• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Program Directory
• Background & Methodology
• Research
• Nominate a Program

About Other Evidence-based Online Resources and Directories

Model Programs Guide (MPG)

The MPG database covers youth services including prevention, sanctions, and re-entry. It is used by juvenile justice practitioners, administrators, and researchers to enhance accountability, ensure public safety, and help reduce recidivism. The MPG database includes programs in the areas of delinquency, violence, youth gang involvement, substance abuse, academic difficulties, family functioning, sexual activity/exploitation, and mental health.

Sponsor Agency

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Focus

Risk factors that impede positive youth development

Rating System

The MPG uses the same kind of rating system as the FindYouthInfo.gov Program Directory, except it refers to Level 1 programs as “Exemplary,” Level 2 programs as “Effective,” and Level 3 programs as “Promising.”

---

Guide to Community Preventive Services

The Guide to Community Preventive Services (also referred to as the Community Guide) is a resource for recommendations on evidence-based interventions that improve public health. The Community Guide includes more than 210 public health interventions in 18 topic areas, including violence, tobacco use, and alcohol use.

Sponsor Agency

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Focus

Programs and policies that improve health and prevent disease

Rating System

The CDC’s Task Force on Community Preventive Services consists of volunteer experts in public health and prevention research, policy, and practice. They prioritize topics for systematic review and oversee the review process. The systematic review process includes:

• Convening a review team
• Developing a conceptual framework
• Developing a list of interventions
• Refining research questions
• Searching for evidence
• Critically evaluating available studies
• Summarizing the evidence
• Presenting the results to the Task Force for discussion
• Disseminating findings and Task Force recommendations

Interventions are rated as:

Recommended: The systematic review of available studies provides strong or sufficient evidence that the intervention is effective. The categories of “strong” and “sufficient” evidence reflect the Task Force’s degree of confidence that an intervention has beneficial effects. They do not directly relate to the expected magnitude of benefits. The categorization is based on several factors, such as study design, number of studies, and consistency of the effect across studies.

Recommended Against: The systematic review of available studies provides strong or sufficient evidence that the intervention is harmful or not effective.

Insufficient Evidence: The available studies do not provide sufficient evidence to determine if the intervention is, or is not, effective. Additional research is needed to determine whether or not the intervention is effective.

---

National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP)

NREPP is a searchable database of interventions for the prevention and treatment of mental and substance use disorders. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has developed this resource to help people, agencies, and organizations implement programs and practices in their communities.

Sponsor Agency

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Focus

Mental health and substance abuse interventions

Rating System

NREPP staff and program developers often work together to prepare applications for review. Each of the evaluators independently reviews the materials and calculates ratings on a scale of 0.0-4.0, based on the following:

Quality of research: Summarizes the amount and general quality of evidence supporting the conclusion that the intervention, rather than other factors, produced the reported results or outcomes. Higher scores indicate stronger, more compelling evidence. Each outcome is rated separately. This is done because interventions may target multiple outcomes (e.g., alcohol or marijuana use, behavioral problems in school, etc.), and the evidence supporting the different outcomes may vary.

Readiness for dissemination: Summarizes the amount and general quality of the resources available to support the use of the intervention. Higher scores indicate that more and higher-quality resources are available. This rating applies to the intervention as a whole.

---

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)

The WWC collects, screens, and identifies studies on the effectiveness of educational programs, products, practices, and policies for educators, policymakers, researchers, and the public.

Sponsor Agency

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences Focus: Educational interventions

Rating System

The WWC effectiveness rating takes into account the quality of the research design, the statistical significance of the findings, the size of the difference between participants in the intervention and comparison conditions, and the consistency in findings across studies. The WWC rates intervention effects in a given outcome domain as:

Positive Effects: Indicates strong evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.

• Two or more studies showing statistically significant positive effects, at least one of which met WWC evidence standards for a strong design
• No studies showing statistically significant or substantively important negative effects

Potentially Positive Effects: Indicates evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence.

• At least one study showing a statistically significant or substantively important positive effect
• No studies showing a statistically significant or substantively important negative effect and fewer studies showing indeterminate effects than showing statistically significant or substantively important positive effects

Mixed Effects: Indicates evidence of inconsistent effects.

• At least one study showing a statistically significant or substantively important positive effect
• At least one study showing a statistically significant or substantively important negative effect—but no more such studies than the number showing a statistically significant or substantively important positive effect
• Or at least one study showing a statistically significant or substantively important effect
• More studies showing an indeterminate effect than showing a statistically significant or substantively important effect

No Discernible Effects: Indicates any affirmative evidence of effects.

• None of the studies shows a statistically significant or substantively important effect, either positive or negative

Potentially Negative Effects: Indicates evidence of a negative effect with no overriding contrary evidence.

• At least one study showing a statistically significant or substantively important negative effect
• No studies showing a statistically significant or substantively important positive effect
• Or more studies showing statistically significant or substantively important negative effects than showing statistically significant or substantively important positive effects

Negative Effects: Indicates strong evidence of a negative effect with no overriding contrary evidence.

• Two or more studies showing statistically significant negative effects, at least one of which is based on a strong design
• No studies showing statistically significant or substantively important positive effects

 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•