Essay Grade

Bradley Family Episode 4
Bradley Family Episode 4
Program Transcript
FEMALE SPEAKER: I know it’s here somewhere. I was just looking at it. Ah.
Here it is. Tiffany says that over the last several years she’s used crack, meth,
oxy, marijuana. Here. The list goes on.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Well, is she attending NA yet?
FEMALE SPEAKER: I’ve been hesitant to have her do that.
FEMALE SPEAKER: Why?
FEMALE SPEAKER: Well, she already has her hands full. Three rests in two
years, emotional and physical abuse growing up, and she still isn’t free of her
pimp. It’s just a lot to ask of her to also start going to NA, especially since we
really don’t know how effective those 12-step programs really are.
FEMALE SPEAKER: What do you mean?
FEMALE SPEAKER: I don’t know if I’ve seen any research to support it. Have
you?
FEMALE SPEAKER: You have to be kidding. 12-step programs are the gold
standard.
FEMALE SPEAKER: But the research-FEMALE SPEAKER: Look at the drugs she’s been abusing. You’re telling me this
doesn’t make her a candidate for the primary approach for treating addiction?
You can supplement it with other approaches, but the 12-step program is the
foundation for everything else.
FEMALE SPEAKER: I don’t agree. I think some of this depends on the client.
And in Tiffany’s case, the research-FEMALE SPEAKER: No. You’re not hearing me. Research and practice are two
very different things. I think you should get Tiffany into NA. And do it soon.
Bradley Family Episode 4
Additional Content Attribution
MUSIC:
Music by Clean Cuts
©2013 Laureate Education, Inc.
1
Bradley Family Episode 4
Original Art and Photography Provided By:
Brian Kline and Nico Danks
©2013 Laureate Education, Inc.
2
Evidence‐based programs:
An overview
WHAT WORKS, WISCONSIN – RESEARCH TO PRACTICE SERIES
ISSUE #6, OCTOBER 2007
BY SIOBHAN M. COONEY, MARY HUSER,
STEPHEN SMALL, AND CAILIN O’CONNOR
University of Wisconsin–Madison and University of Wisconsin–Extension
In recent years, there has been increased pressure from funding agencies and
federal, state and local governments for greater effectiveness and accountability
of prevention and intervention programs. This rising demand for program
quality, and evidence of that quality, has fueled a growing interest in evidence‐
based programs (EBPs). However, there remains some confusion about what
constitutes an EBP, whether some EBPs are better than others, and the advantages
and disadvantages of implementing EBPs. In this Research to Practice brief, we
provide an overview of what it means for a program to be evidence‐based, discuss
the advantages and disadvantages of implementing EBPs, and point readers in the
direction of resources to help locate these programs and learn more about them.
What are evidence‐based programs?
A growing body of research in the social and behavioral sciences has demonstrated that
certain approaches and strategies for working with youth and their families can positively
impact important social problems such as delinquency, teen pregnancy, substance abuse and
family violence. Many of these effective approaches and strategies have been packaged into
programs targeting outcomes specific to individuals, schools, families, and communities.
Those programs that have been found to be effective based on the results of rigorous evaluations
are often called “evidence‐based.”
An important element of EBPs is that they have
been evaluated rigorously in experimental or
quasi‐experimental studies (see box on this
page).
Not only are the results of these evaluations
important, but it is also essential that the
evaluations themselves have been subjected to
critical peer review. That is, experts in the field
– not just the people who developed and
evaluated the program – have examined the
evaluation’s methods and agreed with its
conclusions about the program’s effects. Thus,
EBPs often have evaluation findings published
in peer‐reviewed scientific journals.
The importance of rigorous evaluation
A rigorous evaluation typically involves either an
experimental design (like that used in randomized
controlled trials) or a quasi‐experimental design. In an
experimental design, people are randomly assigned to either
the treatment group, which participates in the program, or
the control group, which does not. After the program is
completed, the outcomes of these two groups are
compared. This type of research design helps ensure that
any observed differences in outcomes between the two
groups are the result of the program and not other factors.
