BACKGROUND: The Inner-City Asthma Intervention was a national, multicenter implementation of an evidence-based intervention to reduce asthma morbidity in inner-city children that was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Funding was initially planned for 4 years beginning in April 2001, but because of budgetary changes funding ceased in September 2004, 6 months before the original plan. Some sites were able to sustain their asthma program when the funding ended and others were not. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics of sites that were able to sustain their asthma program after the original funding ended with those that were not. METHODS: Data were collected from the project manager at each site in an electronic survey and through telephone interview in November 2003 and August 2005. Using contingency tables, we examined the bivariate relationship between each proposed factor and our outcome measure, secured funding. RESULTS: Of the 18 sites that completed the survey, 50% reported continued funding. All sustainable sites received funding from multiple sources, including either the hospital or the community. One site received federal funding and one site received state funding. Of the sites that presented data to multiple funders, 6 of 9 were sustained (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Sustainable programs were more likely to be funded locally. Programs that used an evaluative process, including patient outcomes data, to demonstrate the importance of the program to their institution and community were more likely to obtain continued funding compared with those that did not.
BACKGROUND: The Inner-City Asthma Intervention was a national, multicenter implementation of an evidence-based intervention to reduce asthma morbidity in inner-city children that was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Funding was initially planned for 4 years beginning in April 2001, but because of budgetary changes funding ceased in September 2004, 6 months before the original plan. Some sites were able to sustain their asthma program when the funding ended and others were not. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics of sites that were able to sustain their asthma program after the original funding ended with those that were not. METHODS: Data were collected from the project manager at each site in an electronic survey and through telephone interview in November 2003 and August 2005. Using contingency tables, we examined the bivariate relationship between each proposed factor and our outcome measure, secured funding. RESULTS: Of the 18 sites that completed the survey, 50% reported continued funding. All sustainable sites received funding from multiple sources, including either the hospital or the community. One site received federal funding and one site received state funding. Of the sites that presented data to multiple funders, 6 of 9 were sustained (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Sustainable programs were more likely to be funded locally. Programs that used an evaluative process, including patient outcomes data, to demonstrate the importance of the program to their institution and community were more likely to obtain continued funding compared with those that did not.