Replicating Evidence-Based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs: A Case Study

Watch and listen as Amy Margolis, Public Health Advisor for the Office of Adolescent Health at the Department of Health and Human Services, describes lessons learned from replicating evidenced-based teen pregnancy prevention programs in grantee sites across the country.

(click “+” to see more details.)

Transcript

Amy Margolis: Well thank you, thank you for inviting us here to talk to with you guys today. I am just going to give a brief presentation just on what our experience has been so far at the Office of Adolescent Health in trying to replicate teen pregnancy prevention programs to a large scale. Got a little bit of background information, but I am going to go pretty quick because Martha covered a lot of this this morning. Our office is relatively new, we've only been around since 2010, and we are responsible for coordinating adolescent health programs across the Department of Health and Human Services, implementing this new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative and implementing the Pregnancy Assistance Fund, which is our program to provide support services for pregnant and parenting teens. This is just a schematic of our three major grant programs. We've got seventy five million  to replicate evidence-based teen pregnancy programs, another twenty five million for research and demonstration programs around teen pregnancy prevention to test new and innovative approaches, and then our program for pregnant and parenting teens. I am going to just talk about our replication program today. So the purpose of the program is pretty obvious, to replicate evidence-based program models that are medically accurate, age appropriate, and have proven through rigorous evaluation to prevent teen pregnancy or other associated sexual risk behaviors. And our target population is individuals nineteen years of age or younger at program entry. The whole foundation for the program, HHS under contract with Mathematica Policy Research and Child Trends did a systematic evidence review that identified the evidence-based programs that were eligible for replication under this grant initiative. The initial review identified 28 very diverse different programs, and just a note that we do plan to update that evidence-based list every year, so hopefully more programs will get added, but right now we're working with 28 programs. We have seventy five grantees that have been funded to replicate one or more of these programs, and they're large, they're large funding for the grantees, actually each grantee gets either four hundred thousand, between four hundred thousand and four million per year. It's a five-year grant period. They're serving youth in thirty nine states and the District of Columbia, and you can just see it's a very diverse set of grantees, and they're working in all different programs settings. So now I want to go a little bit into our program expectations, and then I'm going to spend more time talking about the lessons we've learned so far. We're about, a little more than six months into working with the grantees on these programs. So our program expectations, one they, we're requiring the grantees to implement one or more of the evidence-based program models. They must maintain fidelity to the program model, and we'll talk more about that. They must address the target population, ensure that all their program materials are medically accurate and age appropriate. We've allowed or required for grantees to engage in a phased in implementation period. They have to collect and report performance measure data  and adhere to our evaluation expectations, and we won't get into that, but those are just kind of the overview of our expectations. So for fidelity we're requiring grantees to maintain fidelity to the program model, and to us that's maintaining fidelity to the core components of the program model. And we've learned a lot about from the work that our colleagues at CDC have done previously, and so core components we're defining as those characteristics that are determined to be the key ingredients related to achieving the outcomes that were associated with the program. And so we have core components around the content of the program, the pedagogy of the program, and how the program was implemented. So even though we're requiring the grantees to maintain fidelity to the original program model, we are allowing and actually expecting them to make some minor adaptations to make the program actually more relevant for the population that they're serving, like I said it's diverse grantees all across the country, serving very different populations so we're allowing minimal adaptations. We're using guidance for adaptations, in some cases the developer has guidance that we're using to guide what adaptations are allowable, other cases we're using guidance that has already been developed by CDC with ETR Associates, and then in some cases where there is no guidance we're developing the guidance on our own with the developer along with ETR. And this is just some examples of how we've defined minimal adaptations, I mean we're really looking at minimal adaptations that make the program more relevant to the population. So some things like changing details in role play, updating outdated statistics, adjusting the reading level, making activities more interactive, so pretty minor stuff. We're also allowing the grantees to add on activities to the original program model as long as the activity is well integrated, works in concert with the underlying program model, and does not alter the core components. So really for us everything goes back to those core components, they're very important. And we did figure out very early on that if we were going to allow adaptations we needed to have a process for how we were approving those and who was defining, determining which adaptations were allowable. So we have sort of this process in place and we're just getting started so you know not sure how well it's gonna work, but at least we're trying. We're requiring all of the grantees if they are proposing any adaptations or add on activities that they must document them, they must document their rationale for why the adaptation is necessary and how they are going to implement that, and then we have staff who, all of our staff will review the adaptations that are proposed and review them against, review the rationale, make sure it makes sense, but then review the adaptation against the core components of the program and with any adaptation guidance that we have to make sure that those adaptations that we're approving really are minimal, don't change the core components, and do make sense. In most cases, I mean  program developers are really busy so we're trying the best we can to use the information that we have from the developers already around core components and adaptation guidance and making recommendation on our own at the staff level, but if we have any questions or there are things that we're just not sure, we don't have any guidance on you know whether or not this is allowable, we are going back and consulting with the program developer to see it if, if this really is an adaptation that they think makes sense and is