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
(859 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Pride Alliance Network (Mendocino and Lake Counties, CA)

Local

Filed under Local, Good Idea, Health / Wellness & Lifestyle, Children, Teens, Adults

Goal: The mission of the Pride Alliance Network is to promote and support equality and acceptance for all people without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity.

Schools of Hope (Sonoma, CA)

Local

Filed under Local, Effective Practice, Education / Literacy, Children

Goal: Schools of Hope aims to increase third-grade reading proficiency to 75% by 2015 and 90% by 2020.

Impact: Students tutored through Schools of Hope have an increased reading proficiency compared to other students.

YouthBuild McLean County (McLean County, IL)

Filed under Effective Practice, Education / Student Performance K-12, Children

Goal: The McLean County program's mission is "to offer young people a once in a lifetime opportunity to build their futures and their communities through education, leadership development, job training, and the rehabilitation and production of affordable housing, while keeping a profound respect for and a commitment to real partnership with youth."

Healthy Kids Sonoma County (Sonoma)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Health Care Access & Quality, Children, Families

Goal: Healthy Kids plans to enroll all uninsured children who are not eligible for Medi-Cal and who are residents of Sonoma County in the health care and insurance program.

Columbia County Healthy Neighborhoods Program (Columbia County)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Environmental Health / Toxins & Contaminants, Families

Goal: The Healthy Neighborhoods program seeks to reduce housing related illness and injury through prevention and education.

Impact: In the past five years, the HNP visited 31,000 homes with 85,000 residents, and provided the asthma intervention to 11,000 adults and children with asthma. The assessments created a valuable data set about the health effects of housing hazards.

Illumination Foundation (Orange County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Economy / Housing & Homes, Children, Teens, Adults, Urban

Goal: The goal of the Illumination Foundation is to bridge the gaps in existing services for the most underserved to break or prevent the cycle of homelessness in Orange County.

Bob Janes Triage Center and Low Demand Shelter (Fort Myers, FL)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Mental Health & Mental Disorders, Urban

Goal: The goal of the Bob Janes Triage Center and Low Demand Shelter is to reduce the number of individuals with mental illness or substance use disorders who are arrested and sent to the County jail for minor offenses.

Chicago Housing Health Partnership (Cook)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Economy / Housing & Homes, Adults, Urban

Goal: The goal of the Chicago Housing Health Partnership is to use tailored case management to place chronically medically ill homeless individuals in stable, long-term housing and facilitate access to medical services.

Germ Fighters Student Illness Prevention Program (Johnson County, IA)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Immunizations & Infectious Diseases, Children

Goal: The overall objective of the program is to reduce student absence due to communicable illness.

Housing for Health Permanent Supportive Housing Program (Los Angeles County)

Filed under Evidence-Based Practice, Economy / Housing & Homes, Adults, Urban

Goal: Housing for Health program goals are to improve patients’ health, reduce costs to the public health system, and demonstrate DHS’s commitment to addressing homelessness within Los Angeles County.

Impact: The average public service utilization cost per participant for the year prior to housing totaled $38,146; in the year after receiving housing, it totaled $15,358. When taking into account PSH costs, RAND observed a 20-percent net cost savings, suggesting a potential cost benefit of the program.

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.