Author: Tom

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

This newsletter focuses on racial equity. As you will see in the conclusion, we welcome your input on how Blueprints can strategically advance racial equity to improve the lives of all children, youth, and families. Please email your ideas to us at: blueprints@colorado.edu

Now, taking a step back, we ask:

Why is it important for evidence-based programs (EBPs) to be representative of diverse populations?

Before we discuss some of our own thinking, we thought it would be interesting to pose the question to ChatGPT. Below are its autogenerated responses with some edits for clarity.

• Equity and Fairness: Ensuring that evidence-based programs are applicable to diverse populations promotes equity in access to services and resources. When programs are designed and tested on a narrow, non-representative group, it can perpetuate disparities and exclude marginalized or underrepresented communities from benefiting from those programs.
• Cultural Relevancy: Diverse populations often have unique cultural norms, values, and needs. An evidence-based program that takes these factors into account is more likely to be culturally relevant, which enhances acceptability by reaching and engaging communities and their youth in a manner that is consistent with the cultural context and values of that community.
• Generalizability: The findings and recommendations from evidence-based programs should be applicable to a broader population beyond the initial research group. However, if the program is only tested on a homogenous group, whether it will generalize to other communities is not known until it has been rigorously evaluated.
• Community Engagement and Trust: Engaging diverse populations in program development and evaluation builds trust within communities. When communities see themselves represented in the process, they are more likely to trust the program and be willing to participate, which supports the program’s success.
• Funding Support: Policymakers and funders often prioritize EBPs across diverse populations. Having research that includes a wide range of demographics and contexts can help secure resources for scaling and sustaining EBPs.

While the points raised by our ChatGPT robot friends are supported by the current state of the field, there are additional important considerations – for example, cultural adaptation and the development of and testing of culturally tailored EBPs. Following is a summary of each.

Cultural Adaptation

Cultural adaptation involves changing content and materials of an EBP to align with the cultural preferences and sensitivities of the target group.

In thinking about what kinds of changes are needed as Blueprints certified interventions are implemented among diverse populations, communities are encouraged to

1. Check with the intervention developer on this question for the population(s) they are serving
2. If changes are deemed necessary, consider the “stoplight” framework profiled in a previous newsletter (click here to read more) and depicted in Figure 1 (below).

Blueprints programs with “green light” adaptations have a good possibility of working (particularly Model and Model Plus programs). However, the more extensive the changes made, and/or the more divergent the target population is from the population in which the program was tested, the greater the need to evaluate the program to make sure it is still effective.

We discussed these points in our last newsletter (click here to read more).

Culturally Tailored Evidence-Based Programs

This approach to designing and implementing evidence-based programs considers the cultural context, values, beliefs, and needs of the target population. These programs have also been demonstrated through rigorous evaluation to be effective. Culturally tailored EBPs combine the best available evidence with cultural relevance.

Two examples of culturally tailored EBPs are profiled in this month’s e-newsletter (both are rated as Promising). They include:

• Familias Unidas, which is a family-based intervention to empower Latino or Hispanic parents residing in the United States in an emerging immigration context to build a strong parent-support network and help their adolescent children respond effectively to the risks of substance use and unsafe sexual behavior. Influenced by culturally specific models, the program first builds a strong parent-support network and then uses the network to increase knowledge of culturally relevant parenting, strengthen parenting skills, and apply new skills in a series of activities designed to help their adolescent children deal successfully with the challenges of daily life. These activities are led by a Spanish-speaking bicultural facilitator.
• Strong African American Families (SAAF) Program, which is an interactive educational program for African American parents and their early adolescent children living in rural communities. The goal of SAAF is to foster resilience among African American youth and prepare them to avoid the negative consequences associated with poverty, exposure to negative community influences and discrimination. The program promotes positive parent-child relationships; enhanced parenting which includes high levels of monitoring and strong communication; and future orientation, resistance skills and acceptance of parental influence by adolescents. All sessions are led by African American community members trained in the SAAF curriculum.

Next, we detail how Blueprints supports prevention efforts within diverse populations.

Understanding for Whom and in What Settings EBPs “Work”

Blueprints’ “Intervention Specificity” standard focuses on the theoretical basis and logic model for the program (you can read more here). To meet this standard, programs must describe:

• The intended participants to receive the intervention.
• The relevant sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender/gender identity, racial and ethnic group, socio‐economic status, urban/suburban/rural residence) of those targeted by the intervention.
• Screening criteria and the screening process if the intended participants are those who have been screened based upon some characteristic(s) (e.g., a risk condition, protective factor status, a minimum level of the study outcome, or some personal or family attribute).
• All inclusion or exclusion criteria for program participation.

Often, we are posed with the question of whether a given Blueprints-certified program will work in certain communities, since preventive interventions serve diverse populations in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and other sociodemographic factors. For this reason, we include the following information in the “Evaluation Abstract” of all 111 Promising and Model/Model Plus programs currently listed on the Blueprints registry (as of September 2023):

• The target population served by the program in terms of:
  1. age;
  2. race/ethnicity;
  3. gender/gender identity; and
  4. prevention category, including
     1. Universal strategies that address the entire population;
     2. Selective strategies that target subgroups deemed at-risk; or
     3. Indicated strategies that target youth showing early signs of problem behaviors.
• Sample demographics of studies that meet Blueprints evaluation quality standards to provide information on the program’s generalizability.
• A description of whether the program is implemented at the individual, family, or community level.
• A summary of findings overall (i.e., for the entire sample) and across subgroups to help users understand groups that benefit from interventions, and differential effects that can lead to reducing disparities between subgroups.

Racial and Ethnic Representation in Preventive Intervention Research

The historic momentum concerning acknowledgement of social ills resulting from challenges made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, however, led Blueprints to question the extent to which preventive interventions collectively (i.e., as a field) are designed to adequately address issues of inequity.

For this reason, we conducted a study among 885 programs with evaluations published from 2010-2021 and recorded in the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development registry (Buckley et al., 2023). The sample therefore included both certified programs (listed here) and non-certified programs (listed here).

The study emphasized race because COVID-19 brought racial and ethnic inequities to the forefront of public health, exacerbating existing discrepancies for individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied equitable opportunities for creating the safety and stability needed to avoid adverse experiences in the first place. Although race is a social construct, it is one of the most powerful and persistent group boundaries in American life today (Okamoto, 2021).

