address two overarching research questions: 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

viii

1. How did selected CNCS grantees define and 

operationalize scaling? For this research question, we 

describe the type of scaling that each grantee selected for 

the process study planned to undertake. The three types of 

scaling considered under the SEBM project are briefly 

defined in the box to the right. (See the appendix for more 

information about these definitions.)

2. How did selected CNCS grantees scale evidence-based 

interventions? To answer this research question, we 

describe how the grantees selected for the process study 

used organizational and implementation supports—including 

the organizational workforce,1 systems to monitor 

implementation and facilitate communication, funding and 

other resources, and use of data systems and evaluation—

to facilitate scaling. We drew from the implementation 

science literature (see box below) to identify supports that 

are typically needed. In documenting the extent to which 

grantees drew upon organizational and implementation 

supports, the process study also identified factors that 

appeared to facilitate and hinder scaling. 

Types of scaling 

Expansion extends the 

intervention to more 

people in the same 

target population in the 

same location.

Replication extends 

the intervention to the 

same target population 

in a new location.

Adaptation extends 

the intervention to a 

different target 

population in either the 

same or different 

location or modifies the 

intervention for the 

same population in 

either the same or 

different location.

To answer these research questions, CNCS, with input from 

Mathematica, selected three grantees that were implementing 

evidence-based interventions. The grantees and the interventions they were implementing also 

demonstrated a higher degree of scaling readiness than did other CNCS grantees. This meant 

that the grantees and interventions met the conditions expected to lead to successful scaling—

that is, scaling the intervention while maintaining or exceeding the beneficial impacts 

documented in evidence about its effectiveness. 

Mathematica collected and analyzed data from four 

sources: (1) a review of documents relevant to each 

intervention and its scaling and supplied by the grantees or 

their partners, (2) a two-day visit during October 2018 to 

each grantee and local partners involved in scaling 

interventions, (3) brief telephone calls with grantee 

personnel shortly before and after the visits, and (4) followup telephone interviews conducted with grantee personnel 

about 12 months after the visits (that is, in September 

2019). Information from these sources was compiled to 

identify insights about scaling that are particular to each 

grantee. 

What is 

implementation 

science? 

Implementation science is 

the scientific investigation 

of factors associated with 

effective implementation of 

an evidence-based 

intervention or practice 

(Franks and Schroeder 

2013). 

1 We use the terms personnel and workforce to refer to organization and partner personnel as well as AmeriCorps 

members who deliver intervention services.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

ix

Overview of the HIPPY intervention

Parent Possible implements the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 

intervention in Colorado. HIPPY is a home visiting intervention that seeks to engage the parents 

of young children with activities designed to improve children’s development in reading, math, 

science, motor, and language skills.2 It aims to help parents prepare their children for success in 

school by functioning as their child’s first teacher. Typically, HIPPY seeks to engage parents 

who did not graduate from high school and have limited formal education, English proficiency, or 

financial resources. Eligible families must have children ages 2 to 5 at the start of a school year 

and can participate in HIPPY for up to four years. The intervention consists of three primary 

components: (1) weekly home visits, conducted by trained paraprofessionals or home visitors 

with the parents and their children ages 2 to 5; (2) parent–child activities that parents conduct 

with their children between the home visits; and (3) parent group meetings, which aim to 

reinforce the content of the home visits. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

considers HIPPY to be an “evidence-based early childhood home visiting service delivery 

model,” given its favorable effects on child development, school readiness, and parenting 

behavior outcomes, according to rigorous studies of the intervention.3 HIPPY USA, also referred 

to as the intervention developer in this report, supports implementation across the country.

Using CNCS grant funding, Parent Possible coordinates and supports the scaling of HIPPY in 

Colorado. HIPPY is implemented by Parent Possible’s partners, which are local agencies, such 

as Family Resource Centers and other social service organizations, in nine counties (or sites) in 

Colorado. Under a 2015 CNCS grant, Parent Possible helped scale HIPPY to four new sites, 

increasing its reach to a total of nine sites in the state. This report considers implementation of 

HIPPY at all nine sites. At the national level, HIPPY’s scaling is further supported and monitored 

by HIPPY USA. 

Key findings from this case study report

The key findings in this report pertain to two areas. First, we discuss the types of scaling that 

Parent Possible and its partners have pursued while implementing HIPPY in Colorado. Second, 

we discuss how Parent Possible and its partners draw on organizational and implementation 

supports—including the organizational workforce, systems to monitor implementation and 

facilitate communication, funding and other resources, and use of data systems and 

evaluation—to scale HIPPY. We also discuss the facilitators and challenges that Parent 

Possible and its partners have experienced while scaling.

Approaches to scaling. Parent Possible both replicated and adapted the intervention since the 

time of the 2015 CNCS grant. Parent Possible replicated HIPPY in four new sites (in addition to 

2 Information on HIPPY is adapted from the HIPPY USA website. For more information on the intervention, see

https://www.hippyusa.org/impact and https://www.hippyusa.org/hippy-for-parents. For more information on 

HIPPY’s history, see https://www.hippyusa.org/avima-society. For more information on the role of the home 

visitors, see https://www.hippyusa.org/copy-of-support-and-encourageme-gro. For more information on locations, 

see https://www.hippyusa.org/find-a-hippy-site. 

3 See the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness review’s description of HIPPY’s effectiveness for more 

information: https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/effectiveness/Home%20Instruction

%20for%20Parents%20of%20Preschool%20Youngsters%20%28HIPPY%29%C2%AE/In%20Brief.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

x 

the five sites implementing HIPPY before Parent Possible received CNCS funding). Parent 

Possible coordinates with local agencies to implement the intervention in those new sites and 

oversees implementation by those agencies. All four of the new sites enlist AmeriCorps 

members—individuals participating in local service programs funded by CNCS who commit their 

time to addressing critical community needs through engaging in national service—as home 

visitors. The grantee also adapted HIPPY in three ways. First, it has increased the frequency 

and intensity of activities in some sites to meet requirements from various funders and to cater 

to the target population’s needs. Specifically, one site conducts longer home visits than required 

by HIPPY due to funding requirements from Head Start, which is one of the HIPPY funders in 

the state. Additionally, all of the local sites offer more parent group meetings than required by

HIPPY, to help ensure that parents attend at least the HIPPY-mandated minimum of six 

meetings over the course of a year. Second, the grantee participated in a pilot of HIPPY for 

Little Learners, which was an adaptation of the intervention for use with parents of 2-year-old 

children. Third, starting in February 2019, the grantee pilot tested an adaptation of the 

intervention called HIPPY for Friends, Families, and Neighbors. Through this adaptation, two 

local agencies, each operating one site, tested the feasibility of delivering HIPPY content to 

nonrelative home-based child care providers, and friends and family members who provide care 

for children while their parents are working. 

Organizational workforce. Three levels of support appear to be critical to scaling HIPPY in 

Colorado. First, the intervention developer, HIPPY USA, supports the scaling of HIPPY by both 

providing training and technical assistance and assessing how well local agencies are 

implementing the HIPPY intervention. HIPPY USA provides virtual and in-person guidance and 

seeks to ensure that HIPPY is implemented as intended by using an accreditation process. 

Second, Parent Possible aids in scaling by providing training and technical assistance locally as 

well as support in finding and securing funding and other implementation resources. Third, the 

home visitors who deliver HIPPY to families, as well as the coordinators who directly oversee 

the home visitors, reported that personnel at their host organizations strongly support HIPPY—

even those not involved in its day-to-day execution, such as local agency directors. This support 

of HIPPY has reportedly facilitated scaling the intervention in new sites.

These stakeholders have played key roles in supporting HIPPY’s scaling, but the grantee and 

local implementing agencies have faced some challenges with achieving and maintaining a 

sufficient workforce to scale the intervention. In enlisting AmeriCorps members to serve as 

home visitors, Parent Possible and local agency personnel reported some difficulties recruiting, 

engaging, and retaining AmeriCorps members in service and replacing those who leave service 

early. 

Systems to monitor implementation and facilitate communication. HIPPY USA holds 

annual, national trainings to help ensure that the HIPPY intervention is implemented as 

intended. In Colorado, the grantee has also developed and delivers training to facilitate scaling 

within the local context. The intervention developer seeks to ensure that all sites around the

country receive the same information about what HIPPY is and how to scale it through its 

national training at HIPPY USA headquarters. In Colorado, the grantee and local agencies 

perceived a need for additional training that was specific to the local context. The grantee 

responded to this need by creating a statewide training, offered annually, for coordinators that 

helps agencies standardize its scaling of HIPPY locally. Both the national and in-state trainings 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

xi

support scaling by addressing implementation needs, while the in-state training facilitates 

information-sharing for only the Colorado sites, such as data collection requirements from local 

funders.

In addition to these training and professional development opportunities, the grantee, HIPPY 

USA, and local agencies weave together in-person and virtual communication to support the 

scaling of HIPPY. For example, Parent Possible and HIPPY USA personnel reported that 

technical assistance visits conducted by the grantee and visits conducted by HIPPY USA as 

part of its accreditation process are critical to ensuring that HIPPY is implemented as intended. 

In addition, use of newsletters, telephone meetings, a virtual message board, a smartphone 

messaging app, and an online resource library reportedly allow for easy access to guidance 

from the intervention developer, Parent Possible personnel, and local agency coordinators, as 

well as assistance from peer home visitors. 

Funding and other resources to support scaling. To support the scaling of HIPPY, personnel 

from Parent Possible and the local agencies reported patching together different funding 

streams. Major funding sources include the CNCS grant; the federal Maternal, Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting Program; Head Start funds; state resources; and local philanthropic 

funders. Grantee personnel reported that adhering to the requirements of all of these different 

funders is a key challenge in scaling HIPPY. In some instances, funder requirements have led 

the grantee and local agencies to make adaptations to the intervention—for example, in the 

case of Head Start requiring longer home visits than prescribed by HIPPY. Respondents also 

reported that some funders require local agencies to meet benchmarks that grantee personnel 

considered unrealistic. Additionally, funding for scaling HIPPY is not assured year to year, which 

has led to uncertainties in implementation and a need to either seek out additional resources or 

change scaling plans. During the time of the process study, the grantee also sought funding that 

allowed it to pilot test an adaptation of the intervention. Specifically, HIPPY USA developed an 

adaptation of the intervention for nonparental caregivers, and the grantee secured funding from 

the Preschool Development Grants Birth through Five mechanism4 in Colorado to pilot test it. 

To obtain nonmonetary resources necessary for scaling, Parent Possible and its partners help 

to coordinate the provision of materials and physical space for HIPPY implementation. HIPPY 

USA provides sufficient intervention materials—such as the curriculum and training documents 

for home visitors and coordinators—to facilitate intervention scaling. Grantee and local agency 

personnel reported that materials for implementing the intervention are helpful, relevant, and 

appropriate. Examples of HIPPY materials include training materials and documents for the 

sites on topics such as workforce needs, the intervention’s components, and recruitment and 

retention. Grantee and local agency personnel reported few physical space needs, because 

most HIPPY activities occur at participants’ homes.

Use of data systems and evaluation during scaling. In tracking implementation and output 

data on HIPPY services, personnel from the grantee and local agencies reported benefiting 

4 Preschool Development Grants Birth through Five are competitive federal grants jointly offered by the Office of 

Child Care within the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

and the U.S. Department of Education. The grants are intended to expand the number of options and the quality of 

care available to parents whose children are receiving early childhood care. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

xii

from flexibility on the part of HIPPY USA. Specifically, though HIPPY USA recommends that

HIPPY sites use Efforts to Outcomes, a data management system, the grantee was already

using a suitable alternative (Visit Tracker) and received permission to keep using it. This

flexibility allowed for reasonable accommodations for the local agencies while still maintaining 

overall intervention consistency.

At the same time, according to grantee and local agency personnel, limited resources hinder

grantees from using data to improve programs and to conduct evaluation studies. Personnel

from the grantee shared that they face time and resource constraints that have prevented them

from regularly reviewing data for program improvement purposes as well as conducting 

evaluations to provide insights on how scaling is progressing and to bolster evidence of the

HIPPY intervention. Grantee personnel said that day-to-day implementation needs, as well as

lack of funding, prevent them from pursuing data-informed program improvements or rigorous

evaluation studies, despite requests for the latter from funders. However, the grantee still seeks

to identify areas for improvement and assess data on participant outcomes through less formal

or rigorous methods, such as reviewing reports on service receipt.

Conclusion. Parent Possible’s scaling of HIPPY reveals both successes and challenges in 

replicating and adapting an evidence-based intervention. This report seeks to help stakeholders

understand the factors that might facilitate and hinder scaling, based on insights from the 

experiences of one CNCS grantee scaling an evidence-based intervention. Two companion 

reports provide further insights on the scaling experiences of the other two CNCS grantees

included in the process study. One report presents a case study of the Child Abuse Prevention 

Council’s scaling of the Birth and Beyond intervention, which seeks to provide parenting

education and support to parents of children in order to reduce child maltreatment (Eddins et al.

2020). The other report presents a case study of the United Ways of Iowa’s scaling of the

Reading Corps intervention, a standardized literacy intervention that provides one-on-one 

tutoring to students enrolled in pre-kindergarten through third grade to help them achieve 

reading proficiency (Jones et al. 2020). Additionally, a fourth report (Needels et al. 2020) 

presents a cross-grantee analysis of information collected from all three grantees; that report 

includes insights on the commonalities and differences in how grantees scaled evidence-based 

interventions, and the challenges and facilitators they faced while scaling. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Scaling interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness can increase the likelihood that an 

organization’s activities will improve participants’ lives (National Implementation Research 

Network 2016). At the same time, scaling can be challenging because it goes beyond 

implementation—the focus is not only on implementing an intervention but also on reproducing 

the same effects for a larger or different population, in a new 

or different location, or perhaps while modifying some of the 

intervention’s components. The project

The Corporation for 

National and 

Community Service is 

deepening its 

understanding of how 

to scale interventions 

deemed to be effective 

through the Scaling 

Evidence-Based 

Models project.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) 

has invested significant resources in supporting 

implementation of interventions designed to improve lives and 

strengthen communities through its AmeriCorps and Social 

Innovation Fund (SIF) programs.5

 CNCS also invests in 

evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions and 

supporting the scaling of those that have evidence of being 

effective to serve new communities or populations. Although 

many of the grants that CNCS funds are for scaling 

interventions, little systematic 

analysis has been conducted on how the grantees have planned 

to scale and what their experiences have been when doing so. 

Recognizing this, CNCS contracted with Mathematica in 2016 to 

conduct the Scaling Evidence-Based Models (SEBM) project, to 

deepen the agency’s understanding of interventions and its 

knowledge base on scaling them. 

