Supporting Materials: Predictors of Quality Implementation
The National Study on Delinquency Prevention in Schools examined the influence of several potential predictors of quality program implementation within a large national probability sample of U.S. schools. The following is a brief overview of the hypothesized predictors and the study's findings regarding their relative influence on program implementation. Click here to review the summary of this report or to download the full report.
| Hypothesized predictor | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Program structure/Standardization of materials: Greater program structure was expected to contribute to a school's ability to more closely follow a program's implementation plan and lead to higher quality implementation. | Strong support: Programs scoring higher on this variable were found to reach more students and incorporate a greater percentage of "best practices" than less structured programs. Click here to read more about this predictor. |
| Organizational support: The level of principal support, staff supervision, and quality and amount of training were hypothesized to predict the quality of implementation. | Strong support: The evidence generally supports the importance of these four variables, with many correlations that are both in the expected direction and of moderate size. Click here to read more about this predictor. |
| Integration with normal school operations: Better integration with the regularities of the school was expected to lead to more enthusiastic and widespread adoption of prevention activities. | Strong support: Quality implementation is promoted when prevention activities are initiated and planned by school "insiders", selected based on an extensive search for what would work best in the school, coordinated and delivered by school staff, and incorporated as a regular part of the school's program. Click here to read more about this predictor. |
| Organizational capacity: Higher levels of staff morale and stability and a history of successful program implementation were hypothesized to lead to better implementation. | Moderate support: The correlations are small, but generally in the expected direction. However, staff stability only seems to be important when those implementing the program are highly qualified and skilled. Otherwise, replacing staff may actually improve the quality of implementation. |
| Leadership and staff traits, including records of past accomplishments: Program implementation was expected to be better in schools with principals who display effective leadership skills and with faculty/staff who are skilled and conscientious. | Moderate support: The correlations are small, but generally suggest that principals, teachers, and program coordinators who are conscientious, highly skilled, and have track records of past accomplishments will promote better implementation. |
| Budget and resources: It was hypothesized that programs with funding that is secure for the next school year and programs in which the coordinator had more control over the budget would be better implemented. | No support: While programs with secure funding are more likely to expose a greater proportion of students and have slightly higher ratios of providers to students, they are also slightly less likely to make use of "best practices". When program coordinators have more control over the budget, more students are also likely to be exposed -- but no other positive results were found. |
| Program feasibility: It was hypothesized that prevention programs that match the school's regular activities and resources, with few obstacles, would be better implemented. | Mixed support: As expected, more obstacles were found to be associated with somewhat less frequent staff participation and less frequent program operation; however, more obstacles were also associated greater "levels of use" and a higher proportion of "best practices". |
| Little disorder: High levels of disorder and chaos within the school environment were expected to undermine the quality of program implementation. | Mixed support: There are many ways to measure school disorder, and the connections between the different indicators of disorder (e.g., classroom orderliness, student and teacher victimization/safety, disciplinary responses, etc.) and quality implementation were inconsistent. |
|
Return to Day 3: Promoting Effective Implementation in Schools |
 |
||||||||||||
|
TOC |
|
||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||
Last Modified: 01/18/2008