approvable. And then we're providing the grantees with written approval or disapproval on each of the proposed adaptations and add on activities. The other thing that I just want to highlight, this has been extremely critical for us, is that we've required this phased in implementation period, so all of our grantees have had to engage in this planning, piloting and readiness period for the first 6-12 months of planning, and this slide lists out all of the activities the grantees are engaging in during this period, but this has been really really important to make sure that the needs assessment was done, that the program they selected in their grant application really is a good fit for their community and if it's not that they can pick a different program, that they can gather all the materials and get the training and technical assistance that they need, that they can develop a really thorough implementation plan and really think through with their partners what they are actually going to be doing, and that they have time to pilot test the program and learn from the pilot test before they start serving large numbers of kids. So it's been really really important for us. And with that I'll just jump into some of our lessons learned. First big lesson learned for us, and I think this was alluded to earlier, is how the evidence-based programs were identified, so for us the evidence-based program models were identified because the evaluation of the program was found to meet these rigorous standards, but implementation readiness was not one of the standards that was considered to meet the evidence review. So we actually had a number of programs make the evidence-based list and therefore become eligible for funding for a replication that really weren't ready to be replicated at a large scale. And I think this kind of, that leads into this, where we've sort of learned, and I'm sure there are things missing from this slide, but to us there are certain elements that need to be in place for every program in order for it to be replicated by someone other than the developer to a large scale. And so some of the things that we're going back and working with some of these program developers to put in place are things like identifying your core components, making sure you have a logic model for the program, making sure that the facilitator guide and the curriculum materials are available and that they're well documented, that they're not just in you know draft form that the developer used when they implemented the program, but that somebody else can actually follow them, that any supplemental materials that you need to do the program are also available, that there is training available on the program,  and that you do have guidance on allowable adaptations and a tool for monitoring fidelity. So like I said when we actually found, not many, but a few of the programs that made our evidence-based list were missing some of these elements, so we have some, we had some programs that made the list where the developer had never identified the core components, and so we actually had to go back and work with them, and you know they knew sort of what they were, but they had never actually put them down on paper that they could give to somebody else. We had some where the materials weren't available. They hadn't you know put the facilitator guide together, they hadn't you know curriculum materials were all sort of scattered here and there, so we've had to work with them on that. And then we had some who really didn't plan to do a formal training on the program and didn't really have the time or have that built in, so we've worked with them on that. And then we had a number actually that were missing adaptation guidance and fidelity monitoring tools. The other thing we've learned is that developers really differ in their ability to actually go back and create these missing elements. So some of the developers have partnered with another organization that is there to package their programs, disseminate them, and do training on them, so it's not really a big deal for them to add these pieces in, and then other folks you know it's one person working in a university by themselves who did this program ten years ago and had no staff and no resources to not only package the program, but even answer questions from people who were interested in replicating it, so that was a challenge.  And because of that our office has stepped in and actually taken a number of steps to make sure that the programs that our grantees are replicating are actually able to be replicated to a large scale. And the planning period I should say again has been really really important for this because not only has it given the grantees time to really plan and make sure they're doing what they need to be doing and they've picked the right program, but it has given us time to go back to the developers and get all these pieces in place. So without that we would be in a very different position, so it's been really really important. And one of the first things that we've tried to do is really establish a good working relationship with the developers, which was a little bit difficult for us at first because weren't able to give the developers any advance notice that their program was going to be added to this evidence-based list and therefore eligible for funding. So they found out their program was on a list and eligible for funding at the same time the funding announcement was released, and they got bombarded with calls. So that was not ideal, and if there is any way to not do that again in the future that would be a recommendation cause they really are important  in this process, I mean they answered tons and tons and tons of questions, so it's important to bring them along. So since then, that was out of our control, but since then we've tried to have a number of conference calls, email exchanges with the developers to make sure they know what our expectations are and can get any updates from our office and sort of are kept in the loop along the way. We've also assigned someone in our office to be the lead for each program model, and their role as lead really is to become really familiar with the program, to attend the program developers training, and to be the point person in the office to answer questions around implementation and adaptation. And we've been collaborating with the developers like I said to identify the core components, develop adaptation guidance, develop fidelity monitoring tools, just making sure that all those pieces are in place, and then again we're consulting with the developers to approve any adaptations. We're trying to do as much of that as we can without needing to go to them for every single thing, but if we do have questions we are making sure we bring them into the discussion. Then two other things that we've had to do. We have, we contracted with Sociometrics to package the program materials for the program models that weren't available, so now all of the programs that are being replicated are able to be purchased. You can get all the materials that you need, so that's been helpful. And we then also contracted with ETR to develop some adaptation guidance for program models when there was no adaptation guidance available. Thank you.