The intervention 

and grantee

This report describes 

the scaling of Home 

Instruction for Parents 

of Preschool 

Youngsters (HIPPY), a 

home visiting 

intervention that seeks 

to help parents improve 

their young children’s 

development, by Parent 

Possible and its 

partners.

This report presents a case study, using information from the 

SEBM project’s process study, of Parent Possible, a CNCS 

grantee implementing the Home Instruction for Parents of 

Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) intervention in Colorado (see 

box at left). HIPPY seeks to engage the parents of young 

children with activities designed to improve children’s 

development in reading, math, science, motor, and language 

5 AmeriCorps supports a wide range of local service programs through grants to address critical community needs, 

such as those pertaining to education, public safety, health, and the environment. SIF supported programs from 

2010 through 2016. SIF grants were used to fund community-based programs to address challenging social 

problems communities face in the areas of economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development. CNCS 

(2016, n.d.) provides a detailed description of these CNCS programs. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

2 

skills.6 This case study provides insights about how Parent Possible is scaling HIPPY, and the 

factors that appear to facilitate and hinder scaling.

A. Overview of the SEBM process study

As part of the SEBM project, Mathematica conducted a process study examining how 

organizations that received CNCS grant funding scaled evidence-based interventions. We define 

evidence-based interventions as interventions that have been demonstrated, through rigorous 

evaluation studies, to improve participant outcomes. The process study focused on how these 

grantees view scaling, the actions they take when they scale, and what factors appeared to 

facilitate or challenge scaling. Specifically, the process study aimed to address two overarching 

research questions: 

Types of scaling

Expansion extends the 

intervention to more 

people in the same 

target population in the 

same location.

Replication extends 

the intervention to the 

same target population 

in a new location.

Adaptation extends the 

intervention to a 

different target 

population in either the 

same or different 

location or modifies the 

intervention for the 

same population in 

either the same or 

different location.

1. How did selected CNCS grantees define and 

operationalize scaling? For this research question, we describe 

the type of scaling that each grantee planned to undertake. The 

three types of scaling considered under the SEBM project are 

briefly defined in the box to the left. (See the appendix for more 

information about these definitions.) 

2. How did selected CNCS grantees scale evidence-based 

interventions? For this research question, we describe how the 

grantees selected for the process study used organizational and 

implementation supports to facilitate scaling. We drew from the 

implementation science literature (see box on the next page) to 

identify supports that are typically needed. In documenting the 

extent to which grantees drew upon organizational and 

implementation supports, the process study also identified factors 

that appeared to facilitate and hinder scaling. 

To answer these research questions, CNCS, with input from 

Mathematica, selected three grantees that were implementing 

interventions with evidence of effectiveness, meaning that 

evaluation studies of those interventions used rigorous research 

designs and had consistently favorable findings. The grantees and the interventions they were 

implementing also, when compared to other CNCS grantees, demonstrated a higher degree of 

scaling readiness. This meant that the grantees and interventions met the conditions expected to 

lead to successful scaling—that is, scaling the intervention while maintaining or exceeding the 

6 Information on HIPPY is adapted from the HIPPY USA website. For more information on the intervention, see

https://www.hippyusa.org/impact and https://www.hippyusa.org/hippy-for-parents. For more information on 

HIPPY’s history, see https://www.hippyusa.org/avima-society. For more information on the role of the home 

visitors, see https://www.hippyusa.org/copy-of-support-and-encourageme-gro. For more information on locations, 

see https://www.hippyusa.org/find-a-hippy-site. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

3 

beneficial impacts documented in evidence about its effectiveness. (See the appendix for details 

of the selection process and data collection). 

The grantees selected for the process study—and the 

interventions they were scaling—differed with respect to the 

size of the grantee implementing an evidence-based 

intervention, intervention focus areas,7 planned types of 

scaling, how long the grantee had been scaling the 

intervention, reported successes and challenges with their 

scaling experiences, and the extent to which the grantees 

had attempted to apply lessons learned in the past. Because

CNCS did not intend for the grantees selected for the 

process study to offer interventions that were typical of all 

CNCS grantees, the insights from their scaling experiences 

might not apply to a broader set of CNCS-funded grantees 

or service providers. Still, because of their scaling readiness 

strengths, the findings from the process study can provide 

insights about scaling practices that can help stakeholders understand the conditions that might 

facilitate or hinder intervention scaling. 

What is 

implementation 

science?

Implementation science 

is the scientific 

investigation of factors 

associated with effective 

implementation of an 

evidence-based 

intervention or practice 

(Franks and Schroeder 

2013).

Mathematica collected and analyzed data from four sources: (1) a review of documents relevant 

to each intervention and its scaling supplied by the grantees or their partners, (2) a two-day visit 

during October 2018 to each grantee and local partners involved in scaling the interventions, (3) 

brief telephone calls with grantee personnel shortly before and after the visits, and (4) 12-month 

follow-up telephone interviews conducted with grantee personnel in September 2019.8

Information from these sources was compiled to identify insights about scaling particular to each 

grantee. (See the appendix for a more detailed discussion of the data sources.) 

This report presents a case study of one of three grantees included in the process study: Parent 

Possible, implementing the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) 

intervention in Colorado. We adapted the process study’s research questions for Parent 

Possible’s scaling of HIPPY in Colorado. As the CNCS grantee, Parent Possible coordinates and 

supports implementation of HIPPY by its partners, which are local agencies, such as Family 

Resource Centers and other social service organizations, in nine counties (or sites) in Colorado.9

Under a 2015 CNCS grant, Parent Possible coordinated the scaling of HIPPY to four new sites, 

increasing its reach to nine total sites in the state. This report considers implementation of 

7 Intervention focus area refers to the topics in which CNCS concentrates its funding: disaster services; economic 

opportunity; education; environmental stewardship; healthy futures (including physical and mental health, 

substance abuse, and nutrition); and veterans and military families. 

8 We use the terms personnel and workforce to refer to organization and partner personnel as well as AmeriCorps 

members who deliver intervention services.

9 In addition to HIPPY, Parent Possible and the local agencies implement other programs that address early 

childhood development.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

4 

HIPPY at all nine sites, as HIPPY was initially scaled (via replication) to Colorado, and the 

intervention has been adapted in some of the sites beyond just the four new ones. At the national 

level, HIPPY’s scaling is further supported and monitored by HIPPY USA, which we refer to as 

the intervention developer in this report. 

In seeking to answer the process study’s research questions with a focus on this single grantee, 

this report describes how Parent Possible is scaling an evidence-based intervention, providing an 

in-depth focus on the grantee’s implementation activities. This report aims to deepen 

understanding among funders, policymakers, and service providers on Parent Possible’s efforts 

to scale an intervention with evidence of effectiveness. Two companion reports discuss findings 

from our case studies of the other two CNCS grantees included in the process study—Child 

Abuse Prevention Council, implementing the Birth and Beyond intervention (Eddins et al. 2020), 

and the United Ways of Iowa, implementing the Reading Corps interventions (Jones et al. 

2020).10

B. Overview of the HIPPY intervention

HIPPY is a home visiting intervention that seeks to engage the parents of young children with 

activities designed to improve children’s development in reading, math, science, motor, and 

language skills. It was first developed in the mid-1960s in Israel and was later implemented in

the United States and several other countries. HIPPY is designed to help parents prepare their 

children for success in school, by functioning as their child’s first teacher. Typically, HIPPY 

seeks to engage parents who did not graduate from high school; have limited formal education, 

English proficiency, or financial resources; or demonstrate other risk factors. Eligible families 

must have children ages 2 to 5 at the start of a school year and can participate for up to four 

years.11 The intervention consists of three primary components: 

• Weekly home visits conducted by trained paraprofessionals or home visitors with parents of

children ages 2 to 5. Parents of children ages 2 to 4 or 5-year-old children not in kindergarten

receive weekly home visits, while parents of 5-year-old children enrolled in kindergarten

receive visits every two weeks. The home visitors engage parents in instructional exercises,

discussion, and feedback about the previous and current week’s activities, the learning needs

of the child, a role-play session to simulate the upcoming activities, and a check-forunderstanding period, all with the aim of supporting parents in teaching their children. Home

10 A previously published report (Needels et al. 2020) presented a cross-grantee analysis of information collected 

during the process study visits from all three grantees. The insights from this analysis pertain to two broad areas: 

(1) the approaches that grantees and their partners took to scaling—including how grantees viewed scaling and

their actions when the scaling was taking place, and (2) specific commonalities and differences in how they

scaled, and the challenges and facilitators they faced with these aspects of scaling. In contrast, the case study

reports provide deeper insights into the scaling experiences of each of these grantees.

11 During the data collection period for the process study, the intervention developer pilot tested and then 

implemented a version of HIPPY to use with parents of 2-year-old children. This version is now a standard part of 

the HIPPY intervention. Before this adaptation was made, HIPPY was intended for parents of children ages 3 to 5 

only. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

5 

visits last 45 to 60 minutes and occur over a period of 30 weeks—usually during the months 

that correspond with a typical school year. Materials for each year, which the intervention 

developer provides, include activity packets (either 15 or 30 packets, depending on the 

child’s age), 9 storybooks, and a set of 20 manipulative shapes. Additional activities for 

parents, such as wellness activities or referrals to legal services, might be incorporated into 

the home visits as well. 

• Parent–child activities that parents conduct with their children between the home visits 

using a standardized curriculum and learning materials. These activities are intended to last 

for 15 minutes a day, five days per week. Families are also asked to read to their children

frequently. 

• Parent group meetings, led by the home visitors, which include presentations by guest 

speakers, enrichment activities, and themed discussions to reinforce the content of the home 

visits. The meetings also enable participating parents to learn from and interact with one 

another. These group meetings are offered at least six times per year and typically last about 

two hours each. 

In addition to addressing children’s development, the HIPPY intervention is designed to engage 

and develop the skills of adult home visitors from the communities being served. Ideally, the 

home visitors are parents who participated in HIPPY themselves.12 This is theorized to not only 

help foster the success of the current participants, by pairing them with home visitors from their 

own communities and local contexts, but also to prepare former participants for future education 

or employment opportunities. During their time with HIPPY (typically two to three years), home 

visitors are expected to learn a variety of skills, including time management, organization, 

administration, filing, and computer skills, and expertise in early childhood education, and then 

leverage these skills to further their education or take on higher-skilled roles. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers HIPPY to be an “evidence-based 

early childhood home visiting service delivery model,” given its favorable effects on child 

development, school readiness, and parenting behavior outcomes, according to rigorous studies 

of the intervention.13 Evidence about HIPPY’s effectiveness at improving child outcomes 

pertains to families experiencing poverty, limited education, and social isolation. For example, a 

2007 randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of HIPPY when implemented 

with low-income, Mexican American immigrant mothers and their children found positive 

effects on children’s expressive language skills and parent involvement at home (Necoechea 

2007). 

12 As described in more detail in Chapter III, Section A, HIPPY home visitors in Colorado are a mix of AmeriCorps 

members and nonmembers, and each of these two types of home visitors could be former HIPPY participants.

13 See the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness review’s description of HIPPY’s effectiveness for more 

information: https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/effectiveness/Home%20Instruction%

20for%20Parents%20of%20Preschool%20Youngsters%20%28HIPPY%29%C2%AE/In%20Brief.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

6 

With the support of the intervention developer, the HIPPY intervention has been implemented in 

119 sites in 19 states and the District of Columbia, reaching an estimated 15,000 families, as of 

2019. HIPPY USA supports HIPPY’s implementation across the country in several ways: by 

accrediting organizations to deliver HIPPY, providing training and technical assistance,

developing and improving the HIPPY intervention and materials, providing sites with all of the 

implementation materials to use with HIPPY participants, conducting outreach and advocacy for 

sites at which HIPPY services are provided, and collecting national data and overseeing research

on the intervention. In determining accreditation, HIPPY USA permits some flexibility to the 

intervention in cases where it deems adaptations necessary due to local conditions. HIPPY USA

also provides technical assistance to sites to help them determine whether adaptations are 

necessary and how to make them while maintaining intervention integrity.

14

In the remainder of this report, we identify the types of scaling pursued by Parent Possible

(Chapter II), describe how Parent Possible scales HIPPY and discuss the factors that appear to 

facilitate and hinder scaling (Chapter III), and summarize our findings (Chapter IV). In the 

appendix, we describe the process study’s design and the methodologies used to collect and 

analyze data for this process study. 

14 See the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness review’s description of HIPPY for more information:

https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/implementation/Home%20Instruction%20for%20Parents%20of%20Preschool%20Yo

ungsters%20(HIPPY)%C2%AE/Model%20Overview.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

7 

II. HOW DID PARENT POSSIBLE DEFINE AND 

OPERATIONALIZE SCALING? 

Parent Possible, a statewide organization in Colorado, received a CNCS grant in 2015 to scale

HIPPY to four new counties (also called sites), increasing its reach to nine total sites in a mix of 

urban and rural locations.15 Parent Possible coordinates the implementation of HIPPY by 

working with existing local agencies, such as Family Resource Centers and other social service 

organizations, which operate HIPPY in those nine sites. Within the local agencies, coordinators 

oversee the home visitors who deliver the intervention to families, and supervisors oversee the 

coordinators. According to interviews with grantee personnel during the study team’s visit to 

Parent Possible in October 2018, 67 home visitors were involved in scaling HIPPY across the 

nine sites in Colorado. Of those, 48 home visitors (from seven of the nine sites) were 

AmeriCorps members—individuals participating in local service programs funded by CNCS 

who commit their time to addressing critical community needs through engaging in national 

service.16 Members engage in terms of service, which specify the number of hours that they are 

committed to serve. Approximately 800 families were receiving HIPPY services in Colorado as 

of September 2019. Although all families in these counties are eligible for HIPPY services, 

families in which the parents have limited education and that are experiencing poverty and social 

isolation are an important focus, according to grantee personnel. 

In scaling HIPPY, Parent Possible both replicated and adapted the intervention since the time of 

the 2015 CNCS grant. Parent Possible replicated HIPPY in four new sites (in addition to the 

five sites implementing HIPPY before Parent Possible received CNCS funding). Parent Possible 

coordinates with local agencies to implement the intervention in those new sites and oversees 

implementation by those agencies. All four of the new sites enlist AmeriCorps members as home 

visitors. The grantee also adapted HIPPY by increasing the frequency and intensity of activities 

in some sites and participating in pilots of two adaptations of the 

intervention during the time of the process study. 

A. Replicating HIPPY

The coordination among Parent Possible, the local agencies, and 

HIPPY USA, appeared to facilitate HIPPY’s replication. 

