Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
DOI 10.1007/s10488-007-0121-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Implementation of Evidence-based Practice in Child Welfare:
Service Provider Perspectives
Gregory A. Aarons Æ Lawrence A. Palinkas
Published online: 5 April 2007
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract Implementation of evidence-based practices
(EBP) in child welfare is a complex process that is often
fraught with unanticipated events, conflicts, and resolutions. To some extent, the nature of the process, problems,
and solutions may be dependent on the perspectives and
experiences of a given stakeholder group. In order to better
understand the implementation process in the child-welfare
system, we interviewed comprehensive home-based services (CHBS) case managers who were actively engaged in
implementing an EBP to reduce child neglect in a state
youth services system. Six primary factors were identified
as critical determinants of EBP implementation: (1)
Acceptability of the EBP to the caseworker and to the
family, (2) Suitability of the EBP to the needs of the
family, (3) Caseworker motivations for using the EBP, (4)
Experiences with being trained in the EBP, (5) Extent of
organizational support for EBP implementation, and (6)
Impact of EBP on process and outcome of services. These
factors reflect two broader themes of attitudes toward or
assessments of the EBP itself and experiences with learning and delivering the EBP. Eventual implementation is
viewed as the consequence of perseverance, experience,
and flexibility.
G. A. Aarons (&)
Child & Adolescent Services Research Center, University of
California, San Diego, 3020 Children’s Way, MC-5033, San
Diego 92123-4282 CA, USA
e-mail: gaarons@ucsd.edu
L. A. Palinkas
Professor of Social Work, Anthropology and Preventive
Medicine,
School of Social Work MRF 339, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411, USA
e-mail: palinkas@usc.edu
Keywords Implementation Evidence-based practice
Child-welfare
Introduction
Repeated demonstration of the beneficial effects of evidence-based psychotherapeutic, case-management, and
pharmacologic interventions has not led to widespread
implementation of such interventions in usual care settings
(Jensen, 2003; Rotheram-Borus & Duan, 2003). Service
providers often rely upon non-evidence based practices in
providing services to children and families (Bickman,
Heflinger, Lambert, & Summerfelt, 1996). This gap
between usual care and evidence-based practice (EBP) is
characteristic of mental health services in general and has
been attributed to a number of factors including provider
attitudes toward adopting evidence-based practices
(Aarons, 2004, 2006; Aarons & Sawitzky, 2006), time and
resources of practitioners, insufficient training, lack of
access to peer-reviewed research journals, lack of feedback
and incentives for use of EBPs, flawed logic and assumptions behind the design of efficacy and effectiveness
research trials that fail to consider the complexity of realworld service settings, and inadequate infrastructure and
systems to support translation of EBP for real world
settings (Glasgow, Lichtenstein, & Marcus, 2003; National
Institute of Mental Health, 1999; Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001).
There is a critical gap in our understanding of barriers
and facilitators of EBP implementation (Aarons, 2005;
Burns, Hoagwood, & Mrazek, 1999; Garland, Kruse, &
Aarons, 2003; Glisson, 1992; Glisson, 2002; Hoagwood,
Burns, Kiser, Ringeisen, & Schoenwald, 2001) and little
literature exists on service provider perspectives on
123
412
actually implementing EBPs. The study of implementation
is also vitally important in determining both the effectiveness and sustainability of EBPs in real world settings.
For example, effectiveness of an EBP will likely be compromised if it is poorly implemented (Henggeler, Pickrel,
& Brondino, 1999) during the process of local adaptation
(Elliott & Mihalic, 2004). Poor implementation could lead
to a negative appraisal of EBP effectiveness when it is
failure of the implementation process rather than the EBP
that is responsible for poor outcomes. A recent qualitative
study in California with multiple stakeholders suggests that
EBPs found to be efficacious in controlled settings are
perceived as impractical or difficult to apply in real world
settings (Hurlburt & Knapp, 2003). The ability to understand the EBP implementation process (how something
happens) and implementation result (effect on the system,
providers, consumers) is critical to determining the likelihood that such practices will be tenable in complex real
world settings.
Child welfare systems present unique challenges to EBP
implementation in terms of the structure, processes,
workers, and service population. Child welfare systems are
typically highly bureaucratic in nature, and a high degree
of bureaucracy has been linked to poor service worker
attitudes toward adopting evidence-based practices (Aarons, 2004). Further, there are a number of common process factors (training, communication, supervision) that
take place across service sectors and types of services. In
child welfare, services must focus first on the protection
and well-being of youths; however, youth care is mediated
through parents and caregivers who may or may not be
amenable to receiving such services. There is a high degree
of variability in clients in regard to age of parents, parent
education level and cognitive ability, parent engagement in
services, age of children, and number of children in the
home. Thus, implementation may be impacted by system,
structural, process, and person factors. However, there has
been little empirical research to date on barriers and
facilitators to implementation of evidence-based practice in
child welfare, and even less that highlights the perspectives
of service providers on EBP implementation.