Given that randomization is not always possible, a quasi‐
experimental design is sometimes used. In evaluations using
this design, the program participants are compared to a
group of people similar in many ways to the program
participants. However, because a quasi‐experimental
design does not randomly assign participants to program
and non‐program groups, it is not as strong a design as the
experimental approach. Because there may be unobserved
differences between the two groups of people who are
being compared, this design does not allow program
evaluators to conclude with the same certainty that the
program itself was responsible for the impacts observed.
Most programs have evaluation evidence from less
rigorous studies. Evaluations that do not include any type
of comparison group, for example, do not allow for any
conclusions to be made about whether the changes seen in
program participants are related to or caused by the
program. These studies sometimes show the promise of
positive results, but they do not allow the program to be
classified as evidence‐based. Programs with evidence from
less rigorous studies are often referred to as “promising”
programs.
Evidence‐based programs: An overview
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #6
When a program has sufficient peer‐
reviewed, empirical evidence for its
effectiveness, its developer will typi‐
cally submit it to certain federal
agencies and respected research
organizations for consideration. These
organizations “certify” or “endorse”
programs by including them in their
official lists of effective programs.
This lets others in the field know the
program meets certain standards of
effectiveness. (See Appendix A for
examples of these organizations.)
Simply put, a program is judged to be
evidence‐based if (a) evaluation re‐
search shows that the program pro‐
duces the expected positive results;
(b) the results can be attributed to the
program itself, rather than to other
extraneous factors or events; (c) the
evaluation is peer‐reviewed by
experts in the field; and (d) the
program is “endorsed” by a federal
agency
or
respected
research
organization and included in their list
of effective programs.
Given this definition of an EBP, it is
important to distinguish the term
“evidence‐based” from “research‐
based.”
Consider
our
earlier
description of how most, if not all,
EBPs were developed based on years
of scientific research on what program
components, such as content and
activities, are likely to work for youth
2
and families. Because EBPs contain program
components with solid empirical bases, they can
safely be called “research‐based” programs.
However, the reverse is not true. Not all, or
even the majority, of research‐based programs
fit the definition of an EBP. Just because a
program contains research‐based content or was
guided by research‐based information, doesn’t
mean it has been proven effective. Unless it also
has scientific evidence that it works, it is
incorrect to call it “evidence‐based.”
Are some evidence‐based
programs better than others?
Programs that meet the definition of evidence‐
based are not all similarly effective or equally
likely to work in a given community.
For example, some EBPs have been evaluated
rigorously in several large‐scale evaluations that
follow participants for a long period of time.
Others have only undergone one or two less
rigorous evaluations (for example, those using
the quasi‐experimental design described on
page 2). Those programs that are shown to be
effective multiple times in experimental studies
are generally considered to be of a higher
standard.
Furthermore,
many
EBPs
have
been
successfully replicated and evaluated in a
variety of settings with a range of different
audiences. Others have only been evaluated
with a particular audience in a certain
geographical area, for example. When a
program has been shown to be effective in
different settings and with different audiences,
it is more likely that it will be effective when
implemented elsewhere.
Evidence‐based programs: An overview
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #6
Finally, EBPs can vary in the strength of their
effects. For example, one program may have
evidence that it reduces delinquent acts in its
participants by 10 percent over the subsequent
year, while another program has evidence of
reducing delinquency by 20 or 25 percent.
Generally, those programs that consistently pro‐
duce a greater effect than other programs are
thought to be better programs.
Thus, the level of evidence for effectiveness
varies across programs, and practitioners must
use a critical eye when judging where on the
continuum of effectiveness a program lies.
Advantages of evidence‐based
programs
There are numerous merits to adopting and
implementing EBPs. First, utilizing an EBP in‐
creases the odds that the program will work as
intended and that the public good will be
enhanced. There is also greater efficiency in
using limited resources on what has been proven
to work as compared to what people think will
work or what has traditionally been done.
Instead of putting resources toward program
development, organizations can select from the
growing number of EBPs, which are not only
known to be effective but also often offer well‐
packaged program materials, staff training, and
technical assistance. Using EBPs where
appropriate can thus be viewed as a responsible
and thoughtful use of limited resources.
The proven effectiveness that underlies EBPs
can help secure resources and support from
funding agencies and other stakeholders, such
as policy makers, community leaders, and
members
of
the
targeted
population.