According to Parent Possible personnel, new sites were identified 

in one of two ways. In one way, a social service agency or other 

local entity within a community contacted Parent Possible about 

scaling HIPPY in that community. In the other way, Parent 

Possible personnel targeted new sites for HIPPY services based 

on a review of demographic data by identifying areas with target 

Scaling HIPPY

In Colorado, HIPPY has 

been replicated

(brought to new 

locations for the same 

target population) and 

adapted (modified from 

its original design to 

better fit the needs of 

the target population).

15 HIPPY had previously operated in one of these four new sites and, as part of the CNCS grant, was offered again 

with a new local agency implementing it. 

16 The other two sites did not engage any AmeriCorps members in scaling HIPPY.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

8 

populations that had little access to other pre-kindergarten services, such as rural ones that had 

few or no other similar services. After identifying a site, the HIPPY program manager, a Parent 

Possible personnel member who oversees the scaling of HIPPY in Colorado, then discussed the 

intervention requirements with members of the local agency. Personnel from Parent Possible and 

the local agency also discussed potential sources of funding for implementing HIPPY and the 

process to apply to HIPPY USA to replicate the intervention. Though Parent Possible helped 

local agencies complete their applications and reviewed them before submission, the agencies 

submitted their applications directly to HIPPY USA. Then, HIPPY USA either approved each 

application or recommended that the agency work further with Parent Possible to refine its 

materials and incorporate additional information. Once approved, the agency paid a fee to 

HIPPY USA to become an implementing site, and local agency personnel assigned to be HIPPY 

coordinators and supervisors attended training required by HIPPY USA (detailed in the 

“Organizational workforce” section of Chapter III). 

To support replication, Parent Possible serves as a local resource for guidance and oversight 

while HIPPY USA provides technical assistance as well as accreditation, which requires sites to 

adhere to the specifications for the intervention. According to Parent Possible and local agency 

personnel, Parent Possible provides in-state trainings and guidance on a range of supports, 

including assistance with human resources, funding, and data collection and reporting. HIPPY 

USA provides national training, technical assistance, and intervention materials, such as copies 

of the curriculum. Representatives from HIPPY USA visit sites to conduct the accreditation 

process every three years. Parent Possible personnel reported serving as a go-between for local 

agencies and HIPPY USA in some instances; for example, Parent Possible personnel help to 

coordinate the accreditation visits. 

B. Adapting HIPPY

In Colorado, Parent Possible and the local agencies adapted the 

evidence-based intervention in order to meet requirements from 

various funders that dedicate resources to HIPPY 

implementation and to cater to its target population’s needs. 

Specifically, Parent Possible personnel said that the intensity of 

some aspects of the intervention has increased. One site 

conducts longer home visits than required by the intervention 

due to funding requirements from Head Start, which is one of 

the HIPPY funders in the state. Head Start requires that home 

visits last 90 minutes, which is longer than the time required by 

HIPPY—45 to 60 minutes. To accommodate these longer visits, 

home visitors at the agency that receives Head Start funding are 

full-time employees (and therefore are not AmeriCorps 

members) and have smaller caseloads than typical for home 

visitors in the other sites. Additionally, in Colorado, all of the local sites offer monthly parent 

group meetings, which is more than the minimum of six required by HIPPY USA. Parent 

Augmenting 

services through 

adaptation 

In Colorado, some local 

sites scaling HIPPY 

have increased the 

frequency and intensity 

of some aspects of the 

intervention—both to 

respond to funder 

requests, as well as to 

accommodate 

participants and boost 

their engagement with 

the intervention.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

9 

Possible and local agency personnel said they made this adaptation to help parents attend at least 

six meetings over the course of a year, because not all parents can attend every meeting. 

In February 2019, the grantee and HIPPY USA began pilot testing an adaptation of the 

intervention called HIPPY for Friends, Families, and Neighbors in two sites in Colorado. HIPPY 

USA developed the curriculum for the adaptation, and the grantee applied for and received 

funding from the Preschool Development Grants Birth through Five mechanism, which is jointly 

provided by Office of Child Care within the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department of Education, to pilot test it 

within the state.17 Under this adaptation of HIPPY, home visitors delivered HIPPY activities to 

nonrelative home-based child care providers, and friends and family members who provide care 

for children while their parents are working. Typically, home visitors met with caregivers who 

watch two or three children in their homes and shared activities that the caregivers could perform 

with the children in their care. Home visitors delivered 15 activities in 30 weeks, offering one 

activity every other week (as opposed to 30 activities weekly). 

At the time of the September 2019 telephone interviews, the HIPPY for Friends, Families, and 

Neighbors pilot was ongoing, and no evaluation results were yet available, but grantee personnel 

reported some perceived implementation successes and challenges. For example, one site made 

additional modifications to this adaptation of HIPPY, by meeting with caregivers as a group 

rather than one on one. This facilitated connections among the caregivers, which caregivers 

found to be beneficial, according to grantee personnel. If HIPPY USA chooses to disseminate 

this adaptation more broadly, a grantee personnel member said that the grantee might make 

recommendations to HIPPY USA to incorporate a networking aspect into the adaptation for the 

caregivers. The other site, however, faced substantial challenges with recruiting nonparental 

caregiver providers. Several caregivers enlisted in the pilot stopped receiving HIPPY services 

because the children in their care left for other caregiving arrangements while the pilot was still 

ongoing. 

Additionally, Colorado participated in a pilot of HIPPY for Little Learners, which is the version 

of the intervention for use with parents of 2-year-old children, before it was adapted for use 

across the country. Like HIPPY for Friends, Families, and Neighbors, HIPPY USA also 

designed this adaptation of the intervention and worked with sites across the country, including 

one Colorado site, to pilot test it. Unlike the more recent adaptation for caregivers, grantee 

personnel said that HIPPY for Little Learners has similar components and service delivery 

methods to the original HIPPY intervention but that the content is geared toward parents of 

younger children. 

If a site seeks to make a unique deviation from the intervention—such as serving a family 

outside of the home because the home environment is not conducive to visiting—Parent Possible 

personnel reported asking for permission from HIPPY USA to make that deviation. From the 

17 Preschool Development Grants Birth through Five are competitive federal grants that aim to expand the number 

of options and the quality of care available to parents whose children are receiving early childhood care.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

10

perspective of Parent Possible personnel, these types of adaptations were not widespread and 

only implemented as needed on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, for the most part, Parent 

Possible personnel did not consider the changes they made to be major deviations from the 

HIPPY intervention—they described these adaptations as “extensions” of HIPPY.18 

18 We did not collect data on whether HIPPY USA personnel consider these modifications to be adaptations of the 

HIPPY intervention.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

11

III. HOW DID PARENT POSSIBLE SCALE HIPPY? 

To understand how Parent Possible supported scaling of the HIPPY intervention in Colorado, we 

describe aspects of implementation that are identified as having key roles in scaling 

interventions. Each of these components is shown to help organizations scale interventions while 

they seek to generate the same beneficial participant outcomes that occurred before scaling 

(National Implementation Research Network n.d.). Namely, we examined the following: 

• How the workforce helped to carry out HIPPY implementation 

• How grantee and partner personnel used monitoring and communication systems to support 

implementation as intended 

• The sufficiency of funding and other resources, such as materials and physical space 

• The use of data systems to monitor ongoing implementation and inform any changes that 

might need to be made, and evaluation to assess whether a scaled intervention is still 

producing the same outcomes observed in prior research 

A. Organizational workforce

Engaging supportive leadership and sufficient personnel members, who have been appropriately 

trained in their duties, can support intervention scaling. Strong leaders can provide creative 

solutions to implementation problems as well as other meaningful implementation supports 

during scaling (Bernfeld 2006). Implementation science literature also suggests that specifying 

workforce characteristics, such as requirements around the types of education and experience 

that personnel should have, supports strong implementation (Fixsen et al. 2005, 2013). 

Additionally, procedures to train personnel have been shown to facilitate scaling the intervention 

with fidelity, meaning the extent to which implementation of an intervention matches the 

intervention as designed (Breitenstein et al. 2010; National Implementation Research Network 

n.d.). 

1. Approach to structuring and training the workforce

The organizational structure of personnel at Parent Possible supports implementation and 

monitoring of HIPPY throughout Colorado. The grantee’s HIPPY program manager, executive 

director, deputy director, finance director, and data manager all support HIPPY implementation 

and monitoring, with the HIPPY program manager having the bulk of daily oversight 

responsibility. As of September 2019, the grantee had recently hired what it termed a 

HIPPYCorps Associate to take on some operations and administrative tasks, especially related to 

supporting AmeriCorps members and monitoring the implementation of CNCS funding 

requirements. At the time of the September 2019 telephone interviews, grantee personnel said 

that they planned for the HIPPYCorps Associate to take on tasks such as supporting the member 

screening and enrollment process, fulfilling CNCS reporting and compliance requirements, and 

following up with members who were not meeting their service hours requirements. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

12

According to Parent Possible and HIPPY USA personnel, the HIPPY intervention provides 

personnel requirements that are intended to support intervention scaling at the local agency level. 

For sites to maintain accreditation, HIPPY USA requires them to use a hierarchical supervisory 

structure, with home visitors being overseen by a coordinator, who is overseen by a supervisor. 

Additionally, HIPPY specifies that an assistant coordinator position is required if a site serves 

more than 180 families. 

In Colorado, grantee personnel reported that local agencies adhered to these requirements by 

engaging a mix of AmeriCorps members and paid personnel, including coordinators and 

supervisors, to implement HIPPY. As of the September 2019 telephone interviews, seven of the 

nine agencies scaling HIPPY engaged AmeriCorps members—including former parent 

participants—to deliver the intervention. (Of the AmeriCorps members who serve as home 

visitors and who were interviewed during the process study visit, five out of nine were former or 

current HIPPY participants.) Across those seven sites, according to Parent Possible and local 

agency personnel, agencies engaged 48 total AmeriCorps members as of October 2018. Across 

the other two sites, 19 home visitors were paid local agency personnel; 12 of them were 

employed at the agency funded through Head Start, which, as discussed in Chapter II, had more 

intensive requirements for home visits than HIPPY requires. Because of the additional home 

visiting time required due to the Head Start funding, home visitors at that agency worked as fulltime personnel and had smaller caseloads (about 12 families each) than home visitors in other 

sites (who served 13 to 15 families each). One site in Colorado served about 240 families and 

therefore had two assistant coordinators; the other sites did not serve more than 180 families and 

therefore had only one coordinator each. All sites also had a supervisor. 

Along with its workforce structure, HIPPY specifies education requirements for home visitors 

and coordinators. According to grantee personnel, HIPPY USA requires that home visitors have 

a high school diploma or equivalent and that coordinators have a bachelor’s degree in early 

childhood education or at least 25 hours of training in the field while working toward a degree. 

Assistant coordinators must meet the same requirements as home visitors (have a high school 

diploma or equivalent), plus have some home visiting experience. Supervisors do not have to 

meet specific educational requirements but must be knowledgeable about HIPPY and attend 

annual training and professional development activities. As discussed later in this section, Parent 

Possible and the local agencies fulfilled these requirements while making some accommodations 

for the personnel filling these positions. 

In addition to structuring its workforce to account for sufficient and suitable personnel to scale 

HIPPY, respondents from the grantee, local agencies, and the intervention developer shared 

details about the training that personnel undertake to learn about and be able to implement 

HIPPY. According to these respondents, HIPPY USA requires extensive initial and ongoing 

training for all personnel involved in scaling HIPPY in an effort to ensure fidelity. To scale 

HIPPY in Colorado, personnel from local agencies take part in the required training, and Parent 

Possible offers its own annual training on HIPPY to provide additional support for home visitors 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

13

and coordinators. The trainings made available to different types of personnel involved in scaling 

HIPPY in Colorado are as follows: 

• Home visitor training. HIPPY USA requires a week of pre-service training for home 

visitors that is implemented using a train-the-trainer model—meaning that coordinators 

receive the training and then deliver it to the home visitors. (See the next bullet on 

coordinator training.) This training covers topics such as the HIPPY curriculum, group 

meetings, family recruitment and retention, and safety and data collection requirements.

Home visitors also receive a reference guidebook detailing HIPPY implementation.

Additionally, HIPPY USA requires that home visitors receive ongoing training while 

delivering HIPPY. In Colorado, home visitors receive this ongoing training from 

coordinators during weekly meetings in each site and on an ad hoc basis. While some of the 

material covered during weekly meetings is logistical and administrative in nature, training 

activities are also incorporated. For instance, coordinators and home visitors reported 

practicing the role-play activities during the weekly meeting that they were scheduled to 

conduct with parents that week. Additionally, home visitors reported that when they first 

started in the role, more experienced home visitors occasionally accompanied them on visits 

to support and model for them. 

• Coordinator training. In addition to covering material intended for the home visitors, the 

training that coordinators receive from HIPPY USA and Parent Possible covers material 

specific to their own role. New coordinators from all local sites implementing HIPPY take 

part in a week-long, pre-service training at HIPPY USA headquarters in Little Rock, 

Arkansas. Two trainings are offered each year, usually in the summer (because HIPPY is 

typically implemented during the school year). Coordinators also attend the two-day annual 

HIPPY Management Institute (HMI), run by Parent Possible. HMI covers topics specific to 

scaling HIPPY in Colorado. On an ongoing basis, coordinators also have monthly calls with 

one another and the program manager at Parent Possible, during which they receive updates 

from the grantee and discuss results from data collection and assessments. 

• Other training. Apart from HMI, Parent Possible holds an annual conference for all 

personnel, including those implementing HIPPY, involved in any of the home visiting 

programs that it oversees in the state. The conference offers training opportunities on a wide 

variety of topics related to home visiting, including building resilience for home visitors and 

parents, and innovative techniques to use with families, such as mindfulness meditation 

practices for young children. HIPPY USA also holds a national leadership and training 

conference every other year that all coordinators and personnel from state offices must 

attend; supervisors and home visitors may also attend. Additionally, new supervisors must 

attend the first three days of the HIPPY USA training for new coordinators, where they 

receive training on HIPPY requirements. Finally, if home visitors have a specific training 

need that neither the grantee nor HIPPY USA can fulfill, the grantee will seek out outside 

resources to provide that training on an ad hoc basis. For example, grantee personnel said 

that home visitors have attended an external training on maintaining appropriate professional 

boundaries with families.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

14

2. Facilitators and challenges to structuring and training the workforce

“When there is that communication, that trust, that 

relationship... that is something that I’ve seen in 

strong program[s].” 

– Grantee personnel member

Layers of workforce support, training, and oversight appeared to facilitate scaling. 

