About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


84 Fed. Probation 18 (2020)
Implementation Teams: The Missing Link for Scaling and Sustaining Effective Practice

handle is hein.journals/fedpro84 and id is 79 raw text is: 18 EEDERAL PROBATION Volume 84 Number 2 Dean Fixsen Director, Active Implementation Research Network (AIRN) Melissa K. Van Dyke Director, Active Implementation Research Network (AIRN) RESEARCHERS STUDYING BEHAVIOR change in individuals on community supervi- sion have promoted evidence-based approaches for decades, and meta-analyses by Andrews et al. (1990), Andrews and Bonta (2006), and Lipsey and colleagues (Lipsey, 1992, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998) identified key interven- tion factors that were associated with improved outcomes for this population. However, it has been generally acknowledged that using interventions in practice is difficult, and it is increasingly understood that the competence and confidence of the probation officers and other practitioners who work directly with the individuals on community supervision need to be actively supported to use innovation as intended. Furthermore, there is growing rec- ognition that training only, even when carried out to a high standard, is insufficient. Lipsey described that in some analyses, the quality with which the intervention is implemented has been as strongly related to recidivism effects as the type of program, so much so that a well-implemented intervention of an inherently less efficacious type can outperform a more efficacious one that is poorly implemented (2009, p. 127). However, the organizational mechanisms required to build the competence and the confidence of probation officers, across 94 judicial districts, have seemed elusive. With implementation support increasingly recog- nized as essential to using innovations as intended, to produce intended outcomes reli- ably and repeatedly on a useful scale, interest is growing in exploring approaches to establish, scale, and sustain sufficient implementation capacity (Fixsen, Blase, & Van Dyke, 2019; Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). This article will describe the function and development of Implementation Teams within organizations and systems as a mecha- nism to scale and sustain implementation capacity (Brunk, Chapman, & Schoenwald, 2014; Fixsen, Blase, Timbers, & Wolf, 2007; Saldana & Chamberlain, 2012). Over the years, Implementation Teams have been described as change agents, site developers, community development teams, facilitators, and so on (Blase, Fixsen, & Phillips, 1984; Flanagan, Cray, & Van Meter, 1983; Nord & Tucker, 1987; Seers et al., 2018). For example, Havelock and Havelock (1973, p. 59ff) noted that Effective implementation requires reciprocal feedback systems in the context of reciprocal and collaborative rela- tionships with a variety of stakeholders. This work requires an effective change agent: The change agent is a catalyst (prod and pressure, overcome inertia, cre- ate dissatisfaction, get things started), solution giver (know what and when, where, to whom to deliver it, technical proficiency), process helper (recognize and define needs, diagnose problems and set objectives, acquire needed resources, select or create solutions, adapt or install solutions, evaluate to determine progress), and resource linker (people, time, motivation, funds) (ital- ics added for emphasis) (Havelock & Havelock, 1973, p. 59ff). For a community development team (CDT), the CDT facilitator is able to bring concerns or problems that particular pro- grams are experiencing to the developers and problem-solve solutions that assist the program while maintaining adherence to the principles of the practice. Finally, during the CDT Sustainability phase, the emphasis shifts to monitoring and supporting the main- tenance of a model adherent program via titrated technical assistance and peer support activities (Saldana & Chamberlain, 2012, pp. 3-4). As noted in these brief descriptions, Implementation Teams are active and take responsibility for encouraging and produc- ing change with practitioners, organizations, and systems (Fixsen et al., 2019, Chapter 14). In this role, an Implementation Team works closely with the executive leadership of an organization to initiate and manage change. The team members are experts in identifying and developing usable innovations, experts in their own use of implementation best practices, and skilled at initiating, facilitating, and managing systemic change processes. Implementation Teams balance and negotiate the adaptive and technical work of complex change. Team members assess and engage with individual and organizational will (i.e., readiness, buy-in, motivation, commitment, urgency) for the new way of work. However, will without skill produces frustration and undermines actual practice change. Therefore, Implementation Teams also coordinate the installation of the infrastructure needed to 18 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 84 Number 2