Research In Action

When research trials conclude and evidence of effectiveness is established, the work is far from over. In many ways, it is just beginning. After years of testing Friend to Friend (F2F) in controlled research settings, we reached a pivotal moment: how do we translate this proven intervention into real-world practice? Moving beyond the structure of trials, I am collaborating with Dr. Tracy Waasdorp to support the implementation of the program in schools under everyday conditions…where flexibility, scalability, and sustainability matter most. This shift marks an exciting evolution, opening the door to broader dissemination and meaningful impact, including expansion in Philadelphia schools where F2F has had a home for two decades and brand-new ventures into counties surrounding our city.

Modifying the F2F Model for Real-World Utilization

F2F is a school-based intervention program designed to reduce aggression, with a focus on relational aggression, among high-risk children in 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade. As we shifted F2F from research trials into real-world implementation, several key factors required thoughtful adaptation. The first was how schools were selected. In traditional trials, school selection is often based on inclusion criteria (e.g., location, size, population, existing programs or resources). Researchers lead recruitment, and randomization determines conditions in which schools receive the program.

In real-world implementation, participation became voluntary and school initiated. Schools engaged because F2F aligned with their needs for student social-emotional skill development and positive, non-aggressive peer relationships. This shift fundamentally changed the dynamic between researchers and schools; we saw an increase in leadership commitment and staff engagement and motivation. We found that relationships and trust between our team and school teams determined sustainability and providing individualized support during the startup phase remained a critical component of success.

We also had to reconsider student group formation. In research trials, group composition is tightly controlled and based on validated assessment scores, but in real-world situations, schools need greater flexibility. While we provided general guidelines, schools ultimately determined how to structure their groups based on factors such as grade level, gender, school-specific data or needs assessments, staff referrals, and special education considerations. This shift allowed schools to integrate the program in ways that fit their unique contexts, even if this differed from initial testing and required letting go of cross-site consistency.

Reframing Program Outcomes and the CHOP Coaching Model

Evaluating program success and impact also required adaptation. We had to rethink what ongoing evidence is truly necessary once effectiveness was established and instead focus on what schools really want and need to know. In our research trials, the goal is to determine whether there is measurable change beyond what would have occurred without the program, which often requires a control group (e.g., those who don’t participate in the program) and extensive data collection from students, counselors, teachers and parents.

This contrasts with real-world implementation, where having control conditions is not feasible, and time and capacity for surveys are limited. We have heard that schools prioritize actionable, operationally relevant outcomes so that the evaluation helps them determine if the program is feasible, worth the time and cost, and beneficial to students. Accordingly, we emphasized brief staff-report surveys and implementation data as primary outcomes and are currently collaborating with school partners to develop feasible approaches to student-level data collection.

Finally, our coaching model evolved to reflect the realities of school environments. During trials, implementation was closely monitored through frequent in-person check-ins and observations, and weekly communication -- a level of oversight not feasible in real-world conditions. We shifted to flexible, lighter-touch approaches such as monthly virtual check-ins and ongoing email communication, which were often school-initiated and shaped by each school’s schedule and needs.

Lessons Learned and Looking Ahead

These changes required embracing flexibility within fidelity, preserving the core elements of F2F while allowing variation in delivery. Relinquishing control over implementation has been both necessary and challenging, particularly as we are accustomed to structured oversight. At times, anecdotal feedback became the primary measure of success, reinforcing the need to ensure accountability and provide meaningful support while respecting schools’ independence to adapt to their local context.

In summary, as F2F transitioned from controlled trials to real-world school settings, the emphasis shifted from effectiveness to sustainable implementation. We adapted structural elements of the program to allow school-driven participation, flexible group formation, and priority of locally relevant outcomes, and adjusted evaluation and coaching to a lower-burden and more responsive approach. Throughout this process, success has depended on trust, strong relationships, and a careful balance between providing accountability and support while respecting schools’ independence. Overall, this translational work has proven both impactful and feasible, laying a strong foundation for continued dissemination, and we look forward to further refining our approaches and learning alongside school partners in the years ahead to increase the reach and impact of our promising program.