The purpose of the present study was to elucidate direct
service provider’s perspectives regarding factors that
influence implementation of an EBP in a child-welfare
system and to understand which factors might be modifiable in order to facilitate implementation of EBPs. The
context is a statewide implementation of SafeCare (SC)
(Gershater-Molko, Lutzker, & Wesch, 2003), an intervention designed to reduce child neglect among at-risk parents.
‘‘At-risk’’ is defined as having a report of abuse or neglect
filed with the state Office of Children’s Services. Training
of case managers in SC begins with five full-day interactive
training sessions. Consistent with the behavioral skill
123
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
orientation of the model, training involves a minimum of
didactic presentation and utilizes modeling of provider
skills by trainers, role plays of skills, and assessment of
initial skill acquisition with checklists. Training materials,
a training manual and a workbook have been developed
and used in training SC providers in the ongoing study. The
training model for SC is described in detail in Filene,
Lutzker, Hecht, and Silovsky (2005). During the second
phase of training and after completing the five full-day
sessions, the implementation of SC by case managers
is observed and coached by ongoing consultants (i.e.,
trainers) in the actual practice setting.
Methods
Participants
Participants in this study were fifteen case managers and
two ongoing consultants involved in the implementation of
SC and ongoing fidelity monitoring of the intervention.
Case manager participants were selected by maximum
variation sampling to represent those having the most positive and those having the most negative views of SC
based on results of a web-based quantitative survey asking
about the perceived value and usefulness of SC. At the time
this study was conducted, there were two ongoing consultants who were both included as interviewees. Demographic data is not presented in order to assure
confidentiality.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted over a twoweek period by an experienced doctoral level medical
anthropologist. An interview guide was designed to elucidate the experience of being trained and using SC with a
focus on identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation. However, not every informant provided information
on every topic since the intention was to allow informants
to elaborate or focus on issues he or she considered to be
the most important and on which he or she had an opinion.
Interview duration was approximately one hour.
Data Management and Analysis
All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed by a
professional transcriber. Transcriptions were reviewed and
checked for accuracy by at least one of the authors or a
research assistant. Using a methodology of ‘‘Coding
Consensus, Co-occurrence, and Comparison’’ outlined by
Willms et al. (1992) and rooted in grounded theory (i.e.,
theory derived from data and then illustrated by characteristic examples of data) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), interview transcripts were analyzed in the following manner.
First, the empirical material contained in the interviews
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
was independently coded by the project investigators to
condense the data into analyzable units. Segments of text
ranging from a phrase to several paragraphs were assigned
codes based on a priori (i.e., from the interview guide) or
emergent themes. Three randomly selected complete transcripts were independently coded by each investigator.
Disagreements in assignment or description of codes were
resolved through discussion between investigators and
enhanced definition of codes. The final list of codes, constructed through a consensus of research team members,
consisted of a numbered list of themes, issues, accounts of
behaviors, and opinions that related to organizational and
system characteristics that influence implementation of SC.
All transcripts were then coded by a trained research
assistant who met regularly with the first author to discuss
progress and resolve any coding discrepancies. With the
final coding structure, each investigator separately reviewed transcripts to determine level of agreement in the
codes applied. Second, based on these codes, the computer
program QSR NVivo (Fraser, 2000) was used to generate a
series of categories arranged in a treelike structure connecting text segments grouped into separate categories or
‘‘nodes.’’ These nodes and trees were used to examine the
association between different a priori and emergent categories, and to identify the existence of new, previously
unrecognized categories. Third, through the process of
constantly comparing these categories with each other, the
different categories were further condensed into broad
themes using a format that places EBP implementation
within the framework of organizational and system characteristics (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
413
positive statements regarding the comprehensive nature of
the EBP as evidenced by the statement ‘‘...it has all the
developmental information and everything. And I’m the
kind of person that likes that step-by-step type of thing
telling me what to do...’’ For many caseworkers the
structured approach was viewed as a positive aspect of the
model; however, some very experienced caseworkers reported that the structured approach was not needed because
the issues were already addressed as part of their interaction with their clients.
Acceptability to clients also focused on the content,
which was positively perceived. For instance, ‘‘...I’ve had
clients say that the health manual, for example, was very
helpful.... The Home Cleanliness, it opened their eyes in a
lot of ways, the services and the products that we provide
to increase home safety for the children...’’ The structured
approach also helped to frame the model as an aid and not
stigmatizing, although case managers had to frame it
appropriately for clients. Case managers also found the
intervention useful in facilitating communications with a
diverse range of families, ‘‘...I just have to say [to the
family], ‘Well we never know what kind of family that
we’re going to run into and how much they will understand. And it’s [the EBP] all made the same.’ So they’re
like ‘Okay’.’’ However, there were some clear negative
reactions and resistance to the EBP model. Some of those
interviewed expressed some resentment with the suggestion that there may be more effective ways to provide
services and that their good faith efforts to bring about
positive change with their clients might be less than optimal. For example one case manager stated: ‘‘I would rather
sacrifice the [EBP] being perfect than sacrifice the rapport
that I have with my clients with their other bigger issues.’’
