5

Communicating Program Results

After the session focused on program evaluation, the workshop turned to the topic of communicating program results. The session opened with two presentations that established a conceptual basis for broader dialogue in the subsequent moderated panel discussion. Following the panel discussion, the final portion of the session was dedicated to an audience Q&A.

This chapter offers guidance for developing communication strategies that amplify program impact and promote engagement. Effective communication of program results requires intentional strategy, audience engagement, and thoughtful message design. Drawing on insights from behavioral science and suicide prevention practice, this chapter outlines best practices for dissemination—including audience tailoring, data storytelling, visual design, and real-time adaptation—and presents examples of how communication can support impact, build coalitions, and inform public dialogue.

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AND DATA STORYTELLING

The foundational presentations in this session explored strategic approaches to communicating program results. Speakers focused on tailoring communications to particular audiences and using data storytelling to convey impact in ways that are clear, compelling, and meaningful to diverse stakeholders.

Best Processes for Strategic Communication of Program Results

Jeff Niederdeppe (Cornell University) began by suggesting it is more appropriate to think in terms of best processes, rather than best practices, as there is no one-size-fits-all approach to effective communication and dissemination. However, he explained, a set of helpful questions and frameworks can guide efforts. Because communication and dissemination activities are often carried out under resource constraints, he stressed the importance of having a clear strategy to maximize impact. Niederdeppe urged participants to bring the same level of thought and planning to communication and dissemination that is typically applied to program implementation and evaluation, emphasizing that some of the same principles and concepts apply across both domains.

Niederdeppe identified a set of key strategic questions that should guide communication and dissemination efforts:

1. Why communicate program results?
2. How should program results be communicated?
   • To whom to say it?
   • What to say?
   • When to say it?
   • Where to say it (via what channels)?
   • How to say it (e.g., stories, evidence, figures, statistics)?
3. Is there potential for unintended negative consequences?

Put more succinctly, in communication and dissemination, the foundational questions are who, what, when, where, why, how, and with what potential risk. Of these, he noted, why is the most important question—why are we disseminating program results? What is the goal? What is the purpose of these dissemination efforts? He followed up these questions by pointing to the complexity of behavioral, institutional, and policy change processes, which are rarely linear.

To illustrate this complexity, Niederdeppe presented two conceptual models: the COM-B model of planning behavioral interventions and a typical policy process logic model (see Figure 5-1). He emphasized the circular nature of the two models, with various overlapping and intervening factors that may or may not coalesce to create momentum for change. Understanding which pieces must coalesce for change to happen is essential, he said, for determining how and when evidence might inform practice and policy. One pathway is agenda-setting—identifying a topic, program, or policy as important and worthy of attention. Another pathway, Niderdeppe continued, is direct advocacy or persuasion: convincing key audiences that an intervention should be implemented or that an issue should be reframed.

A third pathway involves mobilizing constituencies, building coalitions, and bringing together stakeholders with shared interests to collaborate on an issue. These strategies are not mutually exclusive, but each requires resources.

Each of these pathways suggests a different set of behaviors and foci, Niederdeppe observed, underscoring the need for a clearly articulated goal and a corresponding theory of change to guide dissemination decisions. If the goal is agenda-setting, Niederdeppe explained, the strategy might involve maximizing community exposure to a topic, because people would see the topic being raised repeatedly as important. If the goal is persuasion, attention must be given to identifying the specific actors to be persuaded, whether they are decision makers, knowledge brokers, or other intermediaries. Reframing an issue toward a more public health community-based approach may require crafting messages that align with shared values and invite audiences to see the issue the same way. Reflecting on the day’s emphasis on a comprehensive public health approach to suicide prevention, Niederdeppe added that while this framing is widely used among researchers and practitioners, it may not resonate as strongly with general policymakers or lay audiences.

If the goal is coalition-building, Niederdeppe continued, it is necessary to determine which organizations and individuals to engage; engagement may need to extend beyond stakeholders focused on suicide prevention for veterans or military personnel, and include those who care about some broader community-based change ideas central to a public health approach, such as workforce development or building connections between people.

Niederdeppe underscored the importance of identifying the intended audience once the “why” is clear, as decades of communication, and dissemination research have demonstrated that understanding the values and beliefs of the audience is central to crafting messages that will resonate. Here, decisions must be made—is the focus on communicating with institutional decision makers? If so, is the emphasis on trying to persuade those who opposed previous policies or programs, or is the purpose to instead mobilize those who already are inclined to support these policies or programs? Or is the aim to target the general public to build pressure from the ground up? Is the purpose to persuade the public that an issue is important, or is the purpose to mobilize those already affected? Niederdeppe followed up these questions by highlighting that scholarly communities are key actors in a broader dissemination and communication strategy.

The next step is to determine what should be said, Niederdeppe noted, cautioning against the common practice of disseminating findings as new evidence is developed, expecting that exposure alone will lead to change. Instead, he advised starting from the end goal, such as promoting a program or changing policy, and then working backward to understand who the

and different audiences operate on different time horizons that are important to them. Echoing earlier comments from Yanovitzky, he emphasized that it is fundamental to consider a communication strategy from the very beginning, because it is unlikely that critical audiences will need the information at the very moment evidence or results are published or reported. For example, institutional decision makers will not wait for evidence to come by and then make a decision, they are more likely to seek out relevant findings when a policy window opens or a political opportunity arises. Researchers must be ready, Niederdeppe urged, to engage at those moments. Similarly, public interest may depend on personal experience or news relevance, while practice communities often need guidance long before peer-reviewed results are available. On the other hand, he noted, scholarly audiences may require traditional publication but can influence official guidance and professional norms.

Next, Niederdeppe touched upon dissemination channels. The important questions here, he stated, are where is your audience? Where are they engaging with information? What channels resonate with and reach those audiences? Depending on the answers to these questions, relevant channels may include social media, traditional media, community gatherings, or peer-reviewed literature. He cautioned against jumping to social media platforms and engaging influencers without understanding whether such platforms align with the intended audience’s habits and preferences. What might work for one audience may be ineffective for another audience.

Niederdeppe went on to highlight the value of communication science for dissemination decisions. Research in this field can help determine whether to use storytelling, anecdotes, emotional appeals, data-driven arguments, or direct engagement with opposition. There is a robust body of work that may help inform decision making, but researchers must engage with the work to make use of it effectively.

Finally, Niederdeppe emphasized the importance of considering potential unintentional negative consequences of dissemination efforts. While it is impossible to anticipate all possible outcomes once information enters a complex information ecosystem, some risks are well documented and should be factored into early planning. He suggested keeping in mind the medical principle of “do no harm” and pointing to the Werther effect—the risk of suicide contagion following publicity of a suicide. Other risks include stigmatization, message co-option, or framing that emphasizes individual responsibility rather than a community or public health model. Niederdeppe closed his presentation by cautioning that disseminating results very publicly can run the risk of catalyzing oppositional forces when a subtler or more focused dissemination strategy with decision makers that does not bring in media attention may have a better chance effecting change under the radar and avoid catalyzing oppositional forces.

Data Storytelling: Best Practices for Communicating Impact

Corbin Standley (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention [AFSP]) opened his presentation by framing data storytelling, which combines data, visuals (such graphs, charts, illustrations), and narratives (such as stories about the program and about those impacted), as an approach that helps data come alive and inspire action. He then laid out three steps for effective storytelling:

1. Knowing the audience. Audience-specific data communication ensures the message is clear, relevant, and impactful.
2. Finding the story. Knowing what the data are saying will help develop a meaningful narrative that is insightful for the audience.
3. Visualizing the impact. Displaying data with the right visuals to ensure the story is communicated clearly and interpreted correctly.

In terms of knowing the audience, Standley said, “I always come back to the evaluator’s motto of ‘it depends’—how you’re communicating depends on who your audience is.” The approach to communication should vary depending on who the audience is, what they need, and what response is desired. He suggested considering two guiding questions:

1. What do you want the audience to think, feel, or do as a result of encountering the data story, findings, or results?
2. What does the audience need to know to get there?

He then outlined how this approach could be applied across four key audiences:

1. Researchers and academia.
   Desired response: View the findings as credible and as a meaningful contribution to the scholarly discourse.
   What they need to know: Is the data valid and reliable, and adding to the body of knowledge?
2. Funders or donors.
   Desired response: Continued or increased support for the programs or interventions.
   What they need to know: How has their investment made—or how will it make—a difference?
3. Policymakers and staffers.
   Desired response: Take a legislative or policy action.
   What they need to know: How did or will this affect the constituents in my district?

4. Community members.
   Desired response: View the findings as relevant and trustworthy and be motivated to engage.
   What they need to know: How does it affect me, my family, and my community?

To find the story in data, Standley explained, he tends to think about a storytelling structure as a roller coaster, with the storytelling elements taught in middle and high school—rising action, falling action, and conclusion—adapted to a set of five elements and corresponding questions that can help frame findings in a way that resonates with different audiences:

1. Context: Why does this matter?
2. Characters: Who is impacted by the data and who are the characters in the story?
3. Climb: What did the program or intervention do?
4. Consequence: What are the findings?
5. Conclusion: What does it mean? What should people do as a result? What action are we hoping takes place as a result of these program findings?

To illustrate this approach, Standley shared the development and early evaluation findings from the ASFP program L.E.T.S. Save Lives, an introductory suicide program designed by and for Black and African American communities that was launched in February 2024 (see Figure 5-3). The context was that suicide rates have been increasing in Black and African American communities for several years. Standley highlighted Keon Lewis as one of the key characters of this story. Lewis, a college student at the time, was inspired to act as a result of friends losing loved ones to suicide. He joined a local chapter of AFSP and later approached the national office with the goal to develop a program specifically for Black and African American communities. In response ASFP put together an advisory committee of people with lived experience, scholars, researchers, and experts from Black and African American communities to co-develop the L.E.T.S. Save Lives program, as well as the evaluation—the climb.

Continuing, Standley shared the consequence—or evaluation findings showed early signs of impact, with over 2,000 people reached, 95 percent of participants reporting they feel comfortable supporting a loved one who may be struggling, and a 20 percent increase in participant likelihood to reach out for support for themselves or others. The conclusion, Standley shared, is that a follow-up survey found 60 percent of participants had reached out to someone that they were concerned about within two months after attending the program. “Conversations are happening that weren’t before,” he noted. As part of the next phase, Lewis is partnering with AFSP

to scale the reach of L.E.T.S. Save Lives through the Omega Psi Phi fraternity and historically Black colleges and universities throughout the country, extending its impact to new communities.

Building on Niederdeppe’s presentation, Standley turned to the question of how to visualize the impact of a data story and effectively communicate it across different platforms and formats. While researchers often default to traditional outputs such as reports and slide shows, he encouraged participants to consider a broader range of formats that can be integrated into communication strategies from the beginning. These might include handouts, posters, data displays, social media graphics, and other materials tailored to the target audience and context.

Standley shared a few examples of real-world data visualizations,¹ as well as illustrations of a wide range of visualization options for both

To illustrate how to improve the effectiveness and clarity of data visualizations, Standley next showcased a “before and after” example from the AFSP flagship program Talk Saves Lives (see Figure 5-5). He noted that the bar graph on the left leaves it up to the audience to interpret that the takeaway message is participation in the program increased over the last several years. The line graph on the right outlines the exact numbers and provides the takeaway in the graph title—participation in Talk Saves Lives has increased by over two times since 2022.

Standley reiterated the importance of selecting visualization tools that offer both clarity and meaningful interpretation, drawing on participant reflections shared AFSP’s International Survivors of Suicide Program to illustrate this point (see Figure 5-6). In the word cloud example on the left, we can see that participants used terms such as hope, healing, and connection appear prominently, but the visualization offers little insight into what those words actually meant to participants. The thematic quote panel on the right provides that missing context by presenting direct quotes that reflect shared experiences and emotions—for example, the sense of connection and understanding that arises from being among others who understand the unique grief of suicide loss. These survivor voices tell a more powerful story than a word cloud alone can convey.

Standley concluded by emphasizing that this example illustrates why visual storytelling should be planned from the outset. Building visualizations into the broader dissemination strategy can ensure findings are not only seen but understood in ways that resonate with the intended audience.

PANEL DISCUSSION AND AUDIENCE Q&A

Following Niederdeppe’s and Standley’s presentations, Mary Cwik (Johns Hopkins University), Novalene Alsenay Goklish (Johns Hopkins University, Brandi Jancaitis (Virginia Department of Veterans Services), Richard McKeon (SAMHSA), and Itzhak Yanovitzky (Rutgers University) joined them for the moderated panel discussion. Bernice Pescosolido (Indiana University; member, workshop planning committee) served as the moderator for this discussion. Panelists responded to guiding questions on the following topics: tailoring communication to different audiences, evaluating communication strategies, and sharing academic literature effectively.

Tailoring Communication to Different Audiences

Pescosolido began the moderated discussion by noting that this is a uniquely promising moment for public engagement, citing recent data from a representative sample in Indiana, where more than 90 percent of respondents—across a politically conservative state—expressed support for school-based mental health and suicide prevention programming. This surprising level of consensus, she said, reflects a shift in public attitudes and underscores the importance of thoughtful, inclusive communication strategies. She then invited the panelists to share examples of best practices for tailoring communication efforts and addressing the expectations of different communities, particularly in crafting messages that help audiences feel included.

Standley responded that one key focus for AFSP is the continuum of impact. Their work is trying to move individuals and the broader public from awareness to behavior change. However, he acknowledged that it can be difficult to communicate to funders, policymakers, and other stakeholders that a one-year intervention will not necessarily demonstrate measurable reductions in suicide rates at the community level.