According to Parent Possible and local agency 

personnel, having a state-level program manager 

as well as coordinators provides layers of 

support, training, and oversight for the local 

agencies. A grantee personnel member explained

that communication and trust among personnel 

have appeared to strengthen implementation of 

the intervention, and coordinators agreed that the support they receive from the state office is 

critical to ensuring smooth implementation. Home visitors also said that leaders in their local 

agencies have strongly supported HIPPY and helped them find resources or connected them to 

relevant services that might be helpful for participating families. Also, the HIPPYCorps 

Associate position was added in 2019 with an intention to take over some responsibilities related 

to CNCS reporting and compliance requirements from the program manager. According to 

grantee personnel, this change would allow the HIPPY program manager to better focus on 

bigger-picture issues around implementation, such as developing new training offerings at HMI.

Promising practice 

in workforce

The HIPPY intervention 

encourages adult 

professional growth and 

development, while 

meeting the needs of 

current participants, by 

engaging home visitors 

who are former 

participants or come 

from the same 

communities and 

cultural contexts.

Engaging personnel from the communities being served was 

perceived as a strength by grantee and local agency 

respondents. Parent Possible and local agency personnel 

reported engaging adult home visitors from the communities 

being served, as expected by the HIPPY intervention. Multiple 

respondents said that recruiting home visitors and coordinators

who come from the same background as the participants was 

important, because it fosters closer connections between the 

personnel implementing HIPPY and the families being served. 

As of October 2018, up to 70 percent of home visitors within 

some local agencies were former participants, according to 

grantee personnel. A good home visitor candidate, according to 

one grantee personnel member, is “someone who’s been in the 

program... [They should] have characteristics of the 

community—[they] live in the community, speak the language, 

and have cultural knowledge” about the community. 

Grantee personnel reported helping agencies meet requirements from the intervention 

developer in ways that also boosted personnel capacities. Parent Possible personnel reported 

guiding agencies to help them operationalize and meet the personnel education requirements 

from HIPPY USA. For example, in Colorado, not all AmeriCorps members serving as home 

visitors have a high school diploma or equivalent, as required by HIPPY USA—to address this 

discrepancy, members are asked to pursue their diploma or equivalent when they receive their 

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award at the end of their first year of service. (The Education 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

15

Award is a post-service benefit for members who complete an approved term of AmeriCorps 

service, meaning a certain number of assigned service hours. They can use it to pay for

educational expenses at eligible postsecondary institutions or to repay qualified student loans; its 

dollar amount is equal to the maximum amount of the U.S. Department of Education Pell Grant 

and might change year to year.) Additionally, to engage a sufficient number of experienced 

personnel in coordinator roles, Parent Possible advises that coordinators working toward their 

bachelor’s degree should achieve it by their third year in the coordinator position. Grantee 

personnel members said that it was important to allow for flexibility in meeting this requirement 

because HIPPY encourages professional and personal growth on the part of coordinators (some 

of whom are former HIPPY participants). 

The grantee reported exploring additional ways to support personnel implementing 

HIPPY. In addition to training, in October 2018, Parent Possible was exploring ways to augment 

supports for personnel implementing HIPPY. For example, in 2018 and 2019, Parent Possible 

pilot tested an initiative called Enhanced Home Visiting, which provided mental health and 

wellness supports for home visitors. The initiative engaged 12 home visitors across two sites, 

including one site that enlisted AmeriCorps members. Grantee personnel developed it in 

response to hearing from some home visitors that they felt overwhelmed by the position and the 

challenges that some of their families faced, and after observing turnover among home visitors. 

In addition to helping home visitors cope with the challenges they might experience while 

implementing HIPPY, such as establishing appropriate boundaries with the families they work 

with, Parent Possible intended for the initiative to help retain home visiting personnel. The 

initiative included bringing in a mental health consultant to meet with home visitors and holding 

off-site retreats to encourage bonding among personnel. The grantee sought and received local 

funding for this initiative and, as of September 2019, was reviewing evaluation results for the 

initiative and planning to seek funding to expand mental health services for home visitors to the 

other local agencies. When developing the initiative, the grantee factored CNCS requirements 

into the initiative’s design. Specifically, grantee personnel said they reviewed CNCS guidelines 

and requirements to ensure that activities were considered allowable for AmeriCorps members, 

meaning that the activities could count toward service or training hours. 

Challenging supervisory dynamics between home visitors and coordinators has also led the 

grantee to provide technical assistance to at least one local agency to support home visitor 

retention. During the September 2019 telephone interviews, grantee personnel members shared 

that, in the prior year at one local agency, nearly all of the AmeriCorps members serving as 

home visitors resigned before the end of their service year due to dissatisfaction with oversight 

and administrative procedures at that agency. (Examples of these procedures included having the 

home visitors enter service data when they had not previously had to do so, and making other 

changes that led to a perception of less autonomy and trust being given to home visitors.) To 

avoid further challenges with retention in that site, grantee personnel members said that they 

provided training and worked with the local agency to establish new procedures in a way that 

would avoid discontent among the new home visitors who replaced the ones who had left.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

16

Grantee and local agency personnel reported some challenges while recruiting, engaging, 

retaining and, when necessary, replacing AmeriCorps members serving as home visitors. 

When discussing challenges, some grantee personnel said that local agencies must balance the 

need for obtaining financial resources to support personnel with the amount of time spent 

fulfilling requirements attached to those funding sources. In particular, grantee personnel said 

that one local agency in Colorado used to enlist AmeriCorps members to deliver HIPPY but 

decided to stop using the AmeriCorps program in 2017. According to grantee personnel, the 

personnel at this local agency felt that the time spent monitoring adherence to CNCS policies, as 

well as fulfilling CNCS reporting obligations, could be used in other ways. Instead, personnel 

from that local agency sought funding to employ paid staff to conduct home visiting for HIPPY.

According to grantee personnel, some of the other local agencies that enlist AmeriCorps 

members to serve as HIPPY home visitors would otherwise face difficulty finding resources to 

pay home visitors. These agencies have taken advantage of the partnership with the AmeriCorps 

program, which provides personnel to undertake community service efforts, but also imposes 

reporting and other requirements that agencies must fulfill. 

Additionally, grantee personnel said they would appreciate more support from CNCS to help 

them engage and retain AmeriCorps members. Having more specific guidance on enrollment 

requirements, offering recruitment materials for potential AmeriCorps members in languages 

other than English (especially Spanish), and offering more flexibility in selecting background 

check vendors were all cited as areas of potential improvement in how CNCS could better 

support the grantee in meeting AmeriCorps program requirements and conducting its grant 

activities. In particular, grantee personnel reported that the background check process was 

challenging to conduct in rural areas; due to the lack of vendors, the process can take several 

weeks and sometimes AmeriCorps member applicants withdraw because of the lengthy process. 

Parent Possible and local agency personnel also expressed some challenges in retaining

AmeriCorps members, saying that some end up leaving AmeriCorps service for employment in 

order to earn more money than the living stipend provides. One Parent Possible personnel 

member described the challenge with recruiting potential service members, saying, “When we 

try to recruit [members], and we try to explain that this is not a job, this is a community service 

opportunity, that they’re going [to get] a living allowance, in their minds they were like, I’m 

working... They receive the living allowance, and for some of them, it’s like, ‘Well, but if I go 

[work at] McDonald’s, I’m going to get paid more than this’—but that’s a job and this is not.” 

Additionally, during the study team visit in October 2018, one grantee personnel member

reported that new AmeriCorps program rules make it challenging to replace AmeriCorps 

members who end their service agreements shortly after they start their service.19 According to 

this respondent, new AmeriCorps members used to have an approximately four-week window at 

the start of their service when they could assess the suitability of the position. Under the changed 

19 The grantee respondent did not mention the AmeriCorps policy that can be used under some circumstances to 

refill slots that AmeriCorps members have vacated. More information on this policy is in CNCS (n.d.).
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

17

rules, the time window has been shortened to about one week. The grantee personnel member 

thought that this shorter amount of time was not sufficient for a member to develop a good 

understanding of his or her role. Further, according to the grantee personnel member, when local 

agencies do not replace AmeriCorps members who leave, the families whom that member served 

are reassigned to existing home visitors or coordinators, which can strain workloads. 

Grantee and local agency personnel said that the number of personnel for scaling might not 

be sufficient, or that personnel did not have sufficient time to fulfill their responsibilities. 

Several home visitors and coordinators agreed that home visitors face challenges in fulfilling all 

of their responsibilities for service delivery within the service hours allotted to them, and that 

many felt that the living stipend is not sufficient for the time served. To address these challenges, 

grantee personnel sought ways to relieve burden off home visitors, as well as coordinators, as 

discussed in later sections of this chapter (see the sections on “Systems to monitor 

implementation and facilitate communication” and “Use of data systems and evaluation during 

scaling”). According to Parent Possible and local agency personnel, these efforts have been 

somewhat successful in alleviating time pressures on home visitors. 

Parent Possible and local agency personnel reported difficulties in providing appropriate 

training. Because home visitor training relies on a train-the-trainer model, providing 

standardized training to HIPPY home visitors throughout Colorado has proven challenging, 

according to grantee and local agency personnel. One centralized training is not possible due to 

funding limitations and the long distances that some local agency personnel would have to travel 

to attend a central training; the grantee has addressed this by encouraging local agencies that are 

located near each other to hold group trainings together. Additionally, if a home visitor starts at a 

non-standard time (for example, the middle of the school year), he or she might have to read the 

training materials to become trained—which is not as effective as attending an in-person 

training, according to a grantee personnel member. Furthermore, although the HIPPY USA 

training is viewed as helpful, some home visitors stated that the training lacks contextual 

information that affects HIPPY delivery at their particular site—for example, guidance about 

how to collect data to meet funder requirements. To address this concern, Parent Possible added 

training content to HMI to respond to gaps in local home visitors’ understanding, such as data 

collection requirements for local funders. Accordingly, coordinators said that they valued the 

local HMI training more than the HIPPY USA training because it was more specific to their local 

context. Finally, although home visitors appreciated the ongoing training, they also said that

balancing the time for training with delivering intervention services to participants could be 

difficult. 

B. Systems to monitor implementation and facilitate communication

In studying the conditions under which evidence-based interventions are implemented, research 

on implementation science has identified specific supports that can help to ensure an 

intervention’s fidelity, which is important to scaling. Lack of fidelity can be a reason why 

interventions might produce good outcomes when initially implemented but then fail to yield the 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

18

same outcomes when scaled (Breitenstein et al. 2010). 

Robust systems that track measures related to fidelity 

and have processes in place to address challenges that 

arise can help ensure that an intervention maintains the 

beneficial outcomes that it produced before scaling. 

According to implementation science research, a 

system to foster communication among organizational 

personnel, as well as personnel from partner agencies, 

can be another critical support for fidelity during 

scaling. Frequent communication should be maintained 

so that leaders can constructively intervene, address 

challenges, and strengthen implementation supports on 

an ongoing basis (Nord and Tucker 1987). Researchers 

have found that better adherence to intervention 

components might be related to implementing agencies 

demonstrating high quality communication between 

stakeholders, including well-specified channels of 

communication, common goals, and clear lines of 

authority (Mihalic and Irwin 2003; Fagan et al. 2008; 

Fagan and Mihalic 2003). 

Accreditation 

HIPPY USA monitors fidelity to 

HIPPY through an accreditation 

process. The accreditation 

standards include:

• Whether the required personnel 

structure is in place

• Use of the current curriculum

• Use of role-play for home 

visitors and parents

• Length and setting of home 

visits

• Number and content of parent 

group meetings

• Whether personnel meet 

education and experience 

requirements

• Use of performance evaluation 

for personnel 

• Number of families per 

caseload

1. Monitoring implementation

a. Approach to monitoring implementation 

Personnel from Parent Possible and the local agencies reported participating in an 

implementation monitoring process led by the intervention developer, HIPPY USA, which 

monitors fidelity to HIPPY through its accreditation process. According to our document review, 

HIPPY USA provides to implementing sites an accreditation document that specifies everything 

a site needs to understand and implement the intervention as designed. For example, the 

document specifies that home visits must last at least 45 to 60 minutes, that at least six parent 

group meetings must be held each year, and that coordinators hold weekly trainings for home 

visitors. 

To conduct the accreditation process, a trainer from HIPPY USA visits HIPPY sites every three 

years to observe a team meeting and two home visits, and to review a selection of families’ case 

files. Visited sites either receive accreditation or are asked to change some aspect of 

implementation by using an improvement plan. (See the box on this page for a list of some of the 

criteria that HIPPY USA assesses during accreditation visits.) If a site is asked to improve, 

HIPPY USA might follow up with another visit; if a site does not meet the expectations of its 

improvement plan, it could lose accreditation and no longer be allowed to implement the 

intervention. HIPPY USA might also conduct additional visits if a site is experiencing challenges 

or needs additional technical assistance, which might occur during a transition between 

 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

19

coordinators, for example. New sites also receive two training and monitoring visits from HIPPY 

USA during their first year of operation. 

“Model fidelity is particularly important... to 

maintain [the] outcomes that are expected from 

HIPPY.”

 – Intervention developer personnel member

Detailed implementation and fidelity 

materials, such as curriculum guides, fidelity 

logs, and training manuals, are provided to 

sites by HIPPY USA to facilitate 

implementation monitoring. HIPPY USA 

personnel stated that implementation training 

and fidelity monitoring go hand-in-hand: According to one HIPPY USA personnel member, 

“Model fidelity is particularly important...to maintain [the] outcomes that are expected from 

HIPPY and to ensure that each individual family has the good experience that we would expect 

from HIPPY.” As of October 2018, HIPPY USA personnel reported that they were planning to 

deepen support for fidelity monitoring by providing additional training materials to sites and

conducting at least one more visit in the three years between accreditation visits. HIPPY USA 

personnel also planned to offer additional in-person or virtual assistance to new sites in their 

second year of operation leading up to the accreditation visit. 

Personnel from Parent Possible and the local agencies also reported conducting activities related 

to implementation monitoring. The grantee evaluates each local agency annually in writing; 

these evaluations are based on output and outcome data reported by each agency, as well as 

discussions with agency personnel. The evaluation report identifies areas where the sites have 

challenges and suggests steps for addressing those challenges. As an example, in a recent 

evaluation, grantee personnel reported identifying that data entry was especially burdensome on 

home visitors and suggested ways to alleviate that burden. Additionally, to help local agencies 

identify ways to improve performance, Parent Possible’s program manager visits local agencies

at least twice per year. During these visits, the program manager discusses implementation and 

performance data with the coordinator, sometimes including home visitors in the discussions. 

