# Presentation: 034364

## Girl’s Study Group Project: Implications and Next StepsCoordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionJune 6, 2008

-                           by
-                  Delbert S. Elliott, Ph.D.
- Director, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado

## Prevention Research-1985*Romig, Justice for Our Children, 1978                                                

- Casework: No evidence of effectiveness
- Behavior Modification: Limited success, but should not be used for juvenile offenders
- Teaching Academic Skills: Not effective
- Work & vocational Training: Not effective
- Group Counseling: Not effective
- Individual Psychotherapy: Not effective
- Therapeutic Camping, Diversion, Probation: Not effective
- See also: Martinson, 1974; Lipton et al., 1975; Sechrest et al., 1979
-      Wright and Dixon, 1977.

## Prevention Research-2008

- Better theory development and evaluation methodology & practice
- A growing number of programs demonstrated to be effective
- Increasing public & government support for evidence-based programs
- Confusion over scientific standard for evidence-based certification
- Limited dissemination of EB programs
- Relatively little attention to fidelity
- Promise for EB program effects on reducing crime rates when taken to scale

## Prevention Research- Agenda for Next 20 Years 

- Establish consensus on scientific standard for certifying effective programs
- Upgrade program evaluation design, methodology and reporting
- The new research frontier: dissemination and implementation
- Address the barriers to dissemination & implementation of evidence-based programs
- Finding stable sustained funding streams

## Confusion over Scientific Standard

- Defining “Evidence-Based”

## Federal Working Group Standard for Certifying Programs as Effective*

- Experimental Design/RCT
- Effect sustained for at least 1 year post- intervention
- At least 1 independent replication with RCT
- RCT’s adequately address threats to internal validity
- No known health-compromising side effects
- *Adapted from *Hierarchical Classification Framework for Program Effectiveness*, Working Group for the Federal Collaboration on What Works, 2004.

## Hierarchical Program Classification*

- I.  *Model*: Meets all standards
- II.  *Effective*: RCT replication(s) not indep.
- III.  *Promising*: Q-E or RCT, no replication
- IV.  *Inconclusive*: Contradictory findings or non-sustainable effects
- V. *Ineffective*: Meets all standards but with no statistically significant effects
- VI. *Harmful*: Meets all standards but with negative main effects or serious side effects
- VII *Insufficient Evidence*: All others
- *Adapted from *Hierarchical Classification Framework for Program Effectiveness*, Working Group for the Federal Collaboration on What Works, 2004.

## Defining “Evidence-Based”

- Programs classified as Model, Effective, or Promising on Federal Hierarchy
- Consistently positive effects from Meta Analyses
- Only Model programs should ever be taken to scale

## Federal Working Group Classification of Top Programs on EB Lists

- Ctr. For MH Services: *Effective* (14/34)
- Most have not yet been rated on FWG standard
- NREPP: *Model & Effective* (18/21)
- Mod-4%; Effec-16%; Prom-16%; Incon/Insuff- 64%
- NIDA: *Effective *(20/21)
- Mod- 10%; Effec-25%; Prom- 25%; Incon/Insuff- 40%
- Blueprints: Model (11/11)
- Mod- 27%; Effec- 64%; Prom- 9%; Incon/Insuff- 0%

## Federal Working Group Classification for Top Programs on Other Lists 

- OJJDP-Title V: *Exemplary* (33/40)
- Mod- 9%; Effec- 30%; Prom- 15%; Ineff/Incon- 45%
- OSDFS: *Exemplary* (9/9)
- Mod- 11%; Effec- 23%; Prom- 33%; Ineff/Incon- 33%
- HAY: *Level 1* (12/12)
- Mod-25%; Effec- 30%; Prom- 0%; Ineff/Incon-42%

## Violence, Drug and Delinquency Prevention Programs: Overview*

- Most Programs Have No Credible Evaluation
- Those With Credible Evaluations:
- Most Don’t Work
- 35 to 40 have been certified as EB
- A Few Appear to be Harmful
- Most Model Programs Don’t Have Capacity to Go to Scale
-  *Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

## Girl’s Study Group Findings

## Serious Limitations in Evaluation Evidence

- Few Universal Programs have considered sex/gender effects
- Few Girls-Only Programs have been evaluated
- Few Girls-Only Programs that are evaluated can be certified as EB

## Implications

- Difficult to Identify Common Elements/Components in EB Programs for Girls
- Gender Similarities Hypothesis Rules
- Differences in Exposure Levels to Specific Risk/Protective Factors and Unique Risk Factors Provide Focus for Girls-Only Programs

## Implications (Cont’d)

- Currently, Practical Choice is Between Universal EB Programs and Non-EB Girls-Only Programs
- Problems with Adaptation of Universal EB Programs Strategy
- Consider Costs Associated with Inflated Claims of Gender Differences

## Next Steps

- Implement Rigorous Evaluations of a Few Selected Girls-Only Programs
- Complete Cost-Benefit Analyses of These Selected Programs
- Develop Dissemination Capacity for EB Programs
- Re-assess Both the Theoretical Causal Rationales and the Change Strategies for Girls programs

## THANK YOU

- Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence
- www.colorado.edu/cspv

## Referenced Websites

- NREPP: _[www.nationalregistry.samhsa.gov](http://www.nationalregistry.samhsa.gov/)_
- Blueprints: _[www.colorado.edu/cspv](http://www.colorado.edu/cspv)_
- OSDFS: _[www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/exemplary01/panel.html](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/exemplary01/panel.html)_
- NIDA: www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/prevention/RedBook.pdf
- OJJDP Title V: www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/mpg_index.html
- CMHS: www.prevention.psu.edu/pubs/Mental_Health_pbs.html
- Surgeon General: www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/default/html