A Multilevel Framework for Local Policy Development and Implementation

Part of the Issues in Clinical Child Psychology book series (ICCP)


Children and families deserve to have confidence that the services and supports they receive are the most effective interventions available. The concept of evidence-based and promising practices has developed as a strategy for achieving improved mental health outcomes for children and families in recent years, and the implementation of evidence-based and promising practices has grown more influential in the United States (Raghavan, Bright, & Shadoin, 2008; Tanenbaum, 2003). The term evidence-based practices (sometimes called EBPs) refers to prevention or treatment approaches that are supported by documented scientific evidence (e.g., research results from randomized or quasi-experimental designs). Promising practices are those which, although lacking a rigorous base of research evidence, show promising field-based or theoretical support. These might include locally developed services and supports intended to meet the specific strengths and needs of local populations.


Policy Level Local Policy Staff Development Evaluation Team Communication Domain 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2002). Safe and secure: Guides to creating safer schools—Guide 7: Fostering school, family and community involvement. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  2. Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2004). An introductory packet on working together: From school-based collaborative teams to school-community higher education connections. Los Angeles, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  3. Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 17, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fagan, A. A., & Mihalic, S. (2003). Strategies for enhancing the adoption of school-based prevention programs: Lessons learned from the Blueprints for Violence Prevention replications of the Life Skills Training program. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3), 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
  6. Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (1999). Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 711–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2001). Theory-based accountability. In M. Hernandez & S. Hodges (Eds.), Developing outcome strategies in children’s mental health (pp. 21–40). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2003). Building upon a theory of change for systems of care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(1), 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodges, S., Ferreira, K., & Israel, N. (2012). “If we’re going to change things, it has to be systemic:” systems change in children’s mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(3–4), 526–37. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9491-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hodges, S., Ferreira, K., Mazza, J., Vaughn, B., Van Dyke, M., Mowery, D., et al. (2007). Phase I report (Developing sustainable infrastructure in support of quality field-based practice series, FMHI # 248–2). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, Department of Child and Family Studies.Google Scholar
  12. IP-RISP. (2006). Interventions and practice research infrastructure program. National Institute of Mental Health. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from: Scholar
  13. Kubisch, A. C., Fulbright-Anderson, K., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Evaluating community initiatives: A progress report. In A. C. Kubisch, K. Fulbright-Anderson, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Theory, measurement and analysis (Vol. 2, pp. 1–13). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. (2010). Health Resources and Service Administration. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from:
  15. Mihalic, S. F., & Irwin, K. (2003). Blueprints for violence prevention: From research to real-world settings—factors influencing the successful replication of model programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(4), 307–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moseley, J. L., & Hastings, N. B. (2005). Implementation: The forgotten link on the intervention chain. Performance Improvement, 44(4), 8–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. NREPP. (2012). National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from:
  18. O’Toole, L., & Montjoy, R. (1984). Interorganizational policy implementation: A theoretical perspective. Public Administration Review, 44(6), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Percival, G. (2009). Exploring the influence of local policy networks on the implementation of drug policy reform: The case of California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 795–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ploeg, J., Davies, B., Edwards, N., Gifford, W., & Miller, P. E. (2007). Factors influencing best-practice guideline implementation: Lessons learned from administrators, nursing staff, and project leaders. Wordviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 4(4), 210–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Proctor, E. (2004). Leverage points for the implementaion of evidencce-based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raghavan, R., Bright, C. L., & Shadoin, A. L. (2008). Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implementation Science, 3, 26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Research at the Crossroads. (2012). Conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, March 19–20, 2012. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from:
  25. Sustainable Infrastructure Project. (2007). Developing sustainable infrastructure in support of quality field-based practice. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, Department of Child and Family Studies. Retrieved May 8, 2012, from:
  26. Tanenbaum, S. (2003). Evidence-based practice in mental health: Practical weaknesses meet political strengths. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory. In J. P. Connell (Ed.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Training, Research, Education, and Demonstration, Department of Child and Family Studies, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health InstituteUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations