Dana Keener, Ph.D. ICF Macro 2009 AEA Annual Meeting November 12, 2009

 Background/context of the study  What is technical assistance?  Intervention description  Methods  Results  Conclusions

 CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) Grant Program in the Division of Violence Prevention  Four regional trainings offered in summer 2006 to sexual violence prevention professionals  RPE wanted to explore the added value of offering TA after a traditional training session

 What  Intentional, individualized, tangible help, aid, or assistance  For whom  provided to an individual, organization, or community  Why  for the purpose of increasing knowledge, skills, and abilities towards the successful achievement of a particular end- goal or product

 Relationship quality  Individualization  Proactive design  Sufficient dosage

 Purpose: to promote the application of effective training practices among sexual violence prevention professionals  Two components: ◦ A full-day training component ◦ A subsequent telephone-administered technical assistance component

 Satisfaction with the training and TA  Motivation to use effective training practices  Knowledge and self-perceived ability to use effective training practices  Application of effective training practices

 6 hour in-person training  Repeated in 4 locations  Included PowerPoint, stories, worksheets, exercises, and group discussion  Small group sizes ◦ Atlanta = 4 participants ◦ Chicago = 3 participants ◦ San Diego = 9 participants ◦ Hartford = 11 participants

 Conducted via scheduled telephone conferences within 6 months of training  Two different intensity levels  Designed to extend and reinforce the training component  No new material presented  Focused on application of training content

Low-Intensity TA (Chicago and Hartford) High-Intensity TA (Atlanta and San Diego)  1-60 min group call  Scheduled 90 days after training  n=14  3-60 min group calls  1-60 min individual call  Scheduled every days after training  n=13

 Longitudinal, quasi-experimental  Data collected via surveys and observations

 27 participants in total  Self-selected into the training session  Professional, well-educated  Involved in training others as part of their jobs

 Based on training city  Chicago and Hartford  low-intensity TA  Atlanta and San Diego  high-intensity TA  No systematic differences observed between groups at pre-test

Timing of Data Collection MeasureMethod Before training session Pre-Training SurveySelf-report paper/pencil During training session Training Observation Tool Evaluator completed paper/pencil Immediately after the training session Post-Training SurveySelf-report paper/pencil Following each TA callPost-TA SurveyWeb survey Six months after the training session Six Month Follow-Up Survey Web survey

 Pre-Training  100%  Post-Training  100%  6 Month Follow-up  96%

 Demographics/Participant Characteristics  Organizational Characteristics  Satisfaction with Training and TA  TA Engagement  Effective Training Practices ◦ Attitudes/Motivation ◦ Self-Perceived Ability (general and specific) ◦ Knowledge (knowledge score) ◦ Improvement ◦ Application

RESULTS

 Participants were highly satisfied w/the training  Participants reported significant increases in: ◦ Perceived ability to plan, implement and evaluate training programs ◦ Knowledge scores  Outcomes did not vary based on size of training group  Outcomes did not diminish 6 months after the training regardless of participation in TA

 Defined as participating in at least 50% of calls offered to them  15 engaged participants ◦ 9 from high-intensity group ◦ 6 from low-intensity group  Participants from the smallest two trainings were more likely to be engaged in the TA component  6 of 7 from smallest trainings were engaged (86%)  9 of 20 from largest trainings were engaged (45%)

No changes in self-perceived ability was observed from post-training to 6 month follow-up No differences found between high and low intensity groups

 Participants in the high-intensity TA group reported more improvement on training tasks than the low-intensity group  Engaged participants reported more improvement in training tasks than unengaged participants at six months  However, the engaged participants already had greater self-perceived abilities before the TA component

 Participants who were engaged in the TA fared better than participants who were not engaged at six months follow up.  BUT, most of the differences between engaged and unengaged participants preceded the TA intervention.  The results say more about who was inclined to participate in TA than they do about the impact of the TA component on the outcomes we measured.

 Full-day, interactive, skills-based training with small groups (fewer than 12) can be very effective!  Brief TA that is one-size-fits-all is unlikely to contribute very much to outcomes, particularly if it follows training that was already effective.  Don’t throw in the towel on TA though! Need to test tailored TA programs under other conditions. One size DOES NOT FIT ALL!

 Conduct a brief needs assessment among training participants to identify and select appropriate participants of a follow-up TA program.  Develop individualized TA goals and objectives for each participant.  Develop an individualized TA plan for each participant to meet their goals.  Schedule TA proactively, rather than waiting to be asked for assistance.