How Evidence-Based Programs Are Sustained in the “Real-World”: Qualitative Interviews from the Field

Sustainability continues to be an ongoing concern for funding of evidence-based programs (EBPs). Initial investment in a program can be very high. Startup costs such as training and materials are often prohibitive enough that a community cannot implement the program without some source of government or foundation funding. A huge focus for these funders relates to return on investment. The ability of a program to sustain beyond initial seed funding can strongly impact the rate of return. Because there is normally not a requirement to report outside of the funding period, it is not always clear whether or how a program is sustaining. In addition, even when program funding and continuation information is available, the degree to which it is being sustained often is not. This paper represents a continuation of a line of research on the sustainability of EBPs under "real-world" conditions, and expands on prior quantitative research (Cooper, et al., 2013) by adding qualitative interviews with 17 EBPs in the sustainability phase of program implementation, to provide a richer contextual understanding to long-term sustainability of EBPs.

Results from these interviews showed that, while still operating, over half of the respondents indicated operating at a reduced level. These reductions included: fewer new participants for the program, reduced staff, reduced supervision, reduced fidelity and outcome monitoring, and/or reduced components being offered. Seventy percent of grantees indicated receiving one or more funding sources to continue the program. Many grantees indicated receiving temporary and non-grant sources of funding of funding from various public and private sources, but almost 30% indicated receiving funding from the same state funding source again. Additionally, 5 respondents shared that the program had been turned over to schools to continue; while this is ideal from a funding standpoint, most of these programs indicated that they had stopped all fidelity and outcome monitoring as the funding requirement to do so went away. Further, these programs no longer had a defined point of contact for continued monitoring.  

These interviews help fill in the gaps in information on what happens with programs as they move into sustainability and highlight the potential lowering of return on investment due to reductions in the program. Interviews are in process with an additional twenty 2-year funded grantees. This data will be available at the time of presentation to examine differences in sustainability levels when programs receive longer or shorter periods of funding.