Results
Six primary factors emerged as critical determinants of
EBP implementation in this study: (1) Acceptability of the
EBP to the caseworker and to the family, (2) Suitability of
the EBP to the needs of the family, (3) Caseworker motivations for using the EBP, (4) Experiences with being
trained in the EBP, (5) Extent of organizational support for
EBP implementation, and (6) Impact of the EBP on the
process and outcome of services. Each of these factors is
addressed below.
Acceptability of EBP to the Caseworker and to the
Family
Caseworkers generally reported a positive evaluation of the
content of the EBP. This is illustrated by the statement
that ‘‘...every time we do ...certain modules, especially
the parenting, I mean the help is good for anybody. So
that’s really informative, even for me...’’ There were also
Suitability of EBP to the Needs of the Family
The perception of suitability to the needs of the family was
seen as important and arose in the context of a number of
issues. For instance, caseworkers perceived SC to be more
appropriate and effective with families where the child was
recently returned to the home after having been removed
(i.e., reunification case) than in families where the children
have not been removed and participation in caseworker
involvement is voluntary (i.e., prevention case). According
to one of the caseworkers interviewed, ‘‘Reunification
cases, they’ve already messed up.... and they’re really
working towards wanting to get better.... So when we come
into the home, they’re just excited that we’re there....Voluntary, they really haven’t gotten in trouble yet and...they
just don’t want to cooperate very well...’’ Voluntary cases
are also called ‘‘prevention’’ cases where clients may not
have an actual charge filed. Still, a court mandate and in-
123
414
creased client motivation appear to aid the caseworker with
implementation of the model.
The age of parents and children was seen as an important determinant of perceived suitability of the intervention. Caseworkers were generally of the opinion that the SC
intervention was less appropriate for parents with older
children (e.g., 11 years of age or older). This issue was
raised by several of the caseworkers who commented on
the difficulty of implementing the intervention in households with older children. For example, ‘‘...Playtime is
like, I mean it’s not like you can sit there and watch a mom
hold a teddy bear in front of her baby and say, ‘‘goo-goo,
gah-gah.’’ You know? My kids [i.e., clients] are like 10
and 11.... At this point I just feel like what part of the
Parent Activity Training can I do? I can’t really do play
time. I can’t do bath time. I can’t do dress time...’’ Instead,
some of the caseworkers requested more information on
parenting teens. As was noted by one case manager, ‘‘...the
families that it’s not working with are the families that
have older kids.... And it’s like I start doing that training
and they’re just like yeah, yeah, no, no.... They’re just like
‘this is ridiculous’.’’ This situation presents a quandary for
case managers in that there may be reduced credibility with
clients where the intervention is clearly a poor fit - but it is
still required to be used.
Complexity of family problems also influenced the
perceived suitability of the EBP to the family’s and
client’s needs. Some caseworkers noted that the complex
nature of family problems and situations limited the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the EBP. As
described by one caseworker, ‘‘...we do run into problems sometimes where we may go into the family, the
families’ homes and they have other issues. I mean we
have to find a job immediately or we have to find
housing immediately and so we’re addressing those
things first. Or they’re in jail or they got thrown in jail,
so we’re addressing those issues first and then we go.
I’ve had a couple of cases where I can’t even touch on
the [EBP] stuff until we get everything else straightened
out...’’ Thus, the sequencing of an EBP in an array of
services may be an important concern because of other
competing demands.
For the case manager, the lack of fit between the EBP
and the family could cause ambiguity and discomfort in
providing services. For example, one case manager noted
that ‘‘...I do [the EBP] because I have to do it. And with
some families that’s the only reason I will do it... Because
like I told you, some of the families I just feel like they’re
very high functioning...’’ And once again the fit of the
model with family characteristics was a concern: ‘‘...But
there’s one family that I can think of that has like a 3-year
old and the rest of my families have 9 and 10-year olds,
16-year olds, 15-year olds.’’
123
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
Caseworker Motivations for Using the EBP
There were a number of motivations that impacted
implementation of the EBP including enhanced professional competence, perceived utility, fit with usual tasks
and duties, fit with one’s own experience as a parent, fit
with the mission of the organization, structure of the
intervention, and an organizing conceptual model for the
why and how of service delivery. Some case managers
were motivated to use the EBP because they felt that their
competence was enhanced by learning a new and evidencebased intervention. Case managers also evaluated the EBP
in regard to its perceived utility. However, this perspective
had to be garnered through actual experience with the EBP
rather than what was taught in training. As one case
manager stated, ‘‘I mean it’s required anyway. But when
you see the results of how it works, it makes you want to
continue to do it.’’
Another set of caseworker motives for using the EBP
was its fit with their own experience of providing services.
