Diagnosis of School Readiness to Successfully Implement Tobacco Prevention and Control Programs
Phyllis Gingiss, DrPH1, University of Houston, Department of Health & Human Performance and Cindy Roberts-Gray, PhD, Resource Network
1
Contact information: 3855 Holman, 104 Garrison Gym, Houston, TX 77204-6015
713-743-9843 [email protected]
RESULTS
School Scores on Eight Implementation Readiness Factors
(n=93 secondary schools adopting a Texas tobacco program)
Assets (>50% of schools)
25%
4%
19%
15%
10%
30%
20%
31%
29%
10%
23%
21%
11%
59%
32%
64%
51%
40%
ty
ris
ili
tic
s
lea
st
ric
de
t-l
rs
hi
ev
p
el
lea
de
rs
hi
p
Fa
ci
lit
at
io
n
Re
so
ur
ce
Im
s
pl
em
en
te
Ex
rs
te
rn
al
fo
rc
es
0%
te
ed
Di
l -b
as
Co
m
pa
tib
TUPE was low/not among principal priorities (> 50%);
Only 15% reported processes in place to support
implementation (e.g. staff training, program monitoring
and feedback, multiple two-way communication
channels, and written plans)
Staffing, funding and time to plan were seen to be inadequate; and
Possible opposition or lack of support from parents/community was noted at more than half of the schools.
no
™
37%
26%
16%
40%
In
™
50%
50%
va
t io
n
™
49%
60%
Potential Barriers
™
47%
54%
70%
ac
™
23%
80%
ho
o
™
8%
90%
ch
ar
™
100%
TUPE was viewed as an improvement over current
initiatives and fairly easy to implement;
TUPE was at least moderately compatible with student
needs;
Staff was willing to try TUPE, actively involved in
student health issues, and believed use was compatible
with their professional identities; and
TUPE had the support of a “champion” at district level.
Sc
™
high score
low score
don't know
“Don’t Know” Responses
™
™
™
Over half (n=57) of schools stated “don’t know” in response to more than 9 of Bridge-It’s 36 questions.
More than half of the schools reported “don’t know” regarding the extent of program opposition and parental and
community support. Many schools responded “don’t know” about the adequacy of program funding, plans for program
monitoring and feedback, and the existence of multiple two-way communication channels.
Between 33-66% of schools stated “don’t know” to inquiries about how important the program is to the principal, the
level of training, and the relative advantage of the “new” program.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
™
™
Research indicates that the conditions the school personnel were not familiar with or indicated were of low capacity at
start-up have major influences on later implementation and maintenance. Recommendations are that health education
programs include training and technical assistance in strategies and skill development for facilitation of successful
implementation on each campus in addition to dedication of time and effort on content.
Often users have intense political pressures or personal expectations for good scores when completing a diagnostic questionnaire. Negative results or low results compared to other schools can discourage funders, administrators, and individual implementers. The “don’t know’s” often obscured program strengths. Attention needs to be addressed about
how to report and use “don’t know” results in the most beneficial manner**.
* Bosworth, K., Gingiss, P. M., Potthoff, S., & Roberts-Gray, C. (1999). A Bayesian model to predict the success of the implementation of health and education
innovations in school-centered programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 1-11.
** Roberts-Gray, C. & Gingiss, P.M. (2002). “’Don’t know’ responses: Do they inform or undermine the process evaluation?” Houston, TX: University of Houston.
Abstract accepted for presentation at: 2002 Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, November 4-10, 2002, Washington, DC.
American Public Health Association 130th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Tuesday, November 19, 2002.