In coding studies, we selected enrollment data for five racial categories to align with U.S. Census coding operations (Asian; Black; Native American; Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; and White) and treated ethnicity (coded as Hispanic or Latino) as separate from race (Humes et al., 2011). We found that:

• Two percent of programs were developed for Black or African American youth and four percent targeted Hispanic or Latino populations.
• In the 77% of studies that reported race, 35% of enrollees were White, 28% were Black or African American, and 31% combined different racial groups into one category (e.g., “other”) and/or categorized race (e.g., African American) with ethnicity (e.g., Hispanic).
• In the 64% of studies that reported ethnicity, 32% of enrollees were Hispanic or Latino.
• American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian American, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander populations were largely missing from the samples or combined in a residual “other” category.

These results led us to conclude that research gaps on racial ethnic groups call for clearer reporting and better representation to understand for whom and in what settings preventive interventions work. The full study can be accessed here and here.

Conclusion

At the forefront of evidence-based programming since the 1990s, the Blueprints registry has come to define excellence in its standards for recommending evidence-based programs.

While Blueprints has done much over the decades to identify and disseminate information on programs shown to benefit racial and ethnic minoritized groups, we recognize the need to do more.

We envision improving the lives of all youth by advancing equitable opportunities for safety and stability. In doing so, we seek to meaningfully engage with thought partners who share our commitment to the values of diversity, equity, inclusion and social justice. We therefore welcome your input on how Blueprints can strategically advance racial equity to improve the lives of all children, youth, and families. Please email your ideas to us at: blueprints@colorado.edu.

And as always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.

Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
PI, Blueprints Initiative
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Board Chair
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

References

• Buckley, P. R., Murry, V. M., Gust, C. J., Ladika, A., & Pampel, F. C. (2023). Racial and ethnic representation in preventive intervention research: A methodological study. Prevention Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-023-01564-8
• Humes, K., Jones, N. A., Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. U. S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2011/dec/c2010br-02.pdf
• Okamoto, D. (2021). How we can engage with race and racism in research: Developing a racial analysis. William T. Grant blog post accessed on 9/5/23 here: https://wtgrantfoundation.org/how-we-can-engage-with-race-and-racism-in-research-developing-a-racial-analysis

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is developed and managed by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

Featured Culturally Tailored Program
Familias Unidas™

Blueprints Certified: 2012

Ages Served: Early Adolescence (12-14) – Middle School, Late Adolescence (15-18) – High School

Program Outcomes: Alcohol, Externalizing, Illicit Drugs, Sexual Risk Behaviors

Goal and Target Population: A family-based intervention to empower Latino or Hispanic parents residing in the United States in an emerging immigration context to build a strong parent-support network and help their adolescent children respond effectively to the risks of substance use and unsafe sexual behavior.

Learn more about Familias Unidas™

Featured Culturally Tailored Program
Strong African American Families Program

Blueprints Certified: 2006

Ages Served: Late Childhood (5-11) – K/Elementary, Early Adolescence (12-14) – Middle School

Program Outcomes: Alcohol, Conduct Problems, Marijuana/Cannabis, Sexual Risk Behaviors

Goal and Target Population: An interactive educational program for African American parents and their early adolescent children living in rural communities that is designed to strengthen family relationships and help adolescents develop positive behaviors and respond effectively to the risks of substance use, delinquency, and sexual involvement.

Learn more about Strong African American Families Program

© 2023 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

Building the Evidence Base of Interventions

The focus of this quarter’s newsletter is improving our understanding of how we approach and build the evidence-base of interventions. We aim to clarify concepts of evidence with the goal of supporting a comprehensive vision for the use of research evidence in developing, evaluating, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to ultimately improve public health and well-being at scale.

Conceptualizing Evidence

Evidence comes in multiple forms.

Brownson and colleagues (2022) describe evidence across three broad domains:

• Type 1: Evidence on etiology (i.e., the study of the causes of diseases/behavioral problems) and burden (the impact of disease/behavioral problem on a population);
• Type 2: Evidence on effectiveness of interventions; and
• Type 3: Evidence on dissemination and implementation (D&I).

The authors explain that the three types of evidence are often not linear, but interconnected, iterative, and overlapping—they shape one another (e.g., if we have limited type 2 evidence then the ability to apply type 3 evidence is hampered).

Meanwhile, several versions of an evidence continuum have been developed to clarify and define standards of the “best available research evidence.” Most examples focus on what Brownson and colleagues (2022) would qualify as “type 1” and “type 2” evidence.

For example, Colorado is one of many states that has created a framework called Colorado’s Evidence Continuum, which is used to strengthen the state’s budget investment choices, encourage innovation, and expand the use of evaluation to understand whether programs “work.” Colorado’s continuum includes five ascending steps, each of which represent the stages of building and assessing program information.

• Step 1: Program design, which requires a logic model showing how program activities should cause the desired changes.
• Step 2: Identify outputs, which refers to observable measures of service delivery provided (e.g., number of individuals served).
• Step 3: Assess outcomes, such as conducting a pre- and posttest involving individuals who participate in the program.
• Step 4: Attain initial evidence, which involves examining outcomes for individuals who receive the program (i.e., treatment group) compared to those who do not receive the program.
• Step 5: Attain causal evidence, which often includes conducting one or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) – or experiments in which researchers randomly assign participants to a treatment group or a control group.

According to Colorado’s framework, as programs move up the five steps of the evidence continuum by using more advanced research designs, studies with higher levels of precision offer decision-makers greater confidence that investments could lead to intended outcomes. These research levels include:

• “Theory-informed” at the lowest level, denoting advice from program providers, experts, and user satisfaction surveys.
• “Evidence-informed” in the middle, indicating preliminary evaluation with a before and after (pre-test and posttest) design.
• “Proven” at the highest level, requiring one RCT or two or more comparison studies with strict statistical controls.

Interventions with a Promising, Model or Model Plus rating on the Blueprints registry are in the “proven” stage of Colorado’s evidence continuum.