For instance, some caseworkers noted the fit between the
EBP and their usual duties, tasks and responsibilities as
demonstrated by the statement: ‘‘... I think I’ve always
done it. It just hasn’t always had a name or paperwork to go
with it...’’ This fits with a ‘‘common treatment elements’’
approach to providing services (Chorpita, Daleiden, &
Weisz, 2005) but with a focus on current practices that
might map onto elements of EBP models. Many caseworkers were motivated to implement the EBP because it
was consistent with their own experience as a parent. As
one participant observed, ‘‘... Well, if it worked for me, it
can work for them.’’ The EBP was also perceived to be
consistent with the mission of the organization. According
to one of the caseworkers, ‘‘...our whole goal is to provide
a safe, stable environment for the children and make sure
they’re cared for and their needs are met. And those are the
three main goals—home safety, health and the parent–child
interaction—of the model...’’ This comment illustrates that
notion of ‘‘innovation-values fit’’ (Klein & Sorra, 1996) in
that implementation may be facilitated when the EBP or
innovation fits the provider’s philosophy or approach to
provision of services.
Help for the Provider
A third set of motives for using SC related to what it was
able to provide for the individual caseworker. Case managers noted that the structured approach was helpful in
organizing the way services were delivered. For some, the
initial reluctance to implement the intervention was soon
overcome by the realization that SC helped to provide
structure to existing skills and services. For other caseworkers, the structured nature of the EBP model was seen
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
as helpful in organizing specific tasks and managing crises.
According to one of the ongoing consultants, ‘‘...The nice
thing has been having something to focus their attention on
that has steps. So that’s been a good thing to kind of
refocus for whatever crisis is going on and give them an
actual plan of attack.’’ The structured intervention also
provided a common language for case managers as well as
a context for why certain activities in the EBP were useful
and objectively driven, rather than being pejorative: ‘‘...so
we’re all on the same page, you know, I’m not doing my
own parenting per se technique with this family; I’m doing
[the EBP] Parent Activity Training...’’
The EBP was viewed positively by caseworkers because
of its flexibility or adaptability to some specific families
and situations. The ability to adapt the delivery, even
within the structured intervention was seen as an important
positive determinant of implementation. For example, one
case manager noted that ‘‘...I think it’s pretty flexible....
And I don’t do that word for word, because actually the
model doesn’t require that...’’ and also stated ‘‘...and you
can even adapt the role modeling to not make it quite so
anal and offensive. I mean you really can...’’ This adaptability was seen as very important in tailoring the EBP to
the needs and styles of the families that were being served.
Experiences with Being Trained in EBP
The process of training for the implementation of the EBP
was another theme that emerged from the data. For example,
the process of training and caseworker interaction with and
perception of trainers was critical in shaping their responses.
A sense of responsiveness was considered a positive aspect
of the training experience. One of the case managers noted
that the trainers ‘‘...have been really good in listening to us
and relaxing a little bit—changing the format so it’s not so
rigid...’’ However, there were concerns that the trainers did
not have a deep understanding of what it is like to actually
deliver services or that they were not real experts as was
summed up in the following response: ‘‘I think [the trainer]
lacks some social work skills...’’
Caseworkers were not passive recipients of the training
and engaged in internal evaluation of the training quality,
content and process. Earlier orientation and preparation
might have improved openness to training. For example,
one respondent stated that ‘‘...it would’ve probably done us
a world of good if we had had the book [training manual],
which we probably did and we didn’t know it. And
could’ve read about the research model first. And read that
maybe in advance, maybe like two weeks ahead of time to
know what the premise was behind it all.’’ However,
caseworker understanding of the rationale for implementation helped to promote buy-in for the model. While some
ambivalence was expressed, the following example
415
illustrates the positive perception of the model: ‘‘...that it
was research and that they thought that was one of the best
models out there... It’s cutting edge...’’
Extent of Organizational Support for EBP
Implementation
The data collected here reflected acknowledgement of
the importance of multi-level organizational support for
implementation and its impact on case manager perceptions.
For example, at the child welfare system level there was
perceived support for the EBP model in the statement
‘‘...DHS wanted the [Parent Activities Training] done with
this child...’’ At the agency level there was perceived
leadership support for implementation. For example,
‘‘...Yeah, they’re real supportive and the agency that we
work for, as far as they back us up and are there for us...’’ and
‘‘... Sometimes they’re way too supportive of [the EBP]...’’
At the supervisory level there was also support for the [EBP]
model. For example, ‘‘...[My supervisor] is always keeping
up. Where are you on it? Did you do the health/medical
[module]? And she/he believes that it’s a good program...’’
Direct leader communication supporting the EBP was
perceived as important: ‘‘... [My supervisor] and I have
discussed [Parent Activities Training] extensively, because
there were, even after the training, some areas where I wasn’t
quite positive on how to implement it. So we discussed some
real world examples.’’ This was also reflected in examples of
positive relationships with supervisors: ‘‘... I couldn’t have
lucked into a better [supervisor] if I would’ve handpicked
her. She’s very supportive of the [EBP] model...’’ Finally,
support from the ongoing consultants was valued: ‘‘...yeah,
I think [the consultants], all the people I work with believe
in it. And I think that’s very important.’’ Thus, leadership
support for the EBP at multiple system and organizational
levels supported implementation.
