Cited by 66Health Policy Implementation ScienceChild Welfare and AdoptionPublic Policy and Administration Research

From a “Perfect Storm” to “Smooth Sailing”: Policymaker Perspectives on Implementation and Sustainment of an Evidence-Based Practice in Two States

Open access
Willging, Cathleen E., Green, Amy E., Gunderson, Lara, Chaffin, Mark, Aarons, Gregory A.·2015·Child Maltreatment

Abstract

Policymakers shape implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs), whether they are developing or responding to legislation and policies or negotiating public sector resource constraints. As part of a large mixed-method study, we conducted qualitative interviews with 24 policymakers involved in delivery of the same EBP in two U.S. states. We analyzed transcripts via open and focused coding techniques to identify the commonality, diversity, and complexity of implementation challenges; approaches to overcoming those challenges; and the importance of system-level contextual factors in ensuring successful implementation. Key findings centered on building support and leadership for EBPs; funding and contractual strategies; partnering with stakeholders; tackling challenges via proactive planning and problem solving; and the political, legal, and systemic pressures affecting EBP longevity. The policymaker perspectives offer guidance on nurturing system and organizational practice environments to achieve positive outcomes and for optimally addressing macro-level influences that bear upon the instantiation of EBPs in public sector child welfare systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077559514547384

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Funding is often identified as the major barrier to program sustainment.

    “Funding is often identified as the major barrier to program sustainment [20, 31, 55].”

    From Using qualitative comparative analysis to uncover multiple pathways to program sustainment: implications for community-based youth substance misuse prevention (2022) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Results section (“Variability in Funding”; page unavailable) describes funding problems in systems where SafeCare was only partially sustained or not sustained. The Discussion says short-term grants could not support long-term sustainment. These passages support funding as a barrier, but do not identify it as the major barrier to program sustainment generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most prior sustainability studies included small, homogeneous samples and based conclusions mostly on qualitative retrospective assessments rather than statistical tests of association.

    “However, this knowledge is greatly limited because most studies included small, homogeneous samples, and their conclusions were mostly based on qualitative retrospective assessments of individuals’ beliefs about what led to sustainment success or failure, rather than based on statistical tests of their association [17–22].”

    From Using qualitative comparative analysis to uncover multiple pathways to program sustainment: implications for community-based youth substance misuse prevention (2022) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Methods describe a purposive sample of 24 policymakers and qualitative coding of interviews, while the Limitations say some participants relied on retrospective accounts (page numbers unavailable). This paper exemplifies several features in the claim, but it does not establish that most prior sustainability studies had those features, and it says the retrospective accounts were corroborated with other data. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Green AE Aarons GA Willging CE Gunderson L Sustaining evidence-based practice to pre- vent child neglect: From dissemination to sustainment of evidence based practices in public sector services for youth 2013 Jul-Aug Presented at the American Psychological Association 121st Annual Conference Honolulu, HI
  2. National Conference of State Legislatures Funding of child and family services reviews program improvement plans 2005 Denver, CO Johnson, Bassin & Shaw, Inc. (JBS), and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/cyf/fundingcfsr.pdf
  3. Waddell KV Oklahoma special review committee report: OKDHS role in child abuse & neglect deaths—Review of child deaths November 2010—May 2012 2013 Oklahoma City, OK The Oklahoma Commission on Children & Youth Retrieved June 26, 2014, from http://www.okdhs.org/NR/rdonlyres/01D49A03-62C1-49FF-93E1-10DD98CBC70C/0/SpecialReviewCommitteeReportFinal_04042013.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Willging, C. E., Green, A. E., Gunderson, L., Chaffin, M., & Aarons, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
Corresponding author
Willging, Cathleen E.
Venue
Child Maltreatment
Published
2014-08-14
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
24-36
ISSN
  • 1077-5595 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6119
OpenAlex
W2161343637
Cited by
66
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6
FWCI
9.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Maltreatment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH092950, R01MH072961)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
evidence-based practice, policy implementation, child welfare, policy makers, implementation barriers, stakeholder collaboration, financing strategy, leadership
MeSH terms
Child, Child Abuse, Child Welfare, Cooperative Behavior, Health Plan Implementation, Health Planning, Humans, Interinstitutional Relations, Policy Making, United States, Advisory Committees, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review