Another framework for considering the evidence base of an EBI evolved from a work group formed in 2013 by the National Institutes of Health to address dissemination and implementation research. Reported on in Brown et al. (2017), this translational evidence pipeline is summarized as follows:

• Evidence begins with basic research to inform the development of a new program. (Type 1 Evidence)
• This program is evaluated in the efficacy stage in which a highly trained research team typically delivers the program with careful monitoring and supervision to ensure high fidelity. Efficacy trials can answer only questions of whether a program could work under rigorous conditions. (Type 2 Evidence)
• Next is the effectiveness stage, where developers are less involved. What we know could work under ideal conditions is answered in efficacy trials versus what we know about program delivery in practice and in community settings is the focus of effectiveness trials. (Type 2 Evidence)
• Dissemination and implementation (D&I) research represents a distinct stage that occurs after efficacy and effectiveness trials. This stage of evidence building aims to improve the adoption, appropriate adaptation, delivery, and sustainment of EBIs by providers, clinics, organizations, communities, and systems of care. (Type 3 Evidence)

Moullin and colleagues (2019) describe an EPIS framework for D&I research that occurs in four phases:

• Exploration, which refers to whether a service delivery system (e.g., health care, social service, school) or community organization would find a particular EBI useful, given its outer context (e.g., service system, federal policy, funding) and inner context (e.g., organizational climate, provider experience).
• Preparation, which refers to putting into place the collaborations, policies, funding, supports, and processes needed across the multilevel outer and inner contexts to introduce a new EBI into a setting once stakeholders decide to adopt it. In this phase, adaptations to the service system, service delivery organizations, and the clinical/preventive intervention itself are considered and prepared.
• Implementation, which refers to the support processes that are developed to recruit, train, monitor, and supervise facilitators to deliver the EBI with fidelity and, if necessary, to adapt systematically to the local context.
• Sustainment, which refers to how EBI providers maintain the program, especially after the initial funding period has ended.

The traditional translational pipeline reported on in Brown et al. (2017) is commonly used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other research-focused organizations to move scientific knowledge from basic and other preintervention research to efficacy and effectiveness trials and to a stage that reaches the public.

Synthesizing Evidence Frameworks

We created Figure 1 (below) to summarize these different forms of evidence into one diagram.

Figure 1 – Summary of Evidence Frameworks

Adaptation

A challenge we face is advising the field on whether Blueprints-certified interventions will work with adaptation (versus whether they need to be implemented exactly as designed in diverse communities).

Our Spring 2023 newsletter provided guidance on research-informed adaptation strategies.

The question, however, of whether an EBI applies for a specific population and/or community involves a set of scientific considerations that include balancing of fidelity to the original EBI with adaptations needed for replication and scale-up (see #7 in Figure 1), as well as considerations as to when there may be a need to “start from scratch” (i.e., shifting from #7 to #1 of Figure 1) in developing, evaluating and scaling a new intervention as opposed to refining or adapting an existing EBI (i.e., #8 of Figure 1).

We touched on this issue in a talk, Addressing Health Equity and Social Justice within Prevention Registries, which is recorded and uploaded on the Blueprints website.

In consultation with the Blueprints advisory board, Blueprints staff seek guidance from the Program Developers/Owners and evaluators of an EBI to conduct a qualitative analysis of the program’s core components (i.e., activities directly related to a program’s theory of change, which proposes the mechanisms by which a program works) to determine if a well-evaluated program (i.e., meets Blueprints standards) is the same or an adapted version of the original well-evaluated program.

Below are examples of Blueprints-certified programs that have undergone this review, resulting in the decision for Blueprints to certify an adapted version of the original program.

• Coping Power (a selective prevention program designed to reduce aggressive behavior among at-risk youth led by a school-family program specialist and a guidance counselor) and Coping Power Universal (a universal, whole-classroom approach for reducing aggressive behavior led by a regular classroom teacher).
• Triple P has many different components and levels. These are the two listed on Blueprints: 1) Triple P System; and 2) Group Teen Triple P – Level 4.
• Incredible Years has three programs on the Blueprints website: 1) Incredible Years – Child Treatment; 2) Incredible Years – Parent; and 3) Incredible Years – Teacher Classroom Management.
• Promoting Health Among Teens! (Abstinence Only) and Promoting Health Among Teens! (Comprehensive).
• Strong African American Families Program and Strong African American Families – Teen.
• InShape Prevention Plus Wellness developed for college students and SPORT Prevention Plus Wellness developed (by the same person) for high school students.

Conclusion

This newsletter covers a lot of terminology used to describe how the evidence base of EBIs is generated. In addition, we aimed to connect the traditional evidence pipeline of developing and evaluating a program with the newer evaluation field of dissemination and implementation research. While these terms and frameworks can be confusing, what is most important is that decisions should be based on and informed by evaluation and research findings generated using rigorous methods.

And as always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.

Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
PI, Blueprints Initiative
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Board Chair and Co-PI
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

References

• Brown, C. H., Curran, G., Palinkas, L. A., Aarons, G. A., Wells, K. B., Jones, L., … Cruden, G. (2017). An overview of research and evaluation designs for dissemination and implementation. Annual Review of Public Health, 38, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044215
• Brownson, R.C., Shelton, R.C., Geng, E.H., & Glasgow, R. E. (2022). Revisiting concepts of evidence in implementation science. Implementation Science, 17, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01201-y
• Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Rabin, B., & Aarons, G. A. (2019). Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implementation Science, 14, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is developed and managed by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the Blueprints database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

Featured Model Program
Multisystemic Therapy® (MST®)

Blueprints Certified: 1997

Ages Served: Early Adolescence (12-14) – Middle School, Late Adolescence (15-18) – High School

Program Outcomes: Close Relationship with Parents, Conduct Problems, Delinquency and Criminal Behavior, Externalizing, Internalizing, Mental Health – Other, Positive/Prosocial Behavior, Prosocial with Peers, Violence

Goal and Target Population: A juvenile crime prevention program designed to improve the real-world functioning of youth by changing their natural settings – home, school, and neighborhood – in ways that promote prosocial behavior while decreasing antisocial behavior.

Learn more about Multisystemic Therapy® (MST®)

Featured Promising Program
SNAP® (Stop Now And Plan) Boys

Blueprints Certified: 2023

Ages Served: Late Childhood (5-11) – K/Elementary

Program Outcomes: Antisocial-aggressive Behavior, Anxiety, Conduct Problems, Delinquency and Criminal Behavior, Depression, Emotional Regulation, Externalizing, Internalizing

Goal and Target Population: A cognitive behavioral multi-component training program designed to reduce antisocial behavior and/or police contact among boys at risk for such engagement by decreasing the factors that make children susceptible for continued delinquency and strengthening the protective factors of the parents, the child, and the family structure.

