A: We had an application process where sites applied to us to do a program. The application tried to specify their needs, resources, and commitment to the project. We collected additional information from the sites through e-mail and telephone. Then we conducted site visits.

A: The site visit was absolutely critical. A lot of sites want to do something that is research-based, but they don't know what to do. They might need some help up-front before they are even ready to implement a program. The site visit was a feasibility visit to make sure that they had the capacity to do the program, but it was also a TA visit to present information about the program. For a lot of people at the site, it may have been the first information they received about it; until this point, it is possible that only the grant-writers knew about the program. We asked that everybody involved in the program be at the visit (i.e. treatment team, teachers, etc.). This let everybody get a good basic idea of the program and get their questions answered. At the same time, we were looking at the site to see if they have the necessary commitment, capacity, and resources.

A: The motivation and support of these individuals is crucial to a program's success. For example, we found that when school administrators thoroughly explained their reasons for choosing a particular program, described its evidence of effectiveness, and asked teachers if they would be willing to implement such a curriculum, the innovation was more likely to succeed. One way to build motivation and support is through early involvement. Another reason to include front-line staff early is to verify the capacity of the sites to implement the program. We have found that sites' plans may be inaccurate or misleading because the application/grant may have been written by people who have little or no knowledge of the practical, "real world" limitations of the setting.