Evidence can be conceptualized on a continuum, ranging from no evidence to the gold standard in the field – the evidence-based practice. This continuum has been defined over the years with slightly varying definitions. A few examples include:

The California Clearinghouse on Evidence Based Practice rates child welfare programs/practices that are submitted on a 1 to 5 scale based on the strength of the research evidence they have to support the program.

Crime Solutions.gov rates court programs/practices on a 3-point scale, including no effect, promising, or effective.

Most recently, the Family First Prevention Services act identified criteria for evidence of effectiveness of prevention services. The criteria has been specifically detailed in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures for the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse. There are four potential ratings: well-supported, supported, promising, and does not currently meet criteria.

Well-Supported:  Evidence for the effect on case process and outcomes is “well-supported” if results have been established by multiple studies that have been well-designed and well-executed using strong research methods (i.e., cases are randomly assigned to either a mediation group or a no-mediation group) and with statistically significant findings.

Supported: Evidence for the effect on case process and outcomes is “supported” if results have been established by at least one well-designed and well-executed study with statistically significant findings using strong research methods (e.g., strong quasi-experimental designs using control and comparison groups (mediation and no-mediation) and matches those groups according to their case characteristics so similar cases are compared), or by more than one study using moderately strong research methods (e.g., studies using some form of control or comparison group).

Promising: Evidence for the effect on case process and outcomes is “promising” if results have been established by at least one well-designed and well-executed study with statistically significant findings using some form of comparison group.

The challenge that the field often faces is that achieving the highest rating requires rigorous methodology to evaluation the program, and replication of findings across multiple sites. This can be very resource intensive and may require specific research related expertise that sites often lack. That is why there are very few evidence-based practices in the child welfare court system. It is important to consider, however, that contributions to the field that do not meet the highest threshold are also important contributions. There are ways to elevate your work so that it can contribute to the growing evidence base. Consider what it would take for your program to be considered a “promising” program. The minimal threshold includes two key components: 1. The program needs to be manualized; and 2. The program needs to be evaluated using some sort of comparison group. Let’s talk more about these two components.