Impact of EBP on Process and Outcome of Services
Perceptions of the utility of the EBP varied markedly.
While some case managers stated that the model was
positive (e.g., ‘‘something solid, something that was
researched’’), others felt that the more structured EBP
hindered the ability of case managers to get their work
done in an efficient way. For example, it was reported that
‘‘...[the EBP] is inefficient because you’re so busy trying to
do it [the trainer’s] way. Because [my ongoing consultant]
goes off and reports [on me] and tells people. She/he writes
e-mails to the big hot dogs at [my agency]. And you don’t
want that because you want to keep your job.’’ This sense
of increased oversight and reduced job autonomy was seen
as a negative aspect of EBP implementation.
123
416
Another important theme was how well the EBP worked
with the service population. In regard to outcomes, there
were perceptions that the outcomes were indeed positive:
‘‘...Yeah, it’s working miracles for my families...’’ But
perceptions were circumspect and there was an understanding that the EBP may fit the needs of some families
better than others. For example, it was reported by one case
manager that ‘‘...with some families it works well. With
some families it’s actually less than great...’’ This suggests
ambivalence about the applicability of the EBP for the
entire service population. This is a common issue when
EBPs are moved from academic settings to real world
service systems where clients may have a more complex
range of characteristics, problems, and issues than intervention development samples.
Discussion
As identified above, provider perspectives on implementation represent six primary factors that fall into two
broader themes of attitudes toward or assessments of the
EBP itself and experiences with learning and delivering the
EBP. The implementation process was characterized by the
notion of reciprocal adaptation, that is, the perceived need
for the EBP to be adapted and the need for providers to
adapt their perceptions and behaviors to accommodate the
EBP. The EBP may need to be adapted to the context and
service populations while providers must learn and adapt to
the model. While there are adherents to the notion that no
adaptation of an EBP should be permitted, others suggest
that adaptation will and must happen to fit the EBP to the
local context or to fit the context to the EBP (Schoenwald
& Hoagwood, 2001). We propose that varying degrees of
both these perspectives characterize actual implementation
in real world service settings.
The results of this study suggest that the best laid plans
are but a part of the process of implementation. From this
perspective, implementation is viewed as an adaptive endeavor. It is unrealistic to assume that implementation is a
simple process, that one can identify all of the salient
concerns, be completely prepared, and then implement
effectively without adjustments. It is becoming increasingly clear that being prepared to implement EBP means
being prepared to evaluate, adjust, and adapt in a continuing process that includes give and take between intervention developers, service systems, organizations,
providers, and consumers.
Attitudes Toward or Assessments of EBP
We found two broad dimensions to attitudes or assessments
of EBP. The first is attitudes toward EBPs in general. In
123
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
this study, we found providers to be generally open to
EBPs or using new or innovative practices (Aarons, 2004).
It is also important to understand both individual provider
characteristics (e.g., personality, training, experience) as
well as the organizational context (e.g., supportiveness,
culture, climate) (Aarons, 2005). In regard to assessments
of the EBP, providers were likely to be concerned with
acceptability and fit with the needs and preferences of the
family. This concern brings to mind the Institute of Medicine’s (2001) definition of evidence-based practice that
includes a balance of the best research evidence, clinical
expertise, and consumer choice and preference. Rigid
implementation may not honor the spirit of this definition
(Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2006). The notion of the fit
of an innovation with the implementation context and
processes is supported in the broader organizational literature on implementation of innovation where an innovation
is congruent with the approach, values and methods of the
adopter, implementation climate will be enhanced along
with implementation effectiveness (Klein & Sorra, 1996).
Experiences with EBP
Experiences with EBP involve a range of concerns
including learning about the EBP, being trained in use of
the EBP, perceived organizational and leadership support—which sets the stage for implementation, and the
impact of the EBP on the process and outcome of case
management. Organizational support for implementation
can be found at multiple levels and is predictive of
implementation effectiveness (Klein, Conn, & Sorra,
2001). If the EBP enhances the process of engaging clients
and working with families, it is likely to be viewed more
positively. In addition, if the EBP is seen as being instrumental in attaining outcomes that are valued by case
managers (not just those of researchers or intervention
developers) there is likely to be greater acceptance and
more effective implementation of the EBP. For example, it
was noted that court mandates increase client motivation,
engagement, and compliance in the EBP thus supporting
implementation.
