These are not our programs. In fact they shouldn't be designed with us in mind at all. They should be designed with the consumers in mind, including the practitioners, and practitioners may be parents, teachers. Who is it we want to be using these various programs that we're developing?

A nice example might be with social skills training because social skills training was set up originally as something that would be kind of a program that's used on the side that would then be supplementing everyday things. Some of the ways I think that that's broken down a little bit is the generalizability of these programs have not been as strong as they need to be, but I also think it gets back to if we re-think social skills training from the perspective of who are the best people to monitor the way kids are interacting with their peers.

It's probably not going to be a clinical psychologist in a hospital or lab, so I think that gets us to say, well, then if I want to think about this as something teachers might use or parents might use or older peers might use, I'm now thinking differently about the model, and so the sustainability is built in. What I'm encouraging people to think about is sustainability not as an add-on to what they're doing, but as part of the beginning development of our models, thinking about who is going to use these and how is it going to be sustained?

I think that gets us into the idea of identifying, being very good about identifying resources within environments. In a way I think what it means is we need to be smarter about the environments. In my case, I work with kids, so where the kids live, work, and play, and if I start thinking about where they live, work, and play, I start thinking what resources are available in those environments.