The program manager also observes a home visit. The program manager then sends the local 

agency a report that identifies areas in which it is doing well and areas for improvement. The 

manager also seeks to gather input on the coordinator’s performance from the home visitors and 

shares that input back with the coordinator. Each local agency tracks service receipt data in 

preparation for the accreditation visits and the annual evaluation. For example, each agency 

monitors whether families are visited each week; if a family misses two visits, the home visitor 

must explain why. 

As part of its implementation monitoring, HIPPY USA also requires ongoing personnel 

performance evaluations. In its list of accreditation criteria, HIPPY USA requires coordinators to 

provide a certain number of hours of reflective supervision20 or three performance evaluations to 

home visitors each year. Supervisors are also required to meet with the coordinators at least three 

20 Reflective supervision is defined as “the process of examining, with someone else, the thoughts, feelings, actions, 

and reactions evoked in the course of working closely with young children and their families,” according to a 

training delivered at HIPPY USA’s 2016 national conference (Brown 2016). 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

20

times per year. For the performance evaluations of home visitors, coordinators must observe one 

home visit and provide feedback to the visitor. In addition to HIPPY USA’s requirements, CNCS 

requires two annual performance evaluations of AmeriCorps members. 

b. Facilitators and challenges to monitoring implementation

Streamlining processes for implementation monitoring appeared to help local agencies 

achieve efficiencies. The entities involved in scaling HIPPY in Colorado appeared to have a 

well-structured fidelity monitoring procedure, but grantee and local agency personnel reported it 

was burdensome due to the amount of time involved. To address this challenge, Parent Possible 

took steps to reduce the time dedicated to implementation monitoring. For example, in the past, 

according to a grantee personnel member, coordinators had to complete five separate personnel 

performance observation forms to meet funder requirements. However, Parent Possible helped 

local agencies streamline the observation process by developing a combined template that 

covered all of the criteria several of its funders required. 

Local agencies reported that they would like more time and supports for implementation 

monitoring. Although grantee personnel reported attempting to streamline monitoring processes, 

local agency personnel still said they faced challenges meeting monitoring requirements. For 

example, even though the performance observations were combined, grantee and local agency 

personnel reported that scheduling them could still be difficult due to the number of home 

visitors. More generally, although the grantee was able to provide some support to local 

agencies, grantee respondents said that an ongoing challenge was helping local agencies build 

internal personnel and infrastructure procedures for implementation monitoring. 

2. Communication systems

a. Approach to using communication systems 

The grantee, local agencies, and the intervention developer engage in regular and frequent 

communication to support fidelity during HIPPY scaling, including the following meetings: 

• Parent Possible personnel reported participating in monthly calls held by HIPPY USA for all 

of the organizations, called state offices, which oversee HIPPY implementation in each state. 

During these calls, Parent Possible and the other state offices overseeing HIPPY 

implementation share information that might be relevant to one another about what is 

happening in each of their sites. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

21

• Parent Possible personnel hold monthly calls with local 

agency coordinators, and quarterly calls with the directors of 

the local agencies. During the calls with coordinators, 

grantee personnel cover information from a newsletter 

distributed by HIPPY USA; the newsletter typically 

highlights different HIPPY sites and participating families 

and personnel across the country. It also shares information 

intended to be helpful to personnel in all sites, such as details 

about upcoming training events. Grantee personnel and 

coordinators also discuss data collected from sites to support 

fidelity; site-level data are discussed during the quarterly 

calls. The grantee program manager also reported discussing 

implementation challenges with local agency supervisors and directors as needed. Guest 

speakers sometimes join these calls to deliver professional development to coordinators; for 

example, outside guests have joined the calls to provide training on safety during home visits 

and the use of reflective supervision. 

Promising practice 

in communications 

Frequent and regular 

telephone meetings are 

held between the 

grantee overseeing 

scaling and its national 

partner, as well as the 

grantee and the local 

agencies.

• Finally, the data manager at Parent Possible holds a call with coordinators from sites that 

receive funding from the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) 

program.21 During these calls, the data manager discusses data on HIPPY service receipt to

ensure that sites are meeting MIECHV’s requirements. 

Additionally, weekly meetings for coordinators and home visitors are part of the intervention and 

aim to meet training and administrative needs to support fidelity. During a typical weekly 

meeting, the coordinators and home visitors discuss the intended curriculum activity for that 

week and practice delivering that activity through role-play exercises. 

b. Facilitators and challenges involving communication systems 

“Anytime we have any questions about anything, 

we can email or [call] the state office and they get 

back with us as soon as possible.” 

– Local agency personnel member

Local agency personnel reported that strong communication practices facilitated scaling.

Coordinators and home visitors identified several efficient communication channels and 

practices that help them serve families and 

scale HIPPY. For example, coordinators 

agreed that grantee personnel were 

responsive and accessible. One coordinator at 

a local agency said, “We don’t just meet once 

a year and then don’t talk to each other for 

the rest of the year. Anytime we have any 

21 Through the MIECHV program, the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB), within the Health Resources 

and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, funds states, territories, and tribal 

entities to develop and implement evidence-based, voluntary programs that aim to improve maternal and child 

health, prevent child abuse and neglect, encourage positive parenting, and promote child development and school 

readiness. For more information, see the MCHB website at https://mchb.hrsa.gov/maternal-child-healthinitiatives/home-visiting-overview. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

22

questions about anything—whether it’s about a home visitor and we don’t know exactly how to 

deal with the situation or we have questions on data, whatever it might be—we can email or we 

can call them at the state office and they try to get back with us as soon as possible.” Several 

home visitors agreed that they appreciated having open communication with their coordinators. 

All grantee and local agency personnel also have access to a virtual message board called 

Basecamp. One grantee personnel member said that posting messages to Basecamp allows her to 

avoid having to email the same information multiple times to different people or groups of 

people. Home visitors and coordinators can also post messages with questions or share 

information with the wider group. Additionally, home visitors highlighted a mobile group chat 

feature used by two local agencies that allows home visitors to quickly connect with one another 

if they have questions while in the field. 

Grantee personnel identified some challenges with receiving timely and sufficient guidance 

from certain partners during scaling. Specifically, grantee personnel members identified some 

challenges with aspects of its communication with HIPPY USA and CNCS. First, in October 

2018, grantee personnel said that HIPPY USA personnel had been slower than in the recent past 

to respond to questions, which was attributed to turnover at HIPPY USA. New personnel 

appeared to not know the answers to questions and needed to ask around before getting back to 

the grantee. Second, a grantee personnel member said that Parent Possible sometimes struggled 

to help local agencies implement guidance from CNCS, such as the new rules on the amount of 

time AmeriCorps members had to assess the suitability of their position, partly because that 

guidance was reported to have been issued very shortly before it had to be implemented. 

C. Funding and other resources to support scaling

Providing sufficient and sustainable funding as well as other nonfinancial resources can be 

critical to intervention scaling. According to findings from implementation science research, 

providing adequate resources might be one of the most significant factors influencing 

implementation of an intervention (Wenter et al. 2002). Resources can include a range of 

supports such as funding, physical space, and intervention materials (Klingner et al. 2001, 2003; 

Coolbaugh and Hansel 2000). Organizations might want to ensure the availability of such

resources well before implementation begins so that they can develop and put into place any 

needed space, equipment, and other supports (Metz and Albers 2014). 

1. Funding for HIPPY scaling

a. Approach to funding intervention scaling 

To support the scaling of HIPPY, personnel from Parent Possible and the local agencies reported 

patching together different funding streams. Major funding sources include the CNCS grant, the 

MIECHV program, Head Start funds, state resources, and local philanthropic funders. The local 

agencies receive some funding directly, while other funding is disbursed through Parent Possible 

as an intermediary. One of Parent Possible’s primary functions, as the state office facilitating 

HIPPY’s scaling, is to look for funding to sustain HIPPY, sometimes in conjunction with local 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

23

agency directors, according to grantee personnel. Funders seeking to scale HIPPY in new 

locations or with new populations have also sometimes approached Parent Possible. For 

example, as of September 2019, grantee personnel members reported that Parent Possible was in 

the early stages of working with a legislator to develop statewide legislation that would dedicate 

funding to expand home visiting interventions, including HIPPY, throughout Colorado. 

Additionally, a housing authority in the state had reached out and offered funding to scale 

HIPPY in its public housing units, although this partnership had not solidified as of October 

2018. 

Grantee personnel also discussed other strategies to seek funds to support HIPPY that have led to 

adapting the intervention or emphasizing different parts of it. For example, the grantee pursued 

and was awarded the Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five by proposing to develop 

and pilot test an adaptation of HIPPY with nonparental caregivers. Another fund-seeking 

strategy the grantee used when it originally sought funding to scale HIPPY—and has continued 

to use—is promoting the ways in which HIPPY benefits parents, rather than just the benefits to 

children that HIPPY USA has historically promoted. “[Parent Possible personnel] actually 

brought HIPPY to Colorado because they thought it would be a workforce program, and really 

focused on the home visitors,” explained one grantee personnel member. The grantee has 

continued to promote the professional development opportunities for adult home visitors when 

seeking funding for HIPPY, including from CNCS. 

b. Facilitators and challenges involving funding for intervention scaling

Grantee personnel reported that adhering to the 

requirements of different funders is a key challenge in 

scaling HIPPY. Parent Possible personnel reported trying to 

address this challenge by assisting local agencies in meeting 

funding requirements. In some instances, funder requirements 

have led the grantee and local agencies to make adaptations to 

the intervention—for example, Head Start requiring longer 

home visits than HIPPY requires. One grantee personnel 

member said that the grantee and local agencies weigh the 

usefulness of the potential resources along with the potential 

effect of any adaptations: “It’s good money for the programs but 

it’s a lot of data, additional data and requirements. It’s a lot of 

pressure on the sites... It’s this feeling of, do we need to change 

the model because of the funding?” Respondents also reported 

that some funders require local agencies to meet benchmarks 

that grantee personnel considered to be unrealistic. One grantee personnel member reported a 

“lack of understanding from those funding the program.” For example, one funding source 

requires a specific minimum number of home visits with families per month, but because 

families often reschedule, this expectation is not always met. Grantee personnel reported that the 

Lesson learned on 

funding

Funders might require 

adaptations to an 

intervention. Meeting 

such requirements can 

be challenging and 

require implementers to 

weigh the usefulness of 

the funding against the 

potential effect of the 

adaptation.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

24

funding officers did not seem to believe that the challenge of families frequently rescheduling or 

missing home visits was valid. 

Grantee personnel reported that funding availability sometimes led them to seek out 

additional resources or change scaling plans. Funding for scaling HIPPY is not assured year to 

year, which has led to uncertainties in implementation. For example, in October 2018, one 

grantee personnel member said that the funding that it usually receives from MIECHV was 

reauthorized at a lower level than in previous years. “Federal funding could be great money for 

the programs, but we just cannot say that it’s going to be forever,” the respondent said. The 

decrease in funding from MIECHV led the grantee to seek out additional funding to make up the 

revenue shortfall. The timing of funding availability has also led to either condensed or overly 

long planning periods for scaling. Grantee personnel reported that starting a new HIPPY site 

typically takes about six months of planning time, and because funding is available on varying 

schedules, some local agencies have experienced either compressed or extensively long planning 

periods, which can lead to implementation challenges such as having sufficient time to train 

personnel, market HIPPY, and recruit participants, or being able to retain committed personnel 

while waiting for intervention activities to start up. 

2. Other resources

a. Approach to leveraging other resources 

According to personnel from the grantee, local agencies, and intervention developer, Parent 

Possible and other partners help to coordinate the provision of materials and physical space for 

HIPPY implementation. With regard to materials, HIPPY USA provides sufficient intervention 

materials—such as the curriculum and training documents for home visitors and coordinators—

to facilitate intervention scaling. As HIPPY USA requires sites to use its materials for service 

delivery, grantee and local agency personnel reported easily acquiring the materials needed 

through purchasing copies or printing electronic versions from HIPPY USA’s online resource 

library. Coordinators follow guidance from the online resource library to prepare curriculum 

packets for each home visitor to use with families. Parent Possible orders the curriculum for local 

agencies to use. For each age the program seeks to engage (from 2 to 5 years of age), home 

visitors use 15 to 30 packets of activities; a set of 9 children’s books, with each book used for 

three to four weeks of visits; and a set of 20 manipulative shapes. In addition to these curriculum 

materials, grantee personnel reported that some local agencies receive in-kind donations of 

supplies, such as crayons and children’s scissors, that home visitors can use with families. 

With regard to physical space, grantee and local agency personnel reported few needs, as most 

HIPPY activities occur at participants’ homes. When scaling in new sites, physical space is 

occasionally needed to accommodate monthly parent group meetings and meetings among 

coordinators and home visitors. In some sites, home visitors also need a place to review and 

complete data collection forms and to store participant files.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

25

b. Facilitators and challenges to leveraging other resources 

Grantee and local agency personnel reported that materials for implementing the 

intervention are helpful, relevant, and appropriate. Materials that support home visitors, such 

as training materials and documents for the sites on topics such as the intervention itself, 

workforce needs, recruitment and retention, and marketing to guide implementation, are “very 

helpful,” according to one local agency personnel member—the materials “literally tell you what 

to do, what to expect from the families, how to guide families.” Because some home visitors are 

primarily Spanish speaking, materials on training and data collection have also been translated 

into Spanish by the grantee. As a result, some local agencies do not even use the original, 

English-language materials. 

Finding suitable physical space, according to grantee personnel, was reported to be a small 

challenge during scaling. Because most HIPPY activities occur in home settings, Parent 

Possible has had few needs for physical space. Some local agency personnel reported struggling 

to find space for meetings or storing participant files but have accommodated as necessary (for 

example, by holding coordinator and home visitor meetings at public libraries). One grantee 

personnel member characterized the need to find space as a minor challenge: “It’s not a reason to 

not run the program, but it’s a stressor. The worst case [scenario] is just to keep the curriculum in 

boxes in the corner, and find a place to meet—if it’s not in the agency, well, let’s go to the 

library.”

D. Use of data systems and evaluation during scaling

Data systems can be used to track, measure, and store information about program 

implementation. These systems typically include a financial data collection and reporting system 

as well as a management information system to record the processes and outcomes of the 

intervention’s core components. According to findings from implementation science research, 

using data systems is critical to monitoring an intervention’s implementation because these 

systems can alert personnel as to whether changes are necessary to improve the intervention’s 

effectiveness or efficiency (National Implementation Research Network n.d.). 

