Editors' Introduction: Identifying and Assessing Promising Practices for Criminal Justice Clients-California Substance Abuse Research Consortium (SARC) Meetings, 2010
ABSTRACT Although some practices clearly have stronger supporting evidence than others, a single authoritative list of evidence-based practices (EBPs) that can be applied in the treatment of criminal justice clients does not exist. Nationally, use of EBPs is low, and such practices are generally only implemented under certain circumstances. To clarify these issues, experts from around the nation were invited to California for two research-to-policy meetings focused on EBP identification and implementation. Their presentations and the resulting series of articles in this special theme issue describe the current state of EBP research for criminal justice clients. To advance the field beyond the compilation of EBP lists, which can only represent a partial solution at best, next steps should include a greater focus on quality of implementation, intensity of quality assurance and monitoring, and training for underlying skills and principles.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the past decade, the push for evidence-based programs has taken on unprecedented prominence in the fields of substance abuse and correctional treatment as a key determinant for intervention funding. The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP), managed and funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, was established in 1997 to aid community agencies in adopting intervention models for their particular clientele. Although well intentioned, the NREPP has also created opportunities that invite conflicts of interests and promulgate programs with questionable efficacy. After an exhaustive review of the literature that purports to have provided the “empirical evidence” for the NREPP registered programs, the authors found numerous irregularities in the studies with findings often based on small sample sizes. A more troubling finding is that much of the supporting literature is produced by the program developers themselves. There is a general lack of independent verification of the claimed treatment effects. If the NREPP is to fulfill its intended function, a tighter vetting process is needed for programs to be registered so that community agencies and treatment practitioners can consult with confidence.Crime & Delinquency 11/2010; 56(3). DOI:10.1177/0011128710376302 · 1.75 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The movement in recent years towards evidence-based practice (EBP) in health care systems and policy has permeated the substance abuse treatment system, leading to a growing number of federal and statewide initiatives to mandate EBP implementation. Nevertheless, due to a lack of consensus in the addiction field regarding procedures or criteria to identify EBPs, the optimal processes for disseminating empirically based interventions into real-world clinical settings have not been identified. Although working lists of interventions considered to be evidence-based have been developed by a number of constituencies advocating EBP dissemination in addiction treatment settings, the use of EBP lists to form policy-driven mandates has been controversial. This article examines the concept of EBP, critically reviews criteria used to evaluate the evidence basis of interventions, and highlights the manner in which such criteria have been applied in the addictions field. Controversies regarding EBP implementation policies and practices in addiction treatment are described, and suggestions are made to shift the focus of dissemination efforts from manualized psychosocial interventions to specific skill sets that are broadly applicable and easily learned by clinicians. Organizational and workforce barriers to EBP implementation are delineated, with corresponding recommendations to facilitate successful dissemination of evidence-based skills.Health Policy 10/2010; 97(2-3):93-104. DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.05.013 · 1.91 Impact Factor