Translate to Spanish/Español, Vietnamese, French, Chinese (Simplified) or other language
Home > Promising Practices

Promising Practices

The Promising Practices database informs professionals and community members about documented approaches to improving community health and quality of life.

The ultimate goal is to support the systematic adoption, implementation, and evaluation of successful programs, practices, and policy changes. The database provides carefully reviewed, documented, and ranked practices that range from good ideas to evidence-based practices.
Learn more about the ranking methodology.

Submit a Promising Practice

Search Filters Clear all
(2400 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Red Rock Ridge and Val­ley Trail Sys­tem (Jefferson County, AL)

Filed under Good Idea, Environmental Health / Built Environment, Adults, Families

Goal: The Red Rock Ridge & Valley Trail System will be a complete network of bike lanes, sidewalks, and trails connecting communities across Jefferson County.

Impact: The master plan for over 200 miles of shared-use greenways and trails and over 600 miles of street-based bicycle and pedestrian pathways will improve alternative transportation and recreational opportunities.

Refugee Health Assessment Program (Miami Dade County, FL)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Health Care Access & Quality, Urban

Goal: The mission of the RHAP is to protect the health of the general population and to improve the health status of refugees so they may achieve self-sufficiency.

Repeat Offender Prevention Program (Orange County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Community / Crime & Crime Prevention, Children, Teens

Goal: The goal of the program is to prevent young offenders from becoming chronic delinquents.

Rural medical-legal partnership and advocacy: a three-year follow-up study. (southern Illinois)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Economy, Rural

Goal: Medical-legal partnerships perform advocacy services for vulnerable and under-served populations. These populations are typically burdened disproportionately by legal and medical problems. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness and sustainability of a rural medical-legal partnership (MLP).

Impact: The rural medical-legal partnership continued to show social and financial impacts, such as health care recovery dollars (319% return on investment between 2007 and 2009), Social Security benefits, family law services, and end-of-life guidance.

Safe Streets (Baltimore, MD)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Community / Crime & Crime Prevention, Teens, Adults, Racial/Ethnic Minorities, Urban

Goal: To combat the epidemic of violence among Baltimore’s youth and support traditional public safety strategies using a combination of public health and human service models to reduce violence.

Impact: It was estimated that the program was associated with 5.4 fewer homicide incidents and 34.6 fewer nonfatal shooting incidents during 112 cumulative months of intervention post observations.

Saving Lives (Massachusetts)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Community / Public Safety

Goal: The goal of this program was to improve transportation safety in Massachusetts.

Impact: The Saving Lives Program successfully reduced drunk driving by 42% and speeding-related crashes by 25% through community-based, innovative, and cost-effective interventions.

Saving Smiles (Lafayette County, Missouri)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Oral Health, Children, Families, Rural

Goal: The goal of Saving Smiles is to improve the oral health and in turn overall health of children in Lafayette County, especially for the poor and underserved.

Impact: Most students from the 11 participating schools in Lafayette County received a screening, fluoride varnish, and oral health education, and most of the children referred for dental care were seen by a dentist.

School-Based Asthma Therapy (Rochester, NY)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Respiratory Diseases, Children, Families, Urban

Goal: The objective of this study was to examine the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program compared with usual care.

Impact: School-Based Asthma Therapy resulted in 158 symptom-free days per month per 100 children and a cost-effectiveness of $10 per symptom-free day.

Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Health / Children's Health, Children

Goal: The Second Step program is designed to increase students’ school success and decrease problem behaviors by promoting social-emotional competence and self-regulation.

Impact: A number of evaluations of the Second Step program have been conducted. Evaluations have found reductions in fighting and physical aggression, gains in pro-social skills and behavior, increased social competence, and increased knowledge of social skills.

See You in School (Whatcom, WA)

Filed under Good Idea, Education / Student Performance K-12, Children, Teens

Goal: The goal of See You in School is to improve the grades, self confidence and engagement of high school students through mentor/mentee relationships. Decreasing the dropout rates in Whatcom County is a long term goal that begins with the mentor/mentee relationship and a network inside the schools.

An Effective Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success and/or promise in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures of improvement in outcome of interest (i.e. increase in voter registration, not just delivery of voter registration drive) and/ or the outcome measure is increased or improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant.

A Good Idea meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program funding source, program implementation steps and outcomes.
  2. The program evaluation is limited to descriptive measure(s) of success/accomplishment (i.e., program participation rates, number of services/education sessions/radio messages provided). Note: oftentimes, the program has been newly implemented and a program evaluation has not yet been conducted. Programs that have not yet been evaluated, but which show promise in improving health or quality of life, are classified as Good Ideas until an evaluation is conducted.

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.