In addition to drawing on data and data 

systems to monitor scaling in an ongoing way, 

intervention developers and organizations 

scaling those interventions can use evaluation 

to assess whether scaled evidence-based 

interventions are maintaining their intended 

effects—that is, producing the same beneficial 

outcomes that were produced before scaling (Bangser 2014). Furthermore, multiple studies of the 

same intervention in different scaling contexts can be used to generate evidence about whether 

the intervention can produce similarly positive results while being scaled across new or adapted 

settings and populations. 

Materials from the intervention developer “literally 

tell you what to do, what to expect from the 

families, how to guide families.” 

– Local agency personnel member
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

26

1. Data systems 

a. Approach to using data systems

According to grantee personnel, local agencies collect common data indicators for 

implementation as required by HIPPY USA, and Parent Possible helps facilitate this data 

collection. For data storage, HIPPY USA recommends a data system called Efforts to Outcomes 

(or ETO) for sites to use, but sites have flexibility in the system they use depending on 

preferences and funding requirements. Parent Possible personnel reported that it has a waiver 

from HIPPY USA to allow it to use Visit Tracker, a 

commercially available data system that local agencies had 

already been using to record data for other programs. For 

accreditation and monitoring purposes, Parent Possible collates 

data from the local agencies and reports those data to HIPPY 

USA, which collects similar data from all state offices. 

Promising practice 

in data systems 

Although HIPPY USA 

requires sites to report 

standardized data, it 

gives sites flexibility in 

the systems they use 

so that they can meet 

requirements from 

external funders.

Parent Possible and the local agencies collect implementation 

data from families with children ages 3 to 5 using parent 

surveys,22 the Bracken School Readiness Assessment, and the 

Parenting Interactions with Children: Checklist of Observations 

Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO), a parent–child interaction 

assessment. The selection of assessments used to measure 

HIPPY implementation in Colorado stemmed from a variety of requirements. For example, 

HIPPY USA requires implementing sites to administer a school readiness assessment but does 

not require a particular one. Parent Possible chose to use the Bracken assessment to meet this 

requirement. All sites in Colorado also administer the PICCOLO assessment. A funder requested 

use of the PICCOLO, which was initially only administered at those sites that received resources 

from that funder, but Parent Possible expanded its use to all sites because the data collected 

through it were deemed to be broadly applicable. Due to funding requirements, some sites are 

also administering additional assessments, such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, though 

these are not used across all sites in the state. 

As of September 2019, the grantee had not identified a standardized instrument to assess 

outcomes for families with 2-year-old children; the intervention had just been adapted to serve 

this population in the year prior. (The grantee said that the Bracken assessment, which is used 

with older children enrolled in HIPPY, cannot be used with this population because it is intended 

for children ages 3 and older only.) Grantee personnel said that HIPPY USA had shared a list of 

potential assessment tools, including the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, for use with families 

that have 2-year-old children, and had left it up to each of the state offices throughout the country 

to determine which assessment to use. As of September 2019, grantee personnel were planning 

22 The parent surveys are administered before and after parents participate in the intervention and consist of several 

items intended to assess parental outcomes in areas including literacy activities, confidence in parenting activities, 

knowledge of child development, and knowledge of healthy behaviors (Lopez and Bernstein 2016).
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

27

to discuss the options and select an assessment from the list provided by HIPPY USA in the near 

future. 

Grantee personnel said that these data are primarily used to monitor performance by conducting 

assessments on a pre-post schedule to assess change in families’ behaviors and other 

characteristics. Parent Possible provides each local agency with a site-level report summarizing 

these data, which are also discussed during monthly calls. In addition to monitoring performance, 

grantee personnel said that data are used to set output goals—for instance, local agencies can use 

the amount of time that parents are reading to their children pre-intervention as a benchmark to 

develop goals on time spent reading to children post-intervention. Data are also used to identify 

families that might need additional assistance, such as families that are missing scheduled 

meetings or that seem to be falling behind on completed activities. In addition, the grantee and 

local agencies reported using the results of the parent surveys to determine topics to discuss 

during the monthly parent meetings. 

b. Facilitators and challenges involving use of data systems 

Flexibility in data systems has been a facilitator during scaling, according to grantee 

personnel. Parent Possible personnel reported that they appreciated HIPPY USA’s flexibility in 

how data are reported and with the system used to store data. For example, with the waiver to use 

Visit Tracker instead of ETO, the grantee and local agencies avoided a potentially difficult data 

system transition. One grantee personnel member also appreciated having consistency in the data 

storage and reporting systems across all of the home visiting programs being implemented by 

Parent Possible and the local agencies, some of which also implement a different home visiting 

intervention called Parents as Teachers.23 Moreover, while HIPPY USA supported ETO as of 

October 2018, HIPPY USA personnel said that they were seeking to improve aspects of its data 

system recommendations. In particular, they wanted to explore whether ETO was indeed 

sufficiently user-friendly and met sites’ needs for capturing outcome data. 

Grantee and local agency personnel reported that collecting, storing, and entering data can 

be challenging for home visitors and coordinators. Data on HIPPY implementation are 

collected with paper forms and entered manually by home visitors or coordinators, a process that 

grantee and local agency personnel said can be burdensome and introduces opportunity for 

errors; they also said that data collection can be duplicative based on funding requirements. In 

some sites, coordinators and assistant coordinators enter data to relieve home visitors of that 

duty, but according to one coordinator, local agencies still have “an immense data burden.” To 

reduce the time spent on data entry and address duplication issues, as of the time of the process 

23 Parents as Teachers is another evidence-based (according to criteria established by the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services) home visiting intervention that works with families from pregnancy until their child enters 

kindergarten. It aims to “provide parents with child development knowledge and parenting support, provide early 

detection of developmental delays and health issues, prevent child abuse and neglect, and increase children’s 

school readiness.” See the Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness website for more information: 

https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/effectiveness/Parents%20as%20Teachers%20(PAT)%C2%AE/In%20Brief. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

28

study visit, Parent Possible was trying to blend data collection forms, similar to how it blended 

the performance evaluation requirements. 

Grantee and local agency personnel also reported frustrations with the substance of the 

assessments as well as the data storage system. For example, a grantee personnel member 

expressed concern about the validity of some instruments, saying that some indicators on which 

home visitors collect data are not informative, such as how often parents read newspapers. The 

data system, Visit Tracker, was also reported to be frustrating to use because it was built to 

collect data for Parents as Teachers rather than HIPPY; thus, some of the data entry fields do not 

align with the measures collected through the HIPPY assessments. Additionally, Parent Possible 

personnel reported needing to provide considerable technical assistance on how to use the system 

to personnel at the local agencies. 

A best practice in scaling is having a system or process in place to check data accuracy (National 

Implementation Research Network n.d.), but according to our process study interviews, the 

grantee does not currently have such a system or process, and neither does HIPPY USA. If data 

are found to be missing, the grantee data manager reported alerting coordinators and asking them 

to complete data entry, but checks on whether data are accurate were not evident. 

Grantee and local agency personnel reported mixed opinions on the extent to which home 

visitors used and understood data. One grantee personnel member said that it was unclear 

whether all of the local agencies were sharing assessment results with home visitors, and that it 

could be challenging explaining the data to some of the home visitors who have lower education 

levels. At the same time, the respondent considered it important 

to help home visitors understand the data because their 

comprehension could lead to buy-in, thereby motivating them to 

more accurately and comprehensively collect data. To address 

this concern, as of October 2018, the grantee had created 

snapshots using site-level data and circulated these to the local 

agencies, as well as discussed results during calls with 

coordinators. However, grantee personnel said they did not 

know the extent to which coordinators used the snapshots, and 

some home visitors said they have never seen the results of 

compiled data. Grantee personnel also said that home visitors do 

not always seem to understand the value of the data they collect 

and report. In particular, some home visitors initially did not 

understand the value of the PICCOLO assessment and began to 

support its use only after seeing growth in the quality of parent–

child interactions between the pre- and post-tests, according to 

grantee personnel. As of September 2019, grantee personnel said they are still exploring different 

options, such as using infographics, for reporting and sharing data with both home visitors and 

coordinators, as well as with external stakeholders, such as funders. These changes are intended 

Lesson learned in 

data systems

It can be challenging to 

communicate results 

from data in a 

comprehensible way to 

home visitors. Despite 

this, one grantee 

personnel member 

thought that helping 

home visitors 

understand results 

could foster buy-in for 

collecting and entering 

high quality data.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

29

to make the presentation of the data more attractive, as well as help different groups of people, 

particularly home visitors, better understand results from data assessments.

Grantee and local agency personnel also reported increasing pressures from funders to 

collect more data than in the past. While scaling HIPPY, grantee personnel said that in recent 

years, pressure from funders to collect additional data has increased, particularly pre-post 

assessment data. In addition to the amount of data requested, funders want to see evidence that 

the intervention has produced positive outcomes, according to grantee personnel. To respond to 

these requests, some local agencies have started collecting additional measures— for example, 

sites started using the Bracken assessment to respond to funder requests for information on childlevel outcomes. Some local agencies have also hired data managers to relieve the pressure of 

analyzing and reporting results off coordinators. 

2. Use of evaluation 

a. Approach to using evaluation 

In continuing to build evidence for HIPPY, HIPPY USA supports ongoing evaluation efforts of 

the intervention, and Parent Possible undertakes some of its own evaluation efforts. In October 

2018, Parent Possible personnel reported partnering with a third-party evaluator, called the Omni 

Institute, which created monitoring reports that synthesized implementation and output data from 

the parent surveys and other assessments. As 

of September 2019, to have more control over 

its own analysis and reporting, Parent 

Possible took over all monitoring 

responsibilities, meaning that a grantee 

personnel member creates all of the 

monitoring reports. Grantee personnel said 

that the in-house personnel member has had 

to learn the data systems in-depth, which has been challenging at times. However, grantee 

personnel said that the change has been beneficial because grantee personnel members can now 

explore and manipulate the data themselves, rather than having to ask a vendor to run reports. 

“Implementing something with one [local agency] 

could be beneficial, because if it doesn’t work, we 

don’t spend the time with everybody [at other 

sites].” 

– Parent Possible personnel member

For its CNCS grant, Parent Possible is assessing outcomes for AmeriCorps members—

specifically, to understand the types of educational and professional outcomes that home visitors 

without a high school diploma experience after receiving an AmeriCorps Education Award. 

Grantee personnel said they hope to use this information to better support home visitors’ 

aspirations for education and future employment. At the national level, as of October 2018, 

HIPPY USA personnel said they were focused on supporting and encouraging research that 

would add to the evidence base already demonstrating HIPPY’s effectiveness. Most evaluations 

of HIPPY are independent from HIPPY USA but are incorporated into sites’ implementation 

agreements with the intervention developer, which regularly asks for and compiles results from 

those studies. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

30

Parent Possible personnel also reported participating in evaluations of adaptations—led by the 

intervention developer—intended to improve upon HIPPY, as well as evaluating an enhancement 

to support its personnel. In 2018 and 2019, the grantee and several of the local agencies 

participated in the evaluations of the pilots of (1) HIPPY for Little Learners for families with 2-

year-olds and (2) HIPPY for Families, Friends, and Neighbors for nonparental caregivers. 

Additionally, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, Parent Possible was pilot testing a mental 

health initiative to better support personnel implementing HIPPY. To understand whether the 

initiative had its intended effect, in October 2018, Parent Possible personnel reported that they 

were planning to review survey data collected from the home visitors. “Implementing something 

with one [local agency] could be beneficial, because if it doesn’t work, we don’t spend the time 

with everybody [at other sites],” explained one Parent Possible personnel member. In September 

2019, Parent Possible personnel said they were seeking funding to expand the initiative to other 

local agencies because, based on anecdotal evidence, they expected the initiative’s evaluation 

results to be positive. The grantee had also proposed to present a description of the pilot initiative 

and findings from the evaluation at the then-upcoming HIPPY USA conference (in spring 2020). 

b. Facilitators and challenges involving use of evaluation 

Grantee personnel reported several constraints that appeared to hinder use of evaluation to 

support scaling. Although Parent Possible personnel said they are interested in undertaking 

efforts to confirm the evidence base on HIPPY, they reported facing time and resource 

constraints in being able to do so. As noted in the data systems section, local agency personnel 

are more focused on collecting implementation and output data through assessments and surveys, 

as opposed to outcome or impact data. One grantee personnel member reported wanting to link 

participant data across the three assessments that it uses in all sites—the parent surveys, the 

Bracken, and the PICCOLO—to tell a more 

cohesive story about outcomes at the 

participant level, as well as using 

administrative data to compare outcomes of 

HIPPY participants and nonparticipants. 

However, the respondent said the grantee does 

not have the financial or personnel resources to conduct those types of analyses; in particular, the 

personnel member who is dedicated to internal monitoring does not have sufficient time to spend 

on these types of analyses given her usual responsibilities. At the same time, Parent Possible 

personnel reported that funders have asked that evaluations continue to be incorporated into their 

grants to ensure that the intervention is producing positive outcomes under replication. One 

grantee personnel member said, “I think when you’ve got different evaluation requirements or 

reporting needs or just additional training needs... capacity is an ongoing struggle.” Despite 

resource constraints, grantee personnel reported working with local agencies to fulfill evaluation 

requests. 

“I think when you’ve got different evaluation 

requirements or reporting needs or just additional 

training needs... capacity is an ongoing struggle.” 

– Parent Possible personnel member

Additionally, while Parent Possible personnel reported trying to identify areas for improvement 

on an ongoing basis, they also said that personnel face constraints that prevent them from 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

31

conducting more formal improvement processes. For example, each year at the HMI event for 

coordinators (discussed earlier in this chapter), Parent Possible and local agency personnel said 

that attendees discuss what did and did not work well in the past year, as well as possible 

solutions to identified problems. According to these respondents, however, time constraints can 

hinder local agency personnel from regularly reviewing and digesting data-based reports that 

could be used for making improvements. 
This page intentionally blank for double-sided copying.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

33

IV. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 

In Colorado, Parent Possible is scaling an evidence-based home visiting intervention—HIPPY—

by both replicating it to reach more families and adapting aspects of the intervention to address 

the needs of the population being served as well as funder requirements. While scaling HIPPY, 

Parent Possible and the local implementing agencies have drawn upon supports such as each 

organization’s workforce, implementation monitoring and communication systems, funding and 

other resources, and data systems and evaluation to varying degrees. In this chapter, we highlight 

key findings in light of what we learned about the scaling of HIPPY by Parent Possible.