Although our understanding of EBP barriers and facilitators is limited by its focus on the perspective of case
managers on the front lines of service delivery in the childwelfare system, we were able to examine a perspective that
is often not assessed at an in-depth level. In addition, there
are a number of lessons to be learned from this study that
would be difficult to capture by more quantitative or
fidelity measures. Service providers have a complex and
difficult job. A myriad of work responsibilities occur in
concert with the implementation of an EBP. Productivity
and paperwork requirements are often at odds with service
provision. In addition, it is rare that a clinician or case
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
manger will deliver only one specific intervention. The
complexity inherent in a real world service population
generally does not allow for that. The results presented
above reflect struggles to provide services to a complex
service population. Service providers are also diverse in
regard to age, gender, race/ethnicity, education and training, and experience. In addition to the EBP being implemented, the professionals who provide services have
opinions, likes, dislikes, and preferences. Implementation
does not occur on a tabula rasa.
We also found that adaptation of an EBP does not refer
just to the desire or need to adapt an EBP to the local
context. Rather, adaptation can also take place in the
implementation context, and at the personal and interpersonal levels. At the contextual level, adaptation means that
the organizational context must be altered to accommodate
the EBP. This represents changes in daily routines, materials used, and productivity requirements. At the personal
level, adaptation is how the service provider adapts to the
use of the EBP. For example, ongoing consultants who
monitor and advise case-mangers were initially seen as
intrusive but later seen as coaches, resources, and aids in
providing services. This might be accomplished through
cognitive mechanisms of accommodation or assimilation
(Phillips, 1969). If neither accommodation nor assimilation
can be managed—then coping strategies must be used in
order to facilitate continued job stability in the work setting. However, if none of these can be successfully employed—then it is likely that turnover intentions will
increase and work performance will suffer. Indeed, it was
noted in this study that increased structure and oversight
reduced perceived job autonomy. At the interpersonal level, adaptation means that case managers must adapt to
new or changed interpersonal relationships. For example,
many EBPs have fidelity measures that may be completed
by providers, supervisors, clients, or by observers. In the
present study, fidelity is assessed by ‘‘ongoing consultants’’ who observe case managers in the field working
with clients. This is an example of a new interpersonal
relationship. Case managers also now have a more structured way of interacting with clients and this represents a
changed interpersonal relationship. Relationships with coworkers and supervisors may also change. For example if a
case manager does not embrace a new model but this is at
odds with a supervisor or co-workers, the interpersonal
dynamics of their work life will change. All of this might
be brought about by the implementation of the new service
model. It has been demonstrated, however, that organizational change itself can lead to increased staff turnover
(Baron, Hannan, & Burton, 2001) and this further complicates the implementation process.
One approach to implementation may be to take a
continuous quality improvement perspective (Bishop &
417
Dougherty, 2005; Uretsky & Wang, 2006). This perspective involves a cycle of planning, action, assessment, and
revision of plans and processes. In this way, the implementation process is a complex adaptive system (Bro &
Kragstrup, 2003; Barriere, Anson, Ording, & Rogers, 2002;
Jankowicz, 2000). This perspective views implementation
as an active process rather than a static outcome. Such an
approach values the experiences and input of all involved
stakeholders in order to make services more relevant,
efficient, and effective.
While empirical data about factors that facilitate or
impede EBP implementation efforts in human service settings is beginning to accumulate (Henggeler, Lee, & Burns,
2002; Morgenstern, 2000), it is clear that publishing evidence in the form of empirical studies, publishing guidelines based on evidence, or educating providers about the
evidence, are strategies that fail to move the majority of
providers beyond the threshold required to implement new
practices with fidelity (Backer, Liberman, & Kuehnel,
1986; Burns, 2003; Kroenke, Taylor-Vaisey, Dietrich, &
Oxman, 2000; Torrey et al., 2001). Systematic efforts, such
as those described in this study, work to address the need
for service change and the flexibility needed to effectively
implement EBPs.
Though some studies have found that providers desire
more training (Lehman, Greener, & Simpson, 2002), it is
unlikely that didactic training sessions alone will have a
lasting impact on services and lead to implementation with
fidelity. Simpson (2002) notes that lack of funds for
attending conferences is seen as a major barrier to effective
change in practice. However, the substantial organizational
research on transfer of training suggests that more longterm and comprehensive strategies are needed in order to
promote practice change (Cheng & Ho, 2001; Clarke,
2002; Dansereau & Dees, 2002). Insufficient resources
have been seen as a main barrier with peer support, quality
of supervision, and team meetings as facilitating or limiting
implementation (Kavanagh et al., 2003; Milne, Dudley,
Repper, & Milne, 2001). Studies in the physical health care
sector have shown that providers are often unable or
unwilling to implement EBPs or practice guidelines (Grol,
2001). Haynes and Haines (1998) suggest the use of multiple strategies including abstracting services, evidencebased clinical guidelines, incentives for better care systems, and increasing the effectiveness of quality improvement programs. Dixon and colleagues (Dixon et al., 2001)
address dissemination issues at the policy level (focus on
outcomes, cost-effectiveness, consumer satisfaction), clinician and program level (buy-in, work schedules, professional discipline, leadership, high caseloads, training
resources, reimbursements, attitudes, knowledge), and
consumer level (transportation, time, energy). Carpinello
and colleagues (Carpinello, Rosenberg, Stone, Schwager,
123
418
& Felton, 2002) suggest that a communicable vision,
implementing regulations regarding treatment, using
opinion leaders, developing ‘‘centers for excellence,’’ fiscal and regulatory changes, and performance based outcomes are needed. However, research on the impact of
such factors is currently minimal and results may be
equivocal. For example, only meager evidence has been
found for the effect of using local opinion leaders for
change in practice (Thomson O’Brien et al., 2003). However, leadership is associated with provider attitudes toward adopting EBPs in mental health service settings
(Aarons, 2006).
