Using Implementation Science Principles to Sustain Trauma-Informed Innovations in Program Development

  • Virginia C. Strand
  • Cambria Rose Walsh


Organizational interventions with staff, like evidence-based practices used with clients, demand fidelity to the implementation process. Just as with empirically supported treatments that identify specific components in a specific sequence, there now exists widely agreed upon stages of implementation that, if sequenced in a particular order, are more likely to result in sustainable outcomes.  This chapter introduces an empirically-supported implementation process, highlighting the need to adhere to stages of implementation as well as the need for a conceptual framework or theory of change to drive the implementation of new trauma-informed practices within organizations. To further illustrate the phases of EBP implementation, an example of how the EPIS model might be used to implement new practices in child welfare systems is provided.


Implementation frameworks Trauma-informed organizations Child welfare policy Child welfare practice Organizational drivers Implementation science Stages of implementation 


  1. Aarons, G. A., Fettes, D. L., Flores, L. E., & Sommerfeld, D. H. (2009). Evidence-based practice implementation and staff emotional exhaustion in children’s services. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 954–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarons, G. A., Hurlbert, M., & Hhorowitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aarons, G. A., Sommerfeld, D.H., Hecht, D. B., Silovsky, J. F., Chaffin, M. J. (2009). The impact of evidence-based practice implementation and fidelity monitoring on staff turnover: Evidence for a protective effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 270 –280.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, L. D., Feinber, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2010). Determinants of community coalition ability to support evidence-based programs. Prevention Science, 11, 287–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, B. R., Bumberger, B. K., & Moore, J. E. (2015). Sustaining evidence-based prevention programs: Correlates in a large-scale dissemination initiative. Prevention Science, 16, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crea, T. M., & Crampton, D. S. (2011). The context of program implementation and evaluation: A pilot study of interorganizational differences to improve child welfare reform efforts. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 2273–2281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1(1), 1.Google Scholar
  9. Fagan, A. A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (2008). Implementing effective community-based prevention programs in the community youth development study. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(7), 256–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core Implementation Components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19,531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser, J. G., Griffin, J.L., Barto, B.L., Lo, C., Wenz-Gross, M. Spinazzola, J..... .. Bartlett, J.D. (2014). Implementation of a workforce initiative to build trauma-informed child welfare practice and services: Findings from the Massachusetts Child Trauma Project. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 233 –242.Google Scholar
  12. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. The Milbank Quarterly, 82, 581–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris, M., & Fallot, R. D. (2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, Special Issue: Organizational Psychology. 45(2), 109–119.Google Scholar
  15. Myers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 462–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mildon, R., & Shonsky, A. (2011). Bridge over troubled water: Using implementation science to facilitate effective services in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 753–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ogden, T., & Fixsen, D. L. (2014). Implementation science a brief overview and a look ahead. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie 2014, 222(1), 4–11.Google Scholar
  18. Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., … Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38:65–76.Google Scholar
  19. Walsh, C., Rolls Reutz, J., & Williams, R. (2015). Selecting and implementing evidence-based practices: A guide for child and family serving systems (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare.Google Scholar
  20. Williams, N. J., & Glisson, C. (2014). Testing a theory of organizational culture, climate and youth outcomes in child welfare systems: A United States national study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Social Work Trauma Education and Workforce DevelopmentFordham University Graduate School of Social ServiceWest HarrisonUSA
  2. 2.The Center for Child Welfare Trauma-Informed Policies, Programs, and PracticesChadwick Center, Rady Children’s Hospital San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations