Sustained Community Implementation of JASPER Intervention with Toddlers with Autism.

Shire et al. (2019) asked if preschool staff could keep using JASPER after the research team left. They tracked the same toddlers for two full years. Teachers got less and less coaching each semester. The kids had autism and were two to four years old.

Joint-attention gains held steady into year two. Play skills slipped; the biggest jump happened in year one when outside coaches were still heavy. Staff kept most JASPER strategies, but quality dropped for the harder play routines.

Tiede et al. (2019) pooled 27 studies and found naturalistic programs like JASPER work, so the early gains line up. Ferguson et al. (2020) also saw community teams keep EIBI running, showing the trend is not just one program.

Stahmer et al. (2019) looks like a twin: both studies ran in Part C preschools, used play-based teaching, and saw parent interaction improve while child skills softened after outside coaches left. The pattern repeats.

Rieth et al. (2025) is the follow-up punch. Their later RCT of Project ImPACT found provider coaching quality rose yet child gains vanished, matching the JASPER slippage. Together the three papers warn: without booster sessions, child progress stalls even when adults use the moves.

You can hand JASPER off to community staff, but plan for tune-ups. Schedule at least twice-yearly booster coaching and keep an eye on advanced play targets. If you see those slipping, add brief parent modules or peer practice sessions to lock in the skills.