The Ohio Substance Abuse and Mental Illness Coordinating Center of Excellence

Increasing program capability to provide treatment for co-occurring substance use and mental disorders: Organizational characteristics

“…This approach drew upon the MidAmerica Addiction Technology Transfer Strategy-Stages of the Implementation Process (Baehni, Harmon, & Stilen, 2006), Fixsen et al's (2005) stages of implementation and work by the Ohio Substance Abuse and Mental Illness CoOccurring Center of Excellence (Biegel et al, 2003;Ronis, 2004). It included a program change agent, bimonthly implementation coaching, intensive training on specific EBPs for COD, and fidelity visits by outside evaluators that supported the development of an implementation plan.…”

Advancing the implementation of evidence-based practices into clinical practice: How do we get there from here?

“…This example highlights how Ohio provided structures and supports at the three levels of influence. More than 30 sites are implementing IDDT (Ronis, 2004), although several original sites abandoned IDDT because of funding problems when the 2-year grants ended (external-level factors). Some sites now provide moderate- to high-fidelity IDDT and have reported increases in fidelity over time as a result of feedback and consultation (“Ohio Agencies Enter Second Year,” 2003).…”

“…The CCOEs are university- or private research-based technical assistance centers initially fully state funded but becoming independent through grants and fees for consultation and training services. To begin implementing IDDT, ODMH funded the Ohio Substance Abuse and Mental Illness (SAMI) CCOE and provided 2-year operating grants to nine treatment sites (Biegel et al, 2003; Ronis, 2004). These external level strategies guaranteed funding for sites during the initial implementation stage, assured mechanisms for support and resources via the SAMI CCOE, and showed sites that EBPs, specifically IDDT, were a priority.…”

“…Over time, the SAMI CCOE teaches sites to conduct fidelity self-studies. It also aids program evaluation components by monitoring sites' use of outcome assessments and by working with a state-level committee that is developing standardized outcome measures (Ronis, 2004).…”