Which statement best describes how ongoing funding supports scaling up in HPFW programs?

• A. Ongoing funding is unnecessary once initial pilots show benefits.
• B. Securing ongoing funding helps sustain expansion and maintain fidelity across settings
• C. Funding should be cut after pilot to test sustainability
• D. Funding should come only from private donors

Answer: (B)

Sustaining growth in HPFW programs relies on ongoing funding to support expansion while keeping the program delivery faithful to its essential components. Continuous resources are needed to hire and train staff across new sites, provide coaching and supervision, develop and refresh materials, and maintain data systems and evaluation processes. This funding also helps ensure quality control so that as programs spread, their core elements that drive effectiveness aren’t lost in translation to different settings. Without ongoing funding, expansion stalls, staff turnover rises, and the ability to monitor outcomes or make necessary adjustments declines, which can erode both reach and impact.

Relying on funding only after a successful pilot would leave scale-up vulnerable, since the infrastructure and personnel required for wider implementation must be funded over time. Cutting funding after a pilot undermines expansion efforts and jeopardizes fidelity and sustainability. And depending solely on private donors introduces volatility and equity concerns, making it harder to achieve broad, steady reach. Continuous, diverse funding supports steady growth and consistent delivery across settings.