Increasingly, funders and policy makers are
recommending, if not requiring, that EBPs be
used to qualify for their financial support.
Additionally, the demonstrated effectiveness of
these programs can facilitate community buy‐in
3
and the recruitment and retention of program
participants.
A final benefit of EBPs is that they may have
cost‐benefit information available. This type of
information helps to convey the potential eco‐
nomic savings that can accrue when funds are
invested in a program. Cost‐benefit information
can be very influential in an era where
accountability and economic factors often drive
public policy and funding decisions.
Disadvantages of evidence‐based
programs
Despite the numerous advantages of EBPs,
there are some limitations that are important to
consider. A major constraint is the financial
resources needed to adopt and implement them.
Most EBPs are developed, copyrighted, and
sold at rather substantial costs. Program
designers often require that organizations
purchase curricula and other specially
developed program materials, that staff attend
specialized training, and that program
facilitators hold certain degrees or certifications.
Furthermore, EBPs are often intended to be im‐
plemented exactly as designed, allowing little
room for local adaptation.
Finally, organizations sometimes find that there
are few or no EBPs that are both well‐suited to
meet the needs of targeted audiences and
appropriate for their organization and local
community setting. This situation is especially
common when it comes to the promotion of
positive outcomes rather than the prevention of
negative ones. Because the development of
many EBPs was sponsored by federal agencies
concerned with addressing specific problems,
such as substance abuse, mental illness,
Evidence‐based programs: An overview
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #6
violence, or delinquency, there currently exist
many more problem‐focused EBPs than ones
designed specifically to promote positive
developmental outcomes like school success or
social responsibility.
Where to find evidence‐based
programs
Practitioners looking for an EBP to implement
in their community or learn more about these
programs will find the Internet to be their most
useful resource. As mentioned earlier, a number
of federal agencies and respected research
organizations “certify” or “endorse” programs
that meet the organizations’ specified standards
for effectiveness. Many of these agencies have
established on‐line registries, of lists of EBPs
that they have identified as effective. While
there are some differences in the standards used
by various organizations to assess whether a
program should be endorsed and thus included
on their registry, most share the primary criteria
regarding the need for strong empirical
evidence of program effectiveness.
Organizations that endorse EBPs typically limit
such endorsements, and thus their program
registry, to those programs that have shown an
impact on specific outcomes of interest to the
organization. For example, programs listed on
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention’s Model Programs Guide have all
been shown to have an impact on juvenile
delinquency or well‐known precursors to
delinquency.
As previously mentioned, because the
development of many EBPs was funded by
federal agencies focused on specific problems,
most existing registries of EBPs are problem‐
oriented. Occasionally, EBPs are categorized
according to a strengths‐based orientation and
address outcomes related to positive youth
4
development, academic achievement, school
readiness and family strengthening.
While registries of EBPs are usually organized
around the particular outcomes the programs
have been found to impact, many programs,
especially those focused on primary prevention,
often have broader effects than this pattern
would suggest. Many EBPs have been found to
be effective for reducing multiple problems and
promoting a number of positive outcomes. For
example, a parenting program that successfully
promotes effective parenting practices may not
only reduce the likelihood of particular
problems such as drug abuse or aggression, but
may also promote a variety of positive
outcomes like academic success or stronger
parent‐child relationships. For this reason, you
will often see the same program appear on
multiple registries that focus on different types
of outcomes.
Now, more than ever, practitioners have
available to them a wealth of EBPs that build on
the best available research on what works.
Unfortunately, they are currently underused
and often not well‐understood. Although EBPs
do have some limitations, they can contribute to
a comprehensive approach to preventing a
range of social and health‐related problems and
enhancing the well‐being of individuals,
families and communities.
WHAT WORKS, WISCONSIN: RESEARCH TO PRACTICE SERIES
This is one of a series of Research to Practice briefs prepared by the What Works, Wisconsin team at the
University of Wisconsin–Madison, School of Human Ecology, and Cooperative Extension, University of
Wisconsin–Extension. All of the briefs can be downloaded from http://whatworks.uwex.edu.
This series expands upon ideas that are discussed in What Works, Wisconsin: What Science Tells Us about
Cost‐Effective Programs for Juvenile Delinquency Prevention, which is also available for download at the
web address above.