Learn more about SNAP® Boys

© 2023 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

Adaptation 

We at Blueprints are frequently asked to provide guidance on maintaining fidelity in adaptations of evidence-based interventions. The Blueprints registry currently lists 106 preventive interventions that have been evaluated using rigorous scientific standards and demonstrated to improve youth behavioral outcomes.  
 
Implementing Blueprints-certified interventions with fidelity (or as intended) is important to yield these positive outcomes, as poor implementation fidelity can compromise program mechanisms and undermine their effectiveness.
 
Adhering to fidelity guidelines, however, is challenging when interventions are adapted to the realities of the environment. Some adjustments or adaptations are necessary when interventions are implemented in natural settings.
 
Fidelity and adaptation are often at odds; simultaneously adhering to fidelity guidelines while adapting to realities of the implementation context is a delicate balance. So how do we specify that balance between flexibility and fidelity? This is a topic of much debate.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Adaptation
 
Thoughtful and deliberate adaptation to the delivery of a Blueprints-certified intervention to improve its fit in each context can lead to better engagement, acceptability, and outcomes.
 
However, modifications that remove key elements – or core components – of an intervention may be less effective. An evidence-based program’s core components are the essential activities deemed necessary to produce desired outcomes. The core components are the features that define an effective program.
 
Similarly, reactive adaptations can lead to program drift, resulting in lower impact on outcomes and rendering an evidence-based intervention ineffective.
 
Adaptations, especially untested, threaten to weaken evidence-based interventions, undermine results, and thereby erode confidence in scientific claims that Blueprints-certified interventions work.

Research-Informed Adaptation Strategies

What are “best practices” for making adaptations to a Blueprints-certified program?
 
Using a traffic light as an analogy, Balis and colleagues (2021) assign a color for making changes to an evidence-based intervention:

• Tailoring language or pictures (green light/low risk).
• Adding/substituting activities or session sequence (yellow light/medium risk).
• Deleting lessons and decreasing session length (red light/high risk).

The National Institutes of Health developed a series of Practice Tools to understand, plan for, and implement evidence-based interventions into routine health care and public health settings.
 
Included in this series is a workbook, titled Implementation Science at a Glance. The picture below can be found on page 12 of this guide – it offers some concrete guidance on how to use the “traffic light” analogy to balance fidelity and adaptation.

Video Trainings on Best Practices for Adaptation of Evidence-Based Programs
 
Below are a series of pre-recorded workshops developed by the Prevention Research Center (PRC) at Colorado State University (CSU). Click on each title to view the workshop.
 
Learning Workshop I: Orientation to the PRC’s Implementation Toolbox
 
Join CSU’s PRC Research-to-Practice team to learn about their new Implementation Toolbox website. During this interactive tutorial, we will walk you through the website, introduce you to new tools and resources for program implementation and adaptation, and describe different navigation methods.
 
Learning Workshop II: Roadblocks, Potholes, & Solutions for High-Impact EBP Implementation
 
Join CSU’s PRC Research to Practice team as we delve into the topic of maintaining fidelity to evidence-based program (EBP) implementation. This workshop will describe what implementation fidelity is, best practice methods for maintaining fidelity to EBPs, and discuss common implementation barriers and potential solutions for overcoming them. Additionally, available resources through the PRC’s Implementation Toolbox will be described.
 
Learning Workshop III – Adaptations Part I: Best Practices for Adapting EBPs
 
Join the PRC’s Research to Practice Team as we dive into best practices for modifying programs in part one of a two-part Learning Workshop series on program adaptations. In this video you will learn what adaptations are, common causes that lead to them, and best practices for deciding upon and implementing program changes. Specifically, the Traffic Light Model for Adaptations is discussed and considered through a series of activities provided throughout the presentation.
 
Learning Workshop IV – Adaptations Part II: Challenges in Adapting for Culture
 
Join the PRC’s Research to Practice Team as we dive into best practices for culturally adapting evidence-based programs in part two of a two-part Learning Workshop series. In this video, you will learn what cultural adaptations are, important definitions to keep in mind, and best practices to follow as you adapt your programs to meet your local community’s needs and strengths.

Conclusion

Please send us research-informed strategies you have used to balance fidelity with adaptation to a Blueprints-certified program. We can be reached at: blueprints@colorado.edu.
 
And as always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.
 
Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
PI, Blueprints Initiative
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Board Chair and Co-PI
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is developed and managed by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the Blueprints database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

Featured Model Program
Blues Program

Blueprints Certified: 2015

Ages Served: Late Adolescence (15-18) – High School

Program Outcomes: Alcohol, Depression, Illicit Drugs, Marijuana/Cannabis

Goal and Target Population: A school-based group intervention that aims to reduce negative cognition and increase engagement in pleasant activities to prevent the onset and persistence of depression in high school students exhibiting depressive symptoms.

Learn more about Blues Program

Featured Promising Program
RealTeen

Blueprints Certified: 2022

Ages Served: Early Adolescence (12-14) – Middle School

Program Outcomes: Illicit Drugs, Marijuana/Cannabis, Tobacco

Goal and Target Population: An internet-based, gender-specific drug abuse prevention program intended to reduce substance use among early adolescent girls through improving personal, social, and drug refusal skills.

Learn more about RealTeen

© 2023 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

Leadership Letter: 

For more than 25 years Blueprints has served as a resource for governmental agencies, foundations, community organizations and practitioners seeking to make informed decisions about their investments in preventive interventions. Since 1996, Blueprints has carefully reviewed the evidence for over 3,000 studies evaluating 1,500 interventions and thus serves as an excellent, internationally recognized resource on what programs have been shown to work in rigorous evaluations across a wide range of policy areas.
 
Often, we are asked: How does Blueprints measure its success?
 
We do this through a range of markers, examples of which are highlighted below.
 
Blueprints’ Electronic Footprint
 
For pure dissemination information, we track google analytics to determine user interactions with the website. On average, Blueprints receives around 17,500 unique pageviews and 9,000 sessions a month, which translates to nearly 600 unique pageviews and 300 sessions per day. We are also active on social media, including:

If you don’t already, please sign up to follow us on any of these social media platforms!