• Multiple levels of implementation support aid in scaling. Three levels of support were 

reported to be critical to scaling HIPPY in Colorado. First, the intervention developer, 

HIPPY USA, supports the scaling of HIPPY by serving as both a training and technical 

assistance provider as well as a fidelity assessor. HIPPY USA provides virtual and in-person 

guidance and seeks to ensure fidelity through accreditation visits that are used to rate how 

well sites are conforming in implementing critical aspects of HIPPY. Second, Parent 

Possible, the CNCS-funded grantee overseeing Colorado sites, also aids in scaling by 

providing training and technical assistance locally as well as support with finding and 

securing funding and other implementation resources. Third, coordinators and home visitors 

reported that personnel at their host organizations champion HIPPY—even those not 

involved in the day-to-day execution of it, such as local agency directors. 

• The grantee and local agencies appeared to benefit from flexibility on the part of the 

intervention developer in being able to meet scaling requirements with small 

modifications. Although HIPPY USA highly prioritizes intervention fidelity, personnel from 

the grantee and local agencies reported benefiting from being able to make minor 

adjustments to some of HIPPY USA’s implementation recommendations. For example, 

though HIPPY USA recommends using ETO for data management, the grantee was already 

using a suitable alternative (Visit Tracker) and was allowed to keep using it. This flexibility 

allowed for reasonable accommodations for the local agencies while still maintaining overall 

intervention consistency. 

• In scaling HIPPY with AmeriCorps members, the grantee and local agencies have been 

able to meet HIPPY USA’s personnel requirements but have faced some challenges 

with achieving and maintaining a sufficient workforce to scale the intervention. Parent 

Possible and the local agencies recruit former participants to serve as AmeriCorps members 

and take on home visiting roles to deliver HIPPY. Drawing upon aspects of the AmeriCorps 

program, the grantee has also helped local agencies meet personnel education requirements—

for example, by giving guidance that AmeriCorps members can meet HIPPY USA’s 

education requirements by using their Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards. Personnel from 

the grantee and local agencies viewed these approaches to building its workforce as 

implementation strengths. However, Parent Possible and local agency personnel also reported 

some difficulties recruiting and engaging AmeriCorps members, replacing members who 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

34

leave service early, and retaining members in service (as opposed to leaving for paid 

employment). Some grantee and local agency personnel also expressed frustrations with not 

having sufficient time or personnel to complete all of the responsibilities associated with 

implementing HIPPY.

• The grantee has led or participated in various forms of training and communication 

that support scaling. The grantee, intervention developer, and local agencies weave together 

in-person and virtual communication to support the scaling of HIPPY. In-person training at 

HIPPY USA’s national headquarters and in Colorado, technical assistance visits conducted 

by the grantee, and accreditation visits conducted by HIPPY USA all appeared to be critical 

to ensuring fidelity. At the same time, using newsletters, telephone meetings, a virtual 

message board, a smartphone messaging app, and an online resource library reportedly allow 

for easy access to guidance from the intervention developer, Parent Possible personnel, and 

local agency coordinators, as well as assistance from peer home visitors. 

• While the intervention developer’s national training is intended to ensure fidelity, the 

grantee has developed and holds training to facilitate scaling within the local context.

The intervention developer seeks to ensure that all sites around the country receive the same 

information about what HIPPY is and how to scale it through its national training at HIPPY 

USA headquarters. In Colorado, though, the grantee and local agencies perceived a need for 

additional training that was specific to the local context. The grantee responded to this need 

by creating for coordinators a statewide training, offered annually, that helps agencies 

standardize its scaling of HIPPY locally. Both the national and in-state trainings support 

scaling by addressing fidelity needs, while the latter focuses on information that is needed 

only by the Colorado sites, such as data collection requirements from local funders. 

• Limited resources make it difficult for the grantee to use data for program 

improvement and conduct evaluation studies. Personnel from the grantee shared that they 

face time and resource constraints that have prevented them from regularly reviewing data 

for program improvement purposes as well as conducting evaluations to inform HIPPY 

scaling and bolster evidence of the intervention. Day-to-day implementation needs, as well as 

lack of funding, prevent them from pursuing data-informed program improvements or 

rigorous evaluation studies, despite requests for the latter from funders. However, the grantee 

still seeks to identify areas for improvement and assess data on participant outcomes through 

less formal or rigorous methods. 

Parent Possible’s scaling of HIPPY reveals both successes and challenges in replicating and 

adapting an evidence-based intervention. This case study report, along with two companion case 

study reports about other CNCS-funded grantees, was intended to illustrate the various 

experiences that organizations attempting scaling might face (Eddins et al. 2020; Jones et al. 

2020). Using an implementation science lens, this report sought to help stakeholders understand 

the factors that might facilitate and hinder scaling, and the lessons learned by one particular 

grantee scaling an evidence-based intervention.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

35

REFERENCES

Bangser, Michael. “A Funder's Guide to Using Evidence of Program Effectiveness in Scale-Up 

Decisions.” New York: MDRC and the Growth Philanthropy Network, 2014. 

Bernfeld, G. A. “The Struggle for Treatment Integrity in a ‘Dis-integrated’ Service Delivery 

System.” The Behavior Analyst Today, vol. 7, no. 2, 2006, pp. 188–205. 

doi:10.1037/h0100086. 

Blase, Karen, and Dean Fixsen. “Core Intervention Components: Identifying and 

Operationalizing What Makes Programs Work.” Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of Human Services Policy, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, February 2013. 

Breitenstein, S. M., D. Gross, C. Garvey, C. Hill, L. Fogg, and B. Resnick. “Implementation 

Fidelity in Community-Based Interventions.” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 33, no. 2, 

2010, pp. 164–173. doi:10.1002/nur.20373. 

Brown, Michelle Mackin. “Reflective Supervision.” Presented at the HIPPY USA National 

Leadership Conference, Little Rock, AR, April 2016. 

Coolbaugh, Kathleen, and Cynthia Hansel. “The Comprehensive Strategy: Lessons Learned from 

the Pilot Sites.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

March 2000. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. “AmeriCorps State and National Policy 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).” n.d. Available at

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AmeriCorps_State_National_

Policy_FAQs.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2019. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. “Metadata Glossary.” 2016. Available at

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/

documents/GLOSSARY-Metadata%20Categories%20Definitions%20for% 

20Publication.pdf. Accessed July 31, 2019. 

Eddins, Katie, Mary Anne Anderson, Karen Needels, and Scott Richman. “Scaling the Birth and 

Beyond (B&B) intervention: Insights from the experiences of the Child Abuse Prevention 

Council (CAPC).” Report submitted to the Corporation for National and Community 

Service. Washington, DC: Mathematica, June 2020. 

Fagan, A. A., K. Hanson, J.D. Hawkins, and M. W. Arthur. “Bridging Science to Practice: 

Achieving Prevention Program Implementation Fidelity in the Community Youth 

Development Study.” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 41, no. 3-4, June 

2008, pp. 235–249. 

Fagan, A., and S. Mihalic. “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, vol. 31, no. 3, 2003, pp. 

235–253. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

36

Fixsen, D. L., K. Blase, K., A. Metz, and M. Van Dyke. “Statewide Implementation of EvidenceBased Programs.” Exceptional Children, vol. 79, no. 2, 2013, pp. 213–230. 

Fixsen, Dean, Sandra Naoom, Karen Blase, Robert Friedman, and Frances Wallace. 

“Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature.” Tampa, FL: University of South 

Florida, 2005. 

Franks, Robert, and Jennifer Schroeder. “Implementation Science: What Do We Know and 

Where Do We Go from Here?” In Applying Implementation Science in Early Childhood 

Programs and Systems, edited by Tamara Halle, Allison Metz, and Ivelisse Martinez-Beck. 

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 2013. 

Jones, Christopher, Daniel Friend, Mary Anne Anderson, Karen Needels, and Scott Richman. 

“Scaling the Reading Corps intervention: Insights from the experiences of United Ways of 

Iowa.” Report submitted to the Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Washington, DC: Mathematica, June 2020. 

Klingner, J., S. Ahwee, P. Pilonieta, and R. Menendez. “Barriers and Facilitators in Scaling Up 

Research-Based Practices.” Exceptional Children, vol. 69, no. 4, 2003, pp. 411–429. 

Klingner, J. K., M. E. Arguelles, M. T. Hughes, and S. Vaughn. “Examining the Schoolwide 

‘Spread’ of Research-Based Practices.” Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, 2001, 

pp. 2221–2234. 

Lopez, Amy, and Julia Bernstein. “Parent Possible: 2016 HIPPY Evaluation.” Report to Parent 

Possible, August 2016. Available at http://www.parentpossible.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/12/Hippy-Evaluation-Results-2016.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2019. 

Maxwell, N., and S.B. Richman. “Scaling Programs with Research Evidence and Effectiveness 

(SPREE).” The Foundation Review, vol. 11, no. 3, 2019, pp. 55-67. 

Metz, A., and B. Albers. “What Does It Take? How Federal Initiatives Can Support the 

Implementation of Evidence-Based Programs to Improve Outcomes for Adolescents.” 

Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 54, no. 3, supplement, March 2014, pp. S92–S96. 

Mihalic, S., and K. Irwin. “Blueprints for Violence Prevention: From Research to Real-World 

Settings—Factors Influencing the Successful Replication of Model Programs.” Youth 

Violence and Juvenile Justice, vol. 1, no. 1, January 2003, pp. 1–23. 

National Implementation Research Network. “Active Implementation Science and Practice.” 

Chapel Hill, NC: National Implementation Research Network, October 2016. Available at

https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/brief-1-active-implementation-practice-and-science. 

Accessed November 14, 2019. 

National Implementation Research Network. (n.d.). “Implementation Drivers.” Available at 

https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/module-2. Accessed September 19, 2019. 

Necoechea, Denise Marie. “Children At-Risk for Poor School Readiness: The Effect of an Early 

Intervention Home Visiting Program on Children and Parents.” Riverside, CA: University of 

California, Riverside, 2007. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

37

Needels, Karen, Daniel Friend, Scott Richman, Katie Eddins, and Christopher Jones. “Agency 

Guide for: Scaling Evidence-Based Interventions: Insights from the Experiences of Three 

Grantees.” Report submitted to the Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Oakland, CA: Mathematica, June 2020. 

Nord, W. R., and S. Tucker. Implementing Routine and Radical Innovations. Lexington, MA: D. 

C. Heath and Company, 1987.

Wenter, D. L., S. T. Ennett, K. M. Ribisl, A. A. Vincus, L. Rohrbach, C. L. Ringwalt, et al. 

“Comprehensiveness of Substance Use Prevention Programs in U.S. Middle Schools.” 

Journal of Adolescent Health, vol. 30, 2002, pp. 455–446. 
This page intentionally blank for double-sided copying.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

39

APPENDIX: PROCESS STUDY METHODOLOGY 

A. Overview of the process study 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) contracted with Mathematica in 

2016 to conduct the Scaling Evidence-Based Models (SEBM) project. The project is intended to 

deepen the agency’s understanding of evidence-based interventions and its knowledge base on 

scaling them. Through the SEBM project, Mathematica has (1) reviewed and evaluated research 

evidence on the effectiveness of AmeriCorps interventions that were funded in 2015 and 2016 

and Social Innovation Fund (SIF) interventions that were funded in 2010 and 2011,24 (2) 

assessed grantees’ plans for scaling, and (3) evaluated the readiness for scaling of CNCS-funded 

interventions that showed research evidence of effectiveness and recommended for further study 

the grantees and interventions that showed evidence of readiness for scaling.

As part of the SEBM project, Mathematica conducted a process study examining how three 

CNCS-funded grantees implementing interventions that Mathematica assessed to have evidence 

of effectiveness and to be ready to scale actually scaled their interventions. This process study 

was structured to identify the types of scaling that grantees undertook and describe how grantees 

drew upon organizational and implementation supports to facilitate scaling. This report presents 

a case study of one of three grantees included in the process study: Parent Possible, 

implementing Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) in Colorado. 

This appendix details the scaling definitions used for the project and the scaling readiness 

framework that informed grantee selection (Section B); the methods used to conduct the process 

study, including the grantee selection process (Section C); and the methodologies used to collect 

and analyze data for the process study (Section D). 

B. Defining scaling and the SEBM scaling readiness framework

To better understand how funders like CNCS and other stakeholders can foster the scaling of 

evidence-based interventions, Mathematica first operationalized the concept of scaling by 

identifying three types of scaling that can be pursued:25

24 AmeriCorps supports a wide range of local service programs through grants to address critical community needs, 

such as those pertaining to education, public safety, health, and the environment. SIF supported programs from 

2010 through 2016. SIF grants were used to fund community-based programs to address challenging social 

problems communities face in the areas of economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development. CNCS 

(2016, n.d.) provides a detailed description of these CNCS programs.

25 Mathematica adapted these definitions from Fixsen et al. (2005), a synthesis of implementation research 

published by the National Implementation Research Network. For example, Fixsen et al. (2005) defines 

“adaptation of the program” as “modifications that are made in a program to accommodate the context and 

requirements at an implementation site” and defines “replication” as the implementation of an intervention in new 

sites. Given these existing definitions, Mathematica defined “expansion” as the implementation of an intervention 

in the same site, with the same population, but serving more people. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

40

• Expansion extends the intervention to more people in the same target population in the same 

location. It requires that the intervention and the organization serve a larger number of 

participants with the same service quality and in a consistent manner with the intervention’s 

design. An example of expansion would be increasing the number of unemployed adults 

served at a work center by hiring five more job search specialists who will each serve 20 

more adults. 

• Replication extends the intervention for the same target population to a new location. It 

requires the intervention and the organization maintain service quality and fidelity to the 

intervention in the new location. An example of replication would be implementing a reading 

program designed for 5th graders in a new school district, city, and state, but serving the 

same target population of 5th graders.

• Adaptation extends the intervention to a new target population. It requires that the 

organization adapt the intervention in a way that maintains service quality. An example of 

adaptation would be modifying a parent training curriculum designed for mothers to include 

language that is more inclusive of fathers. 

Scaling is considered to be successful when the intervention (1) is replicated, expanded, and/or 

adapted, and (2) maintains or surpasses its beneficial impacts for participants after the scaling 

has occurred. Drawing on these definitions as well as research from implementation science, 

Mathematica then developed for the SEBM project a framework that identifies five conditions 

that indicate whether an intervention and the organization implementing it are ready for scaling 

(Exhibit 1). For example, the framework specifies that an intervention might be ready for scaling 

if it is well-specified. In the implementation science literature, this means that the core elements, 

or set of activities that is critical for achieving beneficial outcomes for the intervention’s 

participants, are made clear and that for each core intervention element, a description exists of 

the dimensions necessary to produce the intended outcomes (Blase and Fixsen 2013). (A 

comprehensive synthesis of the implementation science literature that supports the scaling 

readiness framework is available in Maxwell and Richman 2019). 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

41

Exhibit 1. Scaling readiness framework developed under the SEBM project

The first three conditions indicate whether an intervention might be ready to be scaled: 

• A well-specified intervention, consisting of a description of the content, mode of service 

delivery, intensity, workforce needs,26 and setting for each core element. A well-specified 

intervention also includes a definition of participation in and completion of the intervention. 