Echoing earlier remarks by Kristen Quinlan, Standley pointed to indicators of progress, such as increased knowledge and awareness, reduced stigma and negative attitudes around suicide prevention, greater openness to discussing suicide and mental health, and growing willingness to reach out—either to support loved ones and friends who may be struggling or to seek help oneself.

Setting realistic expectations for evaluation, he added, requires recognizing that behavior change is complicated. Multiple elements must align to achieve behavior change, including awareness, knowledge, and attitude shifts, and the development of intent to change, Standley continued. How long the process of behavior change takes will vary depending on the community, the intervention, funding level, and the program’s sustainability.

Sharing Academic Literature Effectively

Pescosolido mentioned that academic publications don’t always disseminate in a way that researchers would like, and asked what are ways that program developers and evaluators share academic literature in a more effective way? Before turning this question over to the panel, she shared her experience in that special issue publications seem to draw more academics and policymakers, as opposed to one-off articles.

Standley agreed with special issues being more attractive to academics and policymakers, but expanded, stating that publishing in a journal outside the field of suicide prevention, suicide research, and death studies is key, as publishing in those journals is “preaching to the choir.” Instead, he suggested, consider publishing in journals like the American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, social work journals, or other journals that are adjacent, but not suicide specific. Standley went on to say that these other journals may be more open to other methodologies and suggested that a researcher might want to target methodological journals that publish participatory community engaged research or ones that publish mixed-methods and qualitative research.

Yanovitzky spoke to questions around implementation: how does someone navigate complex funding and legal environments? If someone was able to recruit and meet targets for clinical trials, especially in groups that are challenging to recruit, how did they do it? What did they do? How did they put their information out there? Yanovitzky said, “I want to encourage a lot of program relevant data, that maybe they’re not measuring, maybe it’s anecdotal. There’s a lot of value to bring to the surface, so we can all benefit from that and move to [the] implementation side.”

Pescosolido asked panelists to reflect on how grant programs might support grantees to evaluate local programs to facilitate that kind of publication. McKeon commented on communications to policymakers, that it is important to keep in mind the time frame for a policymaker is very different than other people, that they typically only have four to eight years, so they need to see more rapid change. He went on to say that when people are advocating for money, there is a tendency to talk about possibilities and, with suicide prevention’s complexity and time-intensive nature, it is important to use a combination of metrics. McKeon suggested matching data with stories, utilizing compelling examples to make it clear why this initiative or intervention is important. He also noted that, for policymakers, it is important to focus on how your intervention will reduce suicide in the United States, rather than at a global level. For example, someone could say “these things reduced suicide in the White Mountain Apache community” or “this reduced suicide in the Henry Ford Health Care System” but maintain the goal of applying it in other communities.

Jancaitis spoke about the difficulties they are facing with their research grantees. She noted that it took a lot of time to work through academic approvals, hiring a team, working around student schedules, and their research is about to blossom into findings that can be used. However, she described challenges with figuring out how to package this research into a “toolkit-type digestible” and usable format, while keeping it completely free and accessible. She mentioned that a lot of research teams were unwilling to work with them since there are so many rules around what constitutes proprietary information. Jancaitis closed by saying that, as the funder, it was their responsibility to put in the proposal that their research should be free and accessible for grantees.

Audience Q&A

During the audience Q&A, several participants raised important questions about communication strategies, the role of credible messengers, and how to translate research findings into accessible tools for communities and policymakers. Panelists responded by reflecting on the challenges of crafting effective messaging, ensuring cultural relevance, and building trust with diverse audiences. The discussion also highlighted opportunities to align communication approaches with shared values and strategic partnerships.

Crafting Effective Messaging and Identifying Credible Messengers

Matthew Miller (VA Office of Suicide Prevention) commented that the general purposes for the communication might be agenda setting, persuasion, and coalition building, but that wasn’t necessarily practice in federal government or how we think in public health or in suicide prevention: “We think in terms of realizing data, [we] don’t think in terms of crafting a message,” he stated. He went on to say that crafting a message could be viewed as manipulative but was curious on the panel’s thoughts around the role of federal government, public health, suicide prevention, and crafting a message versus just releasing data.

Niederdeppe responded by first acknowledging that he did not mention in his presentation who should be doing the communication, which is central. He said that, in the last 10 to 15 years, there has been a steady erosion of trust in the federal government, public health, and in messaging in general. Niederdeppe emphasized that the federal government is not always best positioned to be the voice of communication; therefore, the question becomes: who is positioned to do that communication in a credible way, reaching the correct audience? Despite there being no one-size-fits-all solution, one thing communication science teaches, he said, is that an