Community Prevention Strategies
 
Another method for measuring success involves documenting the use of Blueprints in community prevention strategies now in wide use. For example, Communities That Care (CTC), is a prevention system designed to reduce levels of adolescent delinquency and substance use through the selection and use of effective preventive interventions tailored to a community’s specific profile of risk and protection. CTC trains community members in how to select and expand their use of tested and effective interventions specifically using the Blueprints website. CTC is currently successfully operational in over 130 communities in the United States, such as in Colorado where the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) adopted CTC in 2016 as a statewide prevention model, and CDPHE presently funds 30 CTC communities across the state. Internationally, CTC is operating in dozens of communities around the world (including Germany, Sweden, Denmark, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Croatia, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Panama and Australia) to promote healthy development and reduce risk behavior.
 
An additional example is Evidence2Success®, which  is an initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation that brings together public-system leaders and community members to understand how children are doing with the help of data; select evidence-based programs, including those from Blueprints to enhance strengths and address needs; and develop financing and action plans to support the ongoing use of those proven programs. The initiative began with a pilot site in Providence, RI in 2012 and has since expanded to Mobile, Alabama; Selma, Alabama; Kearns Township, Salt Lake County, Utah; Memphis, Tennessee; and Miami, Florida. As part of the Evidence2Success framework, public systems and schools commit up front to redirecting a portion of their combined resources for children. These partners work with a team of finance and administration professionals to identify funding sources within their agency budgets and coordinate funding to invest in programs that respond to the outcomes prioritized by the partnership. In recent years, the Foundation has carefully tracked the resources leveraged by sites in support of Blueprints programs and supporting infrastructure. Since 2017, sites have leveraged more than $6 million across child welfare, juvenile justice, school district, public health, social service, city, county, and substance abuse and mental health systems. The addition of related activities, such as clinical services and trauma trainings in Providence, raises the total amount leveraged to $15 million.

References in Evidence-Based Funding Guidelines
 
We track references to Blueprints in guides used to determine grant eligibility or that require evidence to support funding decisions. For example, the Pew Charitable Trusts cited Blueprints by name in a 2022 report titled How Nongovernmental Groups Can Support States in Evidence-Based Policymaking (see page 11). In addition, Blueprints is listed as a reference within the Evidence-Based Practices Resource Center sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) housed within the US Department of Health & Human Services, and Blueprints is referenced in several reports prepared for SAMHSA such as:

• Preventing Marijuana Use Among Youth. SAMHSA Publication No. PEP21-06-01-001. Rockville, MD: National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy Laboratory. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2021.
• Selecting Best-fit Programs and Practices: Guidance for Substance Misuse Prevention Practitioners. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2018.

Historically, Blueprints has been listed as a resource for locating evidence-based interventions in several handbooks developed to support funding mandates across the United States. Recent examples include:

• South Carolina’s Guide to Approved Uses for Investing Opioid Settlement Funds (2022)
• Montana’s “Guide to Evidence-Based Substance Prevention” (2021)
• Nevada’s “Evidence-Based Practices, Programs, and Policies Manual” (2021)
• Washington state’s “Reporting Guide for Research and Evidence-Based Practices in Children’s Mental Health” (2021) and “Prevention Tools What Works, What Doesn’t” (2019)
• Ohio’s Evidence resource page: Children, youth and families, Supports for multi-system youth (2021)
• West Virginia’s Guide to “Preventing Substance Use Disorder: What Works and What Doesn’t” (2020)
• Nevada’s “Evidence-Based Work Group Policy and Guidelines” (2019)

Informing Standards of Research on Evidence-Based Programs
 
We monitor documents referencing Blueprints standards of evidence, highlighting the design, methods, and analysis issues Blueprints considers when determining the credibility of causal claims of program effectiveness. For example, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and World Health Organization recently suggested that national standards globally enforce a requirement of implementing evidence-based strategies only by utilizing registries such as Blueprints, citing the registry by name (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime & World Health Organization, 2018, see page 42). Meanwhile, A Guide to Writing High-Quality Evaluation Reports in Child Welfare distributed by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Urban Institute discussed key design elements for rigorous impact evaluations by analyzing the study rating criteria used at Blueprints (among other registries) to create an invaluable resource for anyone in the planning and design stages of impact evaluation in child welfare.

Media Op-Eds Highlighting Blueprints

We identify when Blueprints is mentioned in national and local media pieces, such as a New York Times op-ed on reducing school violence (Keels, 2018), several op-eds in local and national news media outlets advocating for a prevention strategy in dealing with the opioid surge (Riggs, 2022, Richter & Fishbein, 2022), and a discussion in The Hill of interventions such as those listed on the Blueprints registry that are effectively alleviating economic hardship (Baron, 2022).

Scientific Impact

And finally, we examine success in terms of scientific impact. Blueprints’ founder, Dr. Del Elliott, is a leading advocate for evidence-based prevention. His work has been cited over 27,000 times in scientific literature. In addition, we are aware of 48 different academic papers published since 2015 that discuss and/or reference Blueprints, and these publications have been cited (according to Google analytics) more than 3,500 times. We also maintain a publications page on our website listing academic papers written by Blueprints board and staff highlighting the registry’s work.

Conclusion
 
Launched in 1996, Blueprints recently celebrated its 25^th anniversary. In preparing for next year and future work, we frequently reflect on our purpose and impact.
 
If you are aware of initiatives, funding mandates, frameworks, media pieces, academic papers or any other efforts that cite Blueprints as a resource for guiding decisions about investments in preventive interventions, please send this information to us at blueprints@colorado.edu.
 
And as always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.
 
Happy Holidays!

Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
PI, Blueprints Initiative
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Board Chair and Co-PI
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is developed and managed by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the Blueprints database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

2022 in Review
By the numbers
 
Below is a summary of our year in review. 
 