This publication may be cited without permission provided the source is identified as: Cooney, S.M.,
Huser, M., Small, S., & O’Connor, C. (2007). Evidence‐based programs: An overview. What Works,
Wisconsin Research to Practice Series, 6. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison/Extension.
This project was supported, in part, by Grant Award No. JF‐04‐PO‐0025 awarded by the Wisconsin
Office of Justice Assistance through the Wisconsin Governor’s Juvenile Justice Commission with funds
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Evidence‐based programs: An overview
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #6
5
Appendix A
Evidence‐based program registries
The following websites contain registries, or lists of evidence‐based programs, that have met specific criteria
for effectiveness. Program registries are typically sponsored by federal agencies or other research organiza‐
tions that endorse programs at different rating levels based on evidence of effectiveness for certain participant
outcomes. The registries listed below cover a range of areas including substance abuse and violence preven‐
tion as well as the promotion of positive outcomes such as school success and emotional and social compe‐
tence. Generally, registries are designed to be used for finding programs for implementation. However,
registries can also be used to learn about evidence‐based programs that may serve as models as organizations
modify aspects of their own programs.
Best Practices Registry for Suicide Prevention
http://www.sprc.org/featured_resources/ebpp/index.asp
This registry, developed by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC) and the American Foundation for
Suicide Prevention, includes two registries of evidence‐based programs. The first draws directly from a larger
registry‐ that of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Registry of
Evidence‐Based Programs and Practices (NREPP). Users interested in finding out more about programs
drawn from this registry will be directed to the NREPP site. The second registry was developed by SPRC in
2005 and lists Effective and Promising evidence‐based programs for suicide prevention. This portion has fact
sheets in PDF format for users interested in learning more about the listed programs.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Blueprints for Violence Prevention
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html
This research center site provides information on model programs in its “Blueprints” section. Programs that
meet a strict scientific standard of program effectiveness are listed. These model programs (Blueprints) have
demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing adolescent violent crime, aggression, delinquency, and sub‐
stance abuse. Other programs have been identified as promising programs. Endorsements are updated
regularly, with programs added to and excluded from the registry based on new evaluation findings.
The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)
http://www.casel.org/programs/selecting.php
The Safe and Sound report developed at CASEL lists school‐based programs that research has indicated are
effective in promoting social and emotional learning in schools. This type of learning has been shown to con‐
tribute to positive youth development, academic achievement, healthy behaviors, and reductions in youth
problem behaviors. Ratings are given on specific criteria for all programs listed, with some designated
“Select” programs. This registry has not been updated since programs were reviewed in 2003.
Evidence‐based programs: An overview – Appendix A
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #6
6
Exemplary and Promising Safe, Disciplined and Drug‐Free Schools Programs
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/exemplary01/index.html
The Department of Education and the Expert Panel on Safe, Disciplined and Drug‐Free Schools identified
nine exemplary and 33 promising programs for this 2001 report. The report, which can be found at this site,
provides descriptions and contact information for each program. The focus is on programs that can be imp‐
lemented in a school setting whether in the classroom, in extra‐curricular activities, or as after‐school pro‐
gramming.
Helping America’s Youth
http://guide.helpingamericasyouth.gov/programtool.cfm
This registry is sponsored by the White House and was developed with the help of several federal agencies.
Programs focus on a range of youth outcomes such as academic achievement, substance use, and delin‐
quency, and are categorized as Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3 according to their demonstrated effectiveness. The
registry can be searched with keywords or by risk or protective factor, and is updated regularly to incorpo‐
rate new evidence‐based programs.
Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technology (CAPT) Database of Prevention Programs
http://www.hhd.org/capt/search.asp
This site features a simple or advanced search function to find substance abuse and other types of prevention
programs and determine their effectiveness according to a variety of criteria. Also included is information
about the sources those agencies used for their evaluations, contact information, websites, domains, relevant
references, and a brief description of each program.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Model Programs Guide
http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/mpg_index.htm
The OJJDP Model Programs Guide is a user‐friendly, online portal to prevention and intervention programs
that address a range of issues across the juvenile justice spectrum. The Guide now profiles more than 200
programs – rated Exemplary, Effective, or Promising – and helps communities identify those that best suit
their needs. Users can search the Guide’s database by program category, target population, risk and protec‐
tive factors, effectiveness rating, and other parameters. This registry is continuously updated and contains
more programs than other well‐known registries, although many of these are Promising rather than Exem‐
plary or Effective.