Comprehensive theories of EBP implementation should
take into account the exigencies of moving efficacious
interventions into real world service settings. This study
provides guidance on the perspectives of service providers
that highlights attitudes towards and experiences with EBP
as critical elements in the implementation process. Taken
along with findings from other studies, this represents a
new direction in the study of implementation of EBPs.
There is a systemic learning process that takes place during
implementation. Consideration of multiple levels including
the system, organization, provider, and consumer (Ferlie &
Shortell, 2001) is needed to improve the process and outcomes of EBP implementation.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Dena Plemmons, Ph.D. for
conducting field interviews and Tamiko Wong, B.A. for work on data
coding. We also thank the participant case managers and trainers for
their time and perspectives on implementation. This project was
supported by NIH grants: R01MH072961 and R24MH067377.
References
Aarons, G. A. (2004). Mental health provider attitudes toward
adoption of evidence-based practice: The Evidence-Based
Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Mental Health Services
Research, 6(2), 61–74.
Aarons, G. A. (2005). Measuring provider attitudes toward evidencebased practice: Organizational context and individual differences. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, 14, 255–271.
Aarons, G. A. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership:
Association with attitudes toward evidence-based practice.
Psychiatric Services, 57(8), 1162–1169.
Aarons, G. A. & Sawitzky, A. C. (2006). Organizational culture and
climate and mental health provider attitudes toward evidencebased practice. Psychological Services, 3(1), 61–72.
Backer, T. E., Liberman, R. P., & Kuehnel, T. G. (1986). Dissemination and adoption of innovative psychosocial interventions.
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. Special Issue:
Psychotherapy Research, 54(1), 111–118.
Baron, J. N., Hannan, M. T., & Burton, M. D. (2001). Labor pains:
Change in organizational models and employee turnover in
young, high-tech firms. American Journal of Sociology, 106(4),
960–1012.
Barriere, M. T., Anson, B. R., Ording, R. S., & Rogers, E. (2002).
Culture transformation in a health care organization: A process
123
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
for building adaptive capabilities through leadership development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research,
54(2), 116–130.
Bickman, L., Heflinger, C. A., Lambert, E. W., & Summerfelt, W. T.
(1996). The Fort Bragg managed care experiment: Short term
impact on psychopathology. Journal of Child & Family Studies,
5(2), 137–160.
Bishop, A., & Dougherty, R. (2005). Implementing CQI at the
healthcare provider level. Behavioral Healthcare Tomorrow,
14(1), 38–39.
Bro, F., & Kragstrup, J. (2003). From black box to complex
adaptive system. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health
Care, 21(1), 1.
Burns, B. J. (2003). Children and evidence-based practice. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 26(4), 955–970.
Burns, B. J., Hoagwood, K., & Mrazek, P. J. (1999). Effective
treatment for mental disorders in children and adolescents.
Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 2(4), 199–254.
Carpinello, S. E., Rosenberg, L., Stone, J., Schwager, M., & Felton,
C. J. (2002). New York state’s campaign to implement evidencebased practices for people with serious mental disorders.
Psychiatric Services, 53, 153–155.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). A review of transfer of
training studies in the past decade. Personnel Review, 30(1–2),
102–118.
Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., & Weisz, J. R. (2005). Identifying
and selecting the common elements of evidence based interventions: a distillation and matching model. Mental Health Services
Research, 7(1), 5–20.
Clarke, N. (2002). Job/work environment factors influencing training
transfer within a human service agency: Some indicative support
for Baldwin and Ford’s transfer climate construct. International
Journal of Training & Development, 6(3), 146–162.
Dansereau, D. F., & Dees, S. M. (2002). Mapping training: The
transfer of a cognitive technology for improving counseling.
Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 219–230.
Dixon, L., McFarlane, W. R., Lefley, H., Lucksted, A., Cohen, M.,
Falloon, I., et al. (2001). Evidence-based practices for services to
families of people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric
Services, 52(7), 903–910.
Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and
replicating effective prevention programs. Prevention Science,
5(1), 47–52.
Ferlie, E. B., & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Improving the quality of health
care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework
for change. Milbank Q, 79(2), 281–315.
Filene, J. H., Lutzker, J. R., Hecht, D. B., & Silovsky, J. F. (2005).