Interventions Reviewed & Certified in the Past Year
 

Certified in 2022  
Growth Mindset for 9th Graders (Promising)
Added: Jan. 18, 2022
Learn more
 
Transitional Jobs Program – RecycleForce (Promising)
Added: Feb. 25, 2022
Learn more
 
Bounce Back Newham (Promising)
Added: July 27, 2022
Learn more
 
Fostering Healthy Futures for Preteens (Promising)
Added: August 3, 2022
Learn more
 
RealTeen (Promising)
Added: December 7, 2022
Learn more

Featured Model Program
Family Foundations

Blueprints Certified: 2022 (Moved from Promising to Model)

Ages Served: Infant (0-2)

Program Outcomes: Antisocial-aggressive Behavior, Anxiety, Close Relationships with Parents, Depression, Externalizing, Internalizing

Goal and Target Population: A universal prevention program designed to improve birth outcomes, reduce family aggression, enhance child mental and behavioral health, and enhance parent mental and physical health through promoting coparenting quality among couples at the transition to parenthood.

Learn more about Family Foundations

Featured Promising Program
YouthBuild

Blueprints Certified: 2021

Ages Served: Late Adolescence (15-18) – High School, Early Adulthood (19-24)

Program Outcomes: Dropout/High School Graduation, Employment

Goal and Target Population: A full-time, comprehensive program aiming to help young adults between the ages of 16 and 24 who lack a high school diploma and may have experienced other systemic barriers by building skillsets and mindsets that lead to lifelong learning, livelihood, and leadership.

Learn more about YouthBuild

© 2022 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

Leadership Letter: 

Several opioid settlements with pharmaceutical companies have been determined with more to come. Many of these resources are being distributed by states with the aim of addressing education, economic, social, and health hardships and creating sustainable innovations to address the opioid epidemic. This month’s newsletter highlights the role of prevention – most notably, scaling evidence-based preventive interventions listed on the Blueprint registry – as one approach embedded within a larger prevention strategy for guiding the effective use of these settlement funds.
 
The Power of Prevention
 
With the current opioid addiction and overdose crisis, many countries around the world have been ramping up treatment and harm-reduction services to mitigate the negative consequences associated with drug use. What is also needed, however, is prevention!
 
Dr. Diana Fishbein of the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives wrote an op-ed titled “Prevention is our best – and most underrated – weapon against opioids,” emphasizing the critical role for prevention in the battle against the opioid epidemic, which has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
Over the past 30 years, prevention research shows that systematically addressing the root causes of behavioral problems among vulnerable populations and promoting protective and supportive environments will steadily divert trajectories away from substance use disorders, including opioid use disorders, later in life. The same risk and protective factors in child and adolescent families, schools, peer groups and neighborhoods that affect smoking, alcohol use and cannabis use are also predictive of advancing to opioid use.
 
Research on periods of vulnerability during youth development and the kinds of social and environmental factors that increase risks associated with substance use have led to the design and testing of numerous evidence-based prevention interventions that have been shown to reduce risk factors as well as increase protective factors. These evidence-based programs have multiple benefits – with some showing decreased or delayed drug experimentation in adolescence and young adulthood.
 
In this 15-minute talk, prevention scientist Dr. Phillip Graham provides a powerful and compelling case explaining the role of evidence-based individual, family, school, and community-level preventive interventions in the prevention of youth substance use and opioid misuse.
 
Opioid Settlement Funds
 
The opioid settlement funds offer a pressing opportunity to promote dissemination and scaling of effective prevention programs across communities and social systems. Settlement funds could save lives and abate lifelong harms from substance use disorders (including opioids) if they are allocated to the most effective preventive interventions targeting youth, families, and/or schools.
 
For this reason, states and jurisdictions should fund initiatives demonstrated by research to work and not fund programs shown not to work.

Investments in early intervention preventive approaches among youth and families will result in significantly lower long-term rates of substance use disorders. 

Blueprints-Certified Preventive Interventions
 
Primary prevention programs listed on the Blueprints registry are designed to improve child development, support families, and enhance school experiences. These programs are developmentally appropriate and many have been shown to either prevent the initiation of substance use or escalation of use.
 
Several organizations have published guidance on how to spend newly allocated opioid settlement funds on substance use prevention and mental health promotion that specifically reference the Blueprints registry. For example: 

• This opioid policy briefing from the National Prevention Science Coalition recommends the Blueprints registry as part of a Strategy for Preventing Opioid Use Disorders in Communities. The brief reviews current challenges regarding opioid use disorder and provides recommendations and strategies for prevention.

• Blueprints was referenced in a news piece titled: How To Invest Opioid Settlement And Federal Funding To Prevent Substance Use And Promote Youth Mental Health. Specifically, the news article said: “Too often, programs and interventions are not sustained on a long-term basis because of resource limitations and a lack of infrastructure. To ensure sustainability, recipients of funds should use established evidence-informed programs whenever possible and appropriate, as designated by reputable lists such as Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development.”

• John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health released several “Principles for the Use of Funds from the Opioid Litigation,” including to Invest in Youth Prevention using compilations of effective youth primary prevention interventions, such as those listed on the Blueprints registry. 

Blueprints-certified programs can be effectively scaled when integrated into a comprehensive service delivery system based on an assessment of need, delivered at the community level, and supported by a monitoring and evaluation data infrastructure.
 
This previous newsletter highlights examples of effective frameworks for broad dissemination of Blueprints-certified programs.
 
Scaling of evidence-based programs, such as those listed on the Blueprints registry, is also part of a comprehensive national strategy to prevent opioid use disorder launched by the National Prevention Science Coalition to Improve Lives.
 
Conclusion
 
In sum, we believe that effective allocation of state opioid settlement funds toward prevention can and should be used to establish the infrastructure needed for a comprehensive approach to preventing youth substance use and mental health problems.
 
If you are aware of initiatives that use opioid settlement funds for large-scale dissemination of evidence-based preventive interventions listed as Model/Model Plus or Promising on the Blueprints registry, we are interested in profiling your work. Please contact us at blueprints@colorado.edu.
 
And as always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.

Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
PI, Blueprints Initiative
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Board Chair and Co-PI
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is developed and managed by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the Blueprints database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

Blueprints News and Resources 
Opioid Response Resources
 
In lieu of featuring one Model/Model Plus and one Promising program as we have historically done in each newsletter, we are highlighting two Blueprints-certified programs with high-quality evaluation studies demonstrating an impact on reduce of opioid use. These include:
 
Model/Model Plus Programs

Project Towards No Drug Abuse (classroom-based drug prevention program designed for at-risk youth that aims to prevent teen drinking, smoking, marijuana, and other hard drug use).
 