Promising Practices Network on Children, Families and Communities
http://www.promisingpractices.net/programs.asp
A project of the RAND Corporation, the Promising Practices Network website contains a registry of Proven
and Promising prevention programs that research has shown to be effective for a variety of outcomes. These
programs are generally focused on children, adolescents, and families. The website provides a thorough
summary of each program and is updated regularly.
Evidence‐based programs: An overview – Appendix A
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #6
7
Social Programs that Work, Coalition for Evidenced‐Based Policy

Home

This site is not a registry in the conventional sense of the word in that it does not include and exclude pro‐
grams based on some criteria of effectiveness. Instead, it summarizes the findings from rigorous evaluations
of programs targeting issues such as employment, substance use, teen pregnancy, and education. Some of the
programs have substantial evidence of their effectiveness, while others have evaluation results suggesting
their ineffectiveness. Users are welcome to sign up for emails announcing when the site is updated.
Strengthening America’s Families: Effective Family Programs for Prevention of Delinquency
http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/
This registry summarizes and rates family strengthening programs which have been proven to be effective.
Programs are designated as Exemplary I, Exemplary II, Model, or Promising based upon the degree, quality
and outcomes of research associated with them. A program matrix is also included, which can be helpful in
determining “at a glance” which programs may best meet community needs. This registry was last revised in
1999.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) National Registry of
Evidence‐Based Programs and Practices
http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/
The National Registry of Evidence‐based Programs and Practices (NREPP) is a searchable database with up‐
to‐date, reliable information on the scientific basis and practicality of interventions. Rather than categorizing
programs as Model, Effective, or Promising, NREPP rates the quality of the research findings separately for
each outcome that has been evaluated, as well as readiness for dissemination. Users can perform customized
searches to identify specific interventions based upon desired outcomes, target populations and settings.
Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter5/sec3.html
This report designates programs as Model or Promising and goes further than many other registries to also
include a “Does Not Work” category. General approaches and specific programs for the prevention of youth
violence are described at three levels of intervention: primary, secondary and tertiary. This report has not
been updated since its publication in 2001, but it is rare in that it discusses the cost‐effectiveness of the
programs.
Evidence‐based programs: An overview – Appendix A
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #6
8
Guidelines for selecting an evidence‐based program:
Balancing community needs, program quality,
and organizational resources
WHAT WORKS, WISCONSIN – RESEARCH TO PRACTICE SERIES
ISSUE #3, MARCH 2007
BY STEPHEN A. SMALL, SIOBHAN M. COONEY,
GAY EASTMAN, AND CAILIN O’CONNOR
University of Wisconsin–Madison and University of Wisconsin–Extension
In recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of evidence‐
based programs designed to reduce individual and family problems and
promote healthy development. Because each program has undergone rigorous
testing and evaluation, program practitioners can reassure potential program
sponsors that the program is likely to be effective under the right conditions, with
the appropriate audience and with the proper implementation. However, knowing
which program is the “right” one for a particular setting and audience is not always
easy to determine. When selecting a program, it is important to move beyond current
fads or what the latest salesperson is selling and consider whether a program fits with
the local agency’s goals and values, the community setting and the needs of the
targeted audience. The long‐term success of a program depends on the program being
not only a good one, but also the right one.
Unfortunately, there is currently little research on how to best go about the process of
selecting an evidence‐based program. Consequently, the guidelines we present in this brief
are based primarily on our experiences working with community‐based organizations, the
experiences of practitioners, and common sense. We have identified a number of factors that
we believe should be considered when deciding which program is the most appropriate for a
particular audience and sponsoring organization. These factors can be grouped into three
general categories: program match, program quality and organizational resources. In order to
assist with the process of program selection, we have developed a set of questions to consider
when selecting an evidence‐based program for your particular agency and audience.
elines for Selecting an Evidence‐Based Program
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #3
The issues raised by program match, program
quality and organizational resources are overlap‐
ping. Selecting a program usually requires
balancing different priorities, so it’s important to
have a good understanding of all three of these
before determining the usefulness of a program
for a particular situation.