Project SafeCare: Replicating an ecobehavioral model of child
maltreatment prevention. In K. Kendall-Tackett & S. Giacomoni
(Eds.), Victimization of children and youth: Patterns of abuse,
response strategies. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute,
Incorporation.
Fraser, D. (2000). QSR NVivo NUD*IST Vivo reference guide.
Melbourne: QSR International.
Garland, A. F., Kruse, M., & Aarons, G. A. (2003). Clinicians and
outcome measurement: What’s the use? Journal of Behavioral
Health Services and Research, 30(4), 393–405.
Gershater-Molko, R. M., Lutzker, J. R., & Wesch, D. (2003). Project
Safecare: Improving Health, Safety, and Parenting Skills in
Families Reported for, and at-Risk for Child Maltreatment.
Journal of Family Violence, 18(6), 377–386.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t
we see more translation of health promotion research to practice?
Adm Policy Ment Health & Ment Health Serv Res (2007) 34:411–419
Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American
Journal of Public Health, 93 (8), 1261–1267.
Glisson, C. (1992). Structure and technology in human service
organizations. In Y. E. Hasenfeld (Eds.), Human services as
complex organizations (pp. 184–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Glisson, C. (2002). The organizational context of children’s mental
health services. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
5(4), 233–253.
Grol, R. (2001). Successes and failures in the implementation of
evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Medical Care,
39(8), 46–54.
Haynes, B., & Haines, A. (1998). Barriers and bridges to evidence
based clinical practice. Biomedical Journal, 317, 273–276.
Henggeler, S. W., Lee, T., & Burns, J. A. (2002). What happens after
the innovation is identified? Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 9(2), 191–194.
Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., & Brondino, M. J. (1999).
Multisystemic treatment of substance-abusing and -dependent
delinquents: Outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability.
Mental Health Services Research, 1(3), 171–184.
Hoagwood, K., Burns, B. J., Kiser, L., Ringeisen, H., & Schoenwald,
S. K. (2001). Evidence-Based Practice in Child and Adolescent
Mental Health Services. Psychiatric Services, 52(9), 1179–1189.
Hurlburt, M., & Knapp, P. (2003). The new consumers of evidencebased practices: Reflections of providers and families. Data
Matters, Special Issue #6, 21–23.
Jankowicz, D. (2000). From ‘‘learning organization’’ to ‘‘adaptive
organization’’. Management Learning, 31(4), 471–490.
Jensen, P. S. (2003). Commentary: The next generation is overdue.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 42(5), 527–530.
Kavanagh, D. J., Spence, S. H., Strong, J., Wilson, J., Sturk, H., &
Crow, N. (2003). Supervision practices in allied mental health:
Relationships of supervision characteristics to perceived impact
and job satisfaction. Mental Health Services Research, 5(4),
187–195.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Implementing
computerized technology: An organizational analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811–824.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation
implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–
1080.
Kroenke, K., Taylor-Vaisey, A., Dietrich, A. J., & Oxman, T. E.
(2000). Interventions to improve provider diagnosis and treat-
419
ment of mental disorders in primary care: A critical review of the
literature. Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liasion
Psychiatry, 41(1), 39–52.
Lehman, W. E. K., Greener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002).
Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 197–209.
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2006). Consumer preferences
and values as an integral key to evidence-based practice. Nursing
Administration Q, 30(2), 123–127.
Milne, D., Dudley, M., Repper, D., & Milne, J. (2001). Managers’
perceived contribution to the transfer of psychosocial interventions training. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills, 5(3), 387–402.
Morgenstern, J. (2000). Effective technology transfer in alcoholism
treatment. Substance Use & Misuse, 35(12–14), 1659–1678.
National Institute of Mental Health. (1999). Bethesda, MD: National
Institutes of Health.
Phillips, Jr. J. L. (1969). The origins of intellect Piaget’s theory. W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Duan, N. (2003). Next generation of
preventive interventions. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(5), 518–526.
Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What matters
when? Psychiatric Services, 52(9), 1190–1197.
Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring
research to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
22(4), 171–182.
Thomson O’Brien, M. A., Oxman, A. D., Haynes, R. B., Davis, D. A.,
Freemantle, N., & Harvey, E. L. (2003). Local opinion leaders:
Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. In The
Cochrane Library, (Chap. Issue 1). Oxford: Update Software.
Torrey, W. C., Drake, R. E., Dixon, L., Burns, B. J., Flynn, L., Rush,
A., et al. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices for
persons with severe mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services, 52(1),
45–50.
Uretsky, B. F., & Wang, F. W. (2006). Implementation and
application of a continuous quality improvement (CQI) program
for the cardiac catheterization laboratory: One institution’s 10year experience. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 68(4), 586–595.
Willms, D. G., Best, A. J., Taylor, D. W., Gilbert, J. R., Wilson, D. M.
C., Lindsay, E. A., et al. (1992). A systematic approach for using
qualitative methods in primary prevention research. Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, 4(4), 391–409.
123