• A well-defined target population, consisting of a description of the population for which 

the intervention was found to be effective. 

• Implementation supports, consisting of a description of supports that can help ensure 

fidelity, such as an implementation monitoring team and performance benchmarks. 

Implementation supports also include a description of the procedures for putting the supports 

into action, such as describing the processes the monitoring team follows and a process for 

measuring performance benchmarks. 

The final two conditions indicate that an organization might be ready to scale an intervention: 

• Enabling context, consisting of a description of the presence of organizational and partner 

agency leadership and culture that supports the scaling effort. Enabling context is 

demonstrated with examples of ways that the organization is innovative and has improved 

upon past interventions, particularly in the face of implementation challenges. 

26 We use the terms personnel and workforce to refer to organization and partner personnel as well as AmeriCorps 

members who deliver intervention services.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

42

• Implementation infrastructure, consisting of a description of the organizational 

infrastructure, such as the workforce, materials, and physical space that support 

implementation.

The scaling framework was used to inform selection of the three grantees that participated in the 

process study, because CNCS and Mathematica sought to include interventions with 

implementing grantees that appeared to be ready to scale. We also collected data from the 

grantees included the process study using questions that were informed by the framework. This 

helped us understand whether the requirements for readiness for scaling were indeed present and 

sustained during implementation of each intervention. 

C. Grantee selection for the process study

Mathematica and CNCS used a multistage process to select the interventions and the grantees 

scaling them for inclusion in the process study. In the first stage, Mathematica reviewed the 

evaluation studies that grantees submitted to demonstrate evidence of their intervention’s 

effectiveness and grantees’ plans for scaling those interventions. Grantees submitted these 

documents to CNCS in 2015 and 2016 for AmeriCorps grantees and in 2010 and 2011 for SIF 

grantees. Mathematica used those documents to identify 17 interventions that CNCS grantees 

were scaling that demonstrated evidence of effectiveness. Mathematica identified these 

interventions by assessing whether the evaluation studies used rigorous research designs and had 

consistently favorable findings, and whether the intervention upon which the evidence was based

aligned with the proposed plans for the intervention during scaling. 

In the second stage, Mathematica developed and applied a scoring system to rank the 

interventions, and the grantee(s) scaling them, according to their readiness to scale. The scoring 

system used condition-level scores to operationalize each of the five conditions in the scaling 

readiness framework (see Section B). Mathematica identified eight interventions, associated with 

10 grantees27 that had relatively high scores and represented a mix of scaling types and 

intervention focus areas.28 

In the third stage, CNCS staff in the Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) conducted 

outreach and telephone screening interviews to learn more information about the eight 

interventions and 10 grantees. ORE staff reached out to the CNCS program officers, AmeriCorps 

State Commission administrative staff, and AmeriCorps National Direct staff who oversaw or 

interacted with each of the 10 identified grantees to understand any grant management issues or 

grantee capacity concerns that might preclude them from participating in the process study. 

Then, ORE staff contacted administrative personnel from the grantees via telephone, using a 

27 One recommended intervention was being scaled by three different grantees; other recommended interventions 

were being scaled by one grantee each.

28 Intervention focus areas are the topics in which CNCS concentrates its funding: disaster services; economic 

opportunity; education; environmental stewardship; healthy futures (including physical and mental health, 

substance abuse, and nutrition); and veterans and military families.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

43

protocol to collect information on the grantees’ reported progress toward their intervention 

scaling objectives, barriers and successes they had encountered when scaling, and their interest 

and ability to participate in the process study. One of the 10 grantees asked not to be included in 

the process study, indicating that it could not fulfill the necessary data collection activities 

associated with the process study. 

In the final stage, Mathematica used the information CNCS collected to develop criteria to 

identify three grantees as candidates for the process study. The selection criteria included grantee

size and project age, geographic location, intervention focus areas, types of scaling, reported 

successes and challenges with their scaling experiences, and reported efforts to date to codify 

lessons learned. After applying these criteria to the remaining nine grantees, Mathematica 

recommended three grantees, each implementing a different intervention, as candidates for the 

process study. Based on Mathematica’s recommendations and application of the criteria, CNCS 

ultimately selected three grantees to include in the process study, all of which agreed to 

participate in the study.

29 

At the time of selection into the process study, the grantees varied in the extent to which they 

appeared to fully operationalize the conditions of the scaling framework. The selected sample 

included grantees that had reported, during their initial screening interviews with CNCS, both 

successes and challenges in their scaling execution processes, resource planning issues, 

successes and difficulties generating community support, grant management concerns, and 

successful, mixed, and poor results on various aspects of scaling. Because CNCS did not select 

the grantees at random, and they were not representative of all CNCS grantees, the insights from 

the experiences of the three process study grantees and their partners cannot be interpreted as 

applicable to a broader set of CNCS-funded grantees or service providers. However, the 

grantees—and the interventions they were scaling—were considered to be some of the strongest 

in terms of readiness to scale, and ranged in features such as geographic location, intervention 

focus areas, types of scaling, and the length of time they had been scaling their interventions. 

Because of their scaling readiness strength and range of experiences, the findings from the 

process study allow us to draw lessons learned and illustrative practices that can help 

stakeholders understand the conditions that might facilitate intervention scaling. 

D. Methods for collecting and analyzing data for the process study 

1. Methods for collecting data for the process study 

Mathematica staff collected data from all three grantees selected for the process study during 

summer and fall 2018 and fall 2019. In summer 2018, Mathematica held pre-visit telephone calls 

with grantee personnel from all three grantees and reviewed grantees’ program documents. 

Mathematica staff then conducted two-day visits during October 2018 to each grantee as well as 

any partner organizations involved in scaling activities, and brief follow-up telephone interviews 

29 One of the grantees ultimately selected for inclusion in the process study differed from Mathematica’s 

recommendations. Based on its internal conversations, CNCS selected this grantee in light of its own research and 

funding priorities.
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

44

after each visit. In September 2019, Mathematica staff conducted 12-month follow-up telephone 

interviews with grantee personnel. 

During the visits to each grantee, members of the process study team conducted one-on-one or 

small group interviews with the following types of personnel: (1) the program manager who 

oversaw implementation of the intervention being scaled; (2) grantee executives, such as the 

executive director and deputy directors; (3) data managers from grantees; (4) any other personnel 

from grantees or partners directly involved in supporting scaling activities, including supervisors 

and managers of frontline personnel; (5) frontline personnel, including AmeriCorps members, 

who directly delivered the intervention being scaled; and (6) for this grantee and one of the other 

two grantees visited, personnel from the developer of the intervention being scaled. (The third 

grantee visited was scaling an intervention it developed itself.) 

Both individual and group interviews during the process study visits generally lasted 30 minutes 

to two hours. The study team held the most comprehensive interviews with the program manager 

for each grantee. These interviews covered all topics related to the five conditions in the scaling 

framework (that is, the presence of a well-specified intervention, a well-defined target 

population, implementation supports, an enabling context, and an implementation infrastructure); 

the type of scaling conducted by the grantee and its partners; and the factors that appeared to 

facilitate and challenge implementation and scaling. Interviews with other types of respondents 

were more limited in scope. During interviews with grantee executives, we focused on topics 

related to planning and funding for scaling, and the use of evidence of intervention effectiveness 

in planning scaling efforts. When speaking with other types of grantee personnel, we focused on 

topics related to their specific function—for example, we concentrated on data systems and 

evaluation efforts when interviewing data managers. When interviewing personnel more closely 

aligned to frontline operations, in both individual and group settings, we focused on topics 

related to direct service provision, implementation supports (such as training, communication 

systems, data systems, and implementation and performance monitoring), use of evaluation, and 

other factors that might facilitate or hinder scaling. When interviewing intervention developers, 

we focused on topics related to implementation supports, evaluation efforts, plans to innovate or 

improve the intervention, scaling efforts beyond the specific grantee visited, and other factors 

that might facilitate or hinder scaling.

The study team collected additional data from the grantees during the follow-up telephone 

interviews held in September 2019. The study team held these interviews with the grantee 

program managers and executives. Across the grantees, these interviews focused on changes that 

had occurred in scaling since the visit in October 2018, any successes or challenges associated 

with scaling that the grantees experienced, and clarifications about information collected during 

the October 2018 visits. 

2. Information used for the analysis of Parent Possible’s scaling of HIPPY 

We based the analysis for this report on information collected from Parent Possible and its 

partners, as summarized in the previous section. First, study team members reviewed documents 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

45

that could shed light on how Parent Possible executed scaling of the HIPPY intervention and the 

supports the grantee had in place to scale it. Examples of such documents include personnel 

manuals; human resource and communication protocols, such as personnel performance 

evaluation forms; performance and fidelity monitoring protocols, including the HIPPY USA 

accreditation worksheet; and summaries of results of participant assessments. The study team 

summarized the contents of these documents in a detailed write-up that also included notes from 

the data collection that took place during the process study visit (discussed below).

The study team then visited the grantee in October 2018. During the visit, we conducted one-onone or small group interviews with the following types of personnel: (1) the program manager 

who oversaw implementation of HIPPY; (2) the executive and deputy directors of Parent 

Possible; (3) a data manager from Parent Possible; (4) nine AmeriCorps members who served as 

home visitors (across the two local agencies visited); 30 (5) two coordinators who oversaw home 

visitors; and (6) three representatives from HIPPY USA, including the executive director, 

director of operations, and director of education and research. In total, we interviewed 18 

respondents during the visit. Exhibit 2 details the characteristics of 13 of the interview 

respondents; we were not able to secure information from 5 respondents (all of whom were 

AmeriCorps members).

Exhibit 2. Characteristics of those interviewed 

Respondent characteristic Response category Number of respondents

Type of position Grantee program manager 1 

Grantee executive 2 

Other grantee personnel 1 

Local agency frontline supervisors 2 

Local agency frontline personnel 9 

Intervention developer personnel 3 

Type of personnel AmeriCorps members 5 

Paid organizational personnel (from the 

grantee, the intervention developer, or 

local agencies)

13

Experience in current position Fewer than 12 months 1 

1 to 2 years 7 

3 to 5 years 3 

More than 5 years 2 

30 During one of the group interviews with home visitors, the respondents primarily spoke Spanish. During these 

interviews, one member of the research team translated between Spanish and English and, post-visit, translated the 

interview notes from Spanish into English. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

46

Respondent characteristic Response category Number of respondents

Experience with organizationa Fewer than 12 months 2 

1 to 2 years 6 

3 to 5 years 1 

More than 5 years 4 

Experience in the same type of work Fewer than 12 months 1 

1 to 2 years 4 

3 to 5 years 1 

More than 5 years 7 

Highest level of education Less than high school degree 2 

High school degree (including 

equivalency)

0 

Some college, no degree 1 

Associate’s degree 0 

Bachelor’s degree 5 

Master’s degree or above 9 

Gender Female 13

Male 0 

Race/ethnicityb Hispanic 7 

Asian/Pacific Islander American 0 

Black/African American 2 

Native American 0 

White 5 

Other 0 

Note: To preserve the confidentiality of respondents, in this report, all types of interviewed grantee 

personnel, including the program manager, grantee executives, and other personnel, are referred 

to as “grantee personnel.” 

a One respondent reported having 1 to 2 years of experience in her current position, but fewer than 12 

months experience with the organization. It is unknown whether the respondent had the same position 

with a different organization previously, or if the respondent answered one of the questions incorrectly.

b One respondent identified with two racial/ethnicity options, so the sum of respondents in this category is 

greater than 13. 

Finally, the study team conducted follow-up telephone interviews with Parent Possible personnel 

in September 2019. The study team held a three-hour interview (split into two parts) with the 

grantee program manager, and one 90-minute interview with the two grantee executives. 
Scaling insights: Parent Possible’s experience Mathematica

47

3. Analysis of collected data

We ensured accuracy and thoroughness of data collection in the following ways: (1) preparing 

standardized protocols that were tailored to each respondent type and to the intervention and 

grantee; (2) having both a senior and junior researcher conduct the visits and telephone 

interviews so that one team member could take notes while the other conducted interviews; (3) 

audio recording interviews and taking detailed, near-verbatim notes during interviews; and (4) 

having multiple study team members review and provide feedback on the interview notes as well 

as ask for clarifications on content when necessary and appropriate. 

After finalizing the site visit interview notes, study team members synthesized those notes into a 

detailed write-up based on a standardized template. The template grouped information according 

to (1) scaling readiness conditions; (2) the contextual factors that affect implementation and 

scaling; (3) the accomplishments, challenges, successes, and facilitators of scaling; and (4) the 

sustainability of scaling efforts. The write-up also included a checklist that summarized the 

intervention’s readiness for scaling in each of the five conditions of the scaling framework. 

Members of the study team reviewed these write-ups for completeness, thoroughness, and 

accuracy. Before visiting, the research team also developed detailed descriptions of each

intervention and each grantee’s scaling of it and asked the respective program managers to 

review and correct the description if needed. Study team members synthesized the follow-up 

telephone interview notes by organizing the notes by respondent and by the topics that aligned 

with the chapters and subsections of each of the case study reports. 

To conduct the analysis across all three grantees, the study team reviewed the grantee-specific 

write-ups to synthesize data according to the data collection topics of interest. (These topics 

related to the research questions and the ways that grantees were approaching aspects of the five 

conditions that indicate scaling readiness.) Because the study team conducted this analysis before 

the September 2019 follow-up telephone interviews, it and the resulting report (Needels et al. 

2020) were based on a more limited set of information than the analysis for the case study 

reports. 

For this report, the authors assessed the topic-specific information relevant to only Parent 

Possible from the analyses conducted with the data from the site visit and telephone interviews. 

The authors used these data to identify insights and takeaway conclusions that have the potential 

to be broadly applicable as CNCS seeks to support its grantees in their scaling efforts. Quotes 

from interview respondents also provided illustrative insights. A similar approach was used to 

analyze data for the two companion reports (Eddins et al. 2020; Jones et al. 2020), each of which 

provides in-depth insights about scaling using data from the two other grantees in the process 

study. 
This page intentionally blank for double-sided copying.
This page intentionally blank for double-sided copying.
Mathematica

Princeton, NJ • Ann Arbor, MI • Cambridge, MA 

Chicago, IL • Oakland, CA • Seattle, WA

Tucson, AZ • Woodlawn, MD • Washington, DC 

EDI Global, a Mathematica Company

Bukoba, Tanzania • High Wycombe, United Kingdom

mathematica.org