PROGRAM MATCH
A first set of factors to consider is related to how
well the program will fit with your purposes, your
organization, the target audience, and the com‐
munity where it will be implemented.
Perhaps the most obvious factor to consider is
whether the goals and objectives of a program are
consistent with the goals and objectives that the
sponsoring organization hopes to achieve. While
this may seem apparent, it is not uncommon for
sponsors to select a program because there is grant
money available to support it or everyone else is
doing it. Just because a program is the latest fad or
Program match: Questions to ask
 How well do the program’s goals and objectives
reflect what your organization hopes to achieve?
 How well do the program’s goals match those of
your intended participants?
 Is the program of sufficient length and intensity (i.e.,
“strong enough”) to be effective with this particular
group of participants?
 Are potential participants willing and able to make
the time commitment required by the program?
 Has the program demonstrated effectiveness with a
target population similar to yours?
 To what extent might you need to adapt this
program to fit the needs of your community? How
might such adaptations affect the effectiveness of the
program?
 Does the program allow for adaptation?
 How well does the program complement current
programming both in your organization and in the
community?
there’s funding to support it doesn’t necessarily
mean it is going to accomplish the goals of the
sponsoring organization or meet the needs of the
targeted audience.
A second aspect of program match involves
whether a program is strong enough to address
the level and complexity of risk factors or current
problems among participants. This refers to the
issue of adequate program duration and intensity.
Changing existing problem behaviors or counter‐
acting a large number of risk factors in partici‐
pants’ lives requires many hours of engaging
programming over a period of time. For example,
a short primary prevention program designed for
families facing few problems or risks may not be
effective for an audience already experiencing
more severe problems.
Another facet of program match concerns the
length of the program and whether your intended
audience will be willing and able to attend the
required number of sessions. Many evidence‐
based programs are of fairly long duration,
involving multiple sessions over weeks or
months. A common concern of program pro‐
viders is whether potential participants will
make such a long‐term commitment. Because
this is a realistic concern, program sponsors need
to assess the targeted audience’s availability for
and interest in a program of a particular length.1
The reality is, if people don’t attend, then they
can’t reap the program’s benefits. However, it is
also important to keep in mind that programs of
longer duration are more likely to produce
lasting behavior change in participants. Program
sponsors sometimes need to find a compromise
between the most effective program and one that
will be a realistic commitment for participants.
Matching a program with the values and culture
of the intended audience is also critically important. Some programs are intentionally designed
for particular populations or cultural groups.
Most are more culturally generic and designed
1
Issue #2 in this series addresses strategies for
recruiting and retaining participants.
Guidelines for Selecting an Evidence‐Based Program
What Works, Wisconsin – Research to Practice Series, #3
2
for general audiences.2 It’s important to consider
whether the targeted audience will find the
program acceptable and will want to participate.
The ideal situation would be finding evidence that
a program is effective for the specific population(s) you intend to use it with. In that case,
you could reasonably expect the program to be
effective when it is implemented well.
protective factors, developmental processes and
settings. Any new program implemented in a
community should address needs that other
community programs fail to address, which will
help to create the kind of multi‐pronged approach
that leads to greater overall effectiveness.
PROGRAM QUALITY
A second set of factors to consider when selecting
a program are related to the quality of the pro‐
gram itself and the evidence for its effectiveness.
Unfortunately, many evidence‐based programs
have only been evaluated with a limited number
of populations and under a relatively narrow
range of conditions. While many evidence‐based
programs are effective and appropriate for a range
of audiences and situations, it is rare to find a
program that is suitable or effective for every
audience or situation. In many cases, you will
need to carefully read program materials or talk to
the program’s designers to see whether adapting a
program or using it with an audience for which it
hasn’t been evaluated is reasonable.
Depending on the design, programs may or may
not be amenable to adaptation. If adapting a
program to a particular cultural group is
important, then program sponsors should seriously consider whether such changes are possible.
Some program designers are willing to help you
with program adaptation so that the program’s
effectiveness will not be undermined by these
changes.3
Finally, when considering wh