Study 1 – Sussman et al. (1998), Simon et al. (2002)

• Measured cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine/crack, hallucinogens, stimulants, inhalants, and other drugs (depressants, PCP, steroids, heroin, etc.).
• Findings showed reductions in hard drug use (including opioids) prevalence rates at 1-year and 4-5-year follow-ups.

Study 2 – Dent et al. (2001)

• Measured cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine/crack, hallucinogens, stimulants, inhalants, and other drugs (depressants, PCP, steroids, heroin, etc.).
• Findings showed reductions in hard drug use (including opioids) prevalence rates at 1-year follow-up.

Study 3 – Sussman, Dent & Stacy (2002), Sussman, Dent et al. (2002), Sussman et al. (2003)

• Measured cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine/crack, hallucinogens, stimulants, inhalants, and other drugs (depressants, PCP, steroids, heroin, etc.).
• Findings showed reduced problem behavior rates (i.e., hard drug use, alcohol use, tobacco, and marijuana use) at 1-year follow-up, and reduced hard drug use at 2-year follow-up.

Study 4 – Sun et al. (2008)

• Measured cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine/crack, hallucinogens, stimulants, inhalants, and other drugs (depressants, PCP, steroids, heroin, etc.).
• Findings showed reductions in hard drug use (including opioids) frequency at 1-year follow-up. 

Promising Programs

PROSPER (delivery system that attempts to foster implementation of evidence-based youth and family interventions, complete with ongoing needs assessments, monitoring of implementation quality and partnership functions, and evaluation of intervention outcomes).
 
Study 1 – Spoth et al. (2007, 2015), Redmond et al. (2009)

• Measured “Illicit Substance Index,” including marijuana, methamphetamines, ecstasy, opioids, and medications prescribed for someone else, as well as alcohol and cigarettes.
• Findings showed lower rates of lifetime use of gateway drugs (alcohol, cigarette, marijuana) and illicit drugs (marijuana, meth, ecstasy, prescription misuse, opioids), and lower rates of marijuana and inhalant use in the past year.

© 2022 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

Leadership Letter:

Blueprints is a privately funded nonprofit organization housed in the Prevention Science Program within the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder.
 
We are the longest-standing registry of evidence-based interventions and internationally recognized for our work in the field.
 
In 2018, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and World Health Organization suggested that national standards globally enforce a requirement of implementing evidence-based strategies only by utilizing registries such as Blueprints, citing us by name (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the World Health Organization, 2018, p. 42).
 
Funding History
 
Blueprints began in 1996 as an initiative of the State of Colorado, with initial funding from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.
 
Blueprints was later supported (starting in 2010) by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) to expand the registry’s focus beyond violence prevention to include positive behavioral outcomes.
 
Following AECF, Arnold Ventures has funded Blueprints core operations, which include:

1. Conducting Blueprints reviews (see Blueprints review process).
2. Providing a detailed account on the Blueprints website of each certified intervention (i.e., those that receive a rating of Promising, Model or Model Plus).
3. Support of other communication activities designed to promote the Blueprints registry as a resource for scientifically proven and scalable interventions (e.g., through social media, a quarterly e-newsletter, presentations, etc.).

With support from Arnold Ventures, Blueprints also lists information on all interventions we review and has one page on our website for identifying certified interventions (i.e., those rated as Promising, Model or Model Plus) and a separate page for non-certified interventions to reduce confusion and increase transparency of the Blueprints review process.
 
Continuation Grant
 
Arnold Ventures recently awarded Blueprints a two-year grant (starting July 1, 2022) to support our core operations. In addition, Arnold Ventures is providing funding for Blueprints to:

• Communicate important findings on effective interventions to the practitioner, policy, funder, and research communities by extending and strengthening the Blueprints rating system to incorporate meta-analysis into its thorough and reflective review process, thus assisting the Blueprints Advisory Board in making recommendations for Model and Model Plus interventions that are ready for scale.
• Increase the use of rigorous evidence through partnerships and nonpartisan educational efforts focused on promoting the use of evidence about what works to increase the effectiveness of U.S. social spending and improve people’s lives.

We are deeply grateful to all our funders, past and present, for their investment in Blueprints – demonstrating their commitment to promoting a strong scientific standard of evidence for identifying effective prevention interventions that provide a high probability of success when taken to scale in communities.
 
Part of Arnold Ventures’ mission is to invest in evidence-based solutions that maximize opportunity and minimize injustice. With this continuation grant to Blueprints, Arnold Ventures adds to its portfolio of strategies designed to increase the effectiveness of social spending using rigorous evidence about what works. Learn more about Arnold Ventures’ work in correcting systemic failures through evidence-based solutions.
 
And, as always, thank you to all of you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints!
 
Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
PI, Blueprints Initiative
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Board Chair and Co-PI
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures. 

© 2022 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

View this email in your browser

Leadership Letter:

We are devoting this newsletter to acknowledging our Blueprints Advisory Board members, both past and present.
 
Launched in 1996, Blueprints is the longest-standing online clearinghouse of evidence-based interventions. Throughout most of our tenure, our review process has been supported by a distinguished Advisory Board of experts in prevention science content areas, evaluation methodology, intervention design and testing, and statistical methods. Each certified intervention listed on the Blueprints registry has been reviewed carefully by this independent advisory panel that looks at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus, and potential for implementation in public systems.
 
We want to welcome our new Advisory Board members, who include:

•  Elizabeth Stuart, PhD, Bloomberg Professor of American Health, Associate Dean for Education and Professor in the Department of Mental Health, with joint appointments in the departments of Biostatistics and Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins University.
• Elizabeth Tipton, PhD, Associate Professor of Statistics, and Faculty Fellow in the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.

These individuals will be joining an accomplished group of scholars who currently sit on the Blueprints Advisory Board, including:

• Abigail Fagan, PhD, Professor, Department of Sociology, Criminology & Law, University of Florida.
• Frances Gardner, DPhil, Professor of Child and Family Psychology, Fellow of Wolfson College Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy & Intervention, Oxford University.
• Larry V. Hedges, PhD, Board of Trustees Professor of Statistics and Social Policy and Faculty Fellow, Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.
• Karl G. Hill, PhD, Professor, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and Director of the Prevention Science Program in the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder.
• Velma McBride Murry, PhD, Professor, Departments of Health Policy and Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Vanderbilt University.
• Patrick H. Tolan, PhD, the Charles S. Robb Professor of Education at the University of Virginia in the School of Education and Human Development and Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences in the School of Medicine.

 We also want to thank members of the Blueprints Advisory Board who recently retired, including:

• Thomas Cook, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Northwestern University and Emeritus Fellow at their Institute for Policy Research, where he was formerly the Joan and Sarepta Harrison Chair of Ethics and Justice. 
• Delbert Elliott, PhD, Blueprints founder and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology, research professor in the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder and founding director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
• Denise Gottfredson, PhD, Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology.
• David Hawkins, PhD, the Endowed Professor of Prevention Emeritus in the School of Social Work at the University of Washington and Founding Director of the Social Development Research Group.

 The Blueprints Review Process
 
The Blueprints website provides information about our review process, which is illustrated below.  
 

 
We thank and acknowledge members of the Blueprints Advisory Board whose collective knowledge, critical thinking and analysis increases the credibility of the ratings and interventions we certify as “Promising,” “Model,” and “Model Plus” on the Blueprints registry.
 
Nominate an Intervention
 
If you would like us to review a study of a prevention program that serves youth (ages 0-25), families and/or communities, please send all evaluation articles/papers to: blueprints@colorado.edu.
 
More information on nominating an intervention for Blueprints review can be found on our website.
 
As always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.
 
Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
Principal Investigator
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Co-Principal Investigator
Chair of the Blueprints Board
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures. 

© 2022 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

Leadership Letter: 

In our last newsletter, we explained how we apply our standards of evidence (Steeger et al., 2021) in rating interventions with an evidence base that is strong enough to be recommended by Blueprints for large-scale adoption (please click here for a summary of our review process).
 
Obtaining desired outcomes from scaling up Blueprints-certified interventions, however, requires multiple layers of support, including (for example): (1) adequate and appropriately structured funding; (2) partnerships with stakeholders at every level to ensure necessary support for program implementation and continuing service provision; and (3) community engagement to support local service delivery.
 
Several effective frameworks for broad dissemination have been established to ensure the impact of Blueprints-certified programs on a large scale.
 
The focus of this newsletter is highlighting examples of these efforts, with the goal of providing a “blueprint” for national, state, and/or local initiatives that might want to adopt a similar approach.
 
Statewide Public/Private Initiatives to Implement a Portfolio of Blueprints-Certified Interventions
 
In Colorado (home to the Prevention Science Program at the Institute of Behavioral Science at CU Boulder, which houses Blueprints), examples include:

1. Invest in Kids (IIK), a nonprofit organization that for over two decades has worked alongside Colorado communities to adopt, implement, and successfully scale proven programs that have the greatest long-term impact on young children and families experiencing poverty. These Blueprints programs, which IIK sustains via federal, state, and local grants and investments from private foundations and individual donors, include: 1) Nurse-Family Partnership® (Model), a relationship-based program, delivered in the home, that partners highly-trained registered nurses with first-time mothers and their babies and is designed to improve prenatal and child rearing practices and parent self-sufficiency through the child’s second birthday; 2) The Incredible Years® (Promising), a prevention program designed to increase a child’s success at school and at home by promoting positive parent, teacher, and child relationships; and most recently, 3) Child First® (Promising), a home-based two-generation mental health-focused program which works to heal and protect young children and their families from the devastating effects of chronic stress and trauma.
2. Colorado Equitable Economic Mobility Initiative (CEEMI), a newly formed independent nonprofit  collaborating with public and private partners to create a more equitable economic ecosystem by blending public, private, and philanthropic funds to enroll Coloradans facing poverty in effective employment programs. CEEMI is working to scale up two Blueprints-certified programs: 1) Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (Model Plus), a post-secondary program addressing potential barriers to academic success and promoting credit accumulation and associate degree completion through comprehensive advisement and career and tutoring services provided by dedicated advisers; and 2) Year Up (Promising), a training and internship program that helps young people with limited post-secondary education get high-quality jobs by learning to work with technology, developing employment skills, and obtaining internships. Year Up is also one of the workforce programs backed by strong evidence of effectiveness identified by the National Conference of State Legislatures, and their new Center for Results-Driven Governing, for policymakers to consider as states leverage the American Rescue Plan (ARP) in seeking ways to re-employ workers and build a workforce that will help lead their economic recovery in this post-coronavirus economy.  
3. Safe Communities Safe Schools (SCSS), an initiative within the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado Boulder that follows a research-based model to build a school’s unique capacity to reduce violence by promoting social, emotional, and physical safety. Included in the SCSS Model is support that allows schools to (1) measure and strengthen their readiness to adopt evidence-based interventions, including those listed on the Blueprints registry, (2) build high-functioning multi-disciplinary teams to champion the work, and (3) receive tailored tools, processes, and technical assistance to support high-quality implementation.
4. Communities That Care (CTC), a framework which aims to reduce adolescent substance misuse, violence, and depression by implementing from a menu of strategies particular programs, practices and/or policies—including Blueprints-certified interventions—that have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing risk factors and enhancing protective factors. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) adopted CTC in 2016 as a statewide prevention model. CDPHE currently funds 30 CTC communities across the state.

National Philanthropic Foundation/Community Partnerships Helping Scale Blueprints-Certified Interventions
 
Two examples of efforts to scale evidence-based interventions, including many on the Blueprints registry, funded by national philanthropic organizations include:

1. Evidence2Success®, which  is an initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation that brings together public-system leaders and community members to understand how children are doing with the help of data; select evidence-based programs, including those from Blueprints to enhance strengths and address needs; and develop financing and action plans to support the ongoing use of those proven programs. The initiative began with a pilot site in Providence, RI in 2012 and has since expanded to Mobile, Alabama; Selma, Alabama; Kearns Township, Salt Lake County, Utah; Memphis, Tennessee; and Miami, Florida. While scale is sometimes more quickly achieved through a focus on system-wide reform and legislative change, Evidence2Success is built at the intersection of place-based change and system change – with a strong value on system change informed by community input and leadership. As part of the Evidence2Success framework, public systems and schools commit up front to redirecting a portion of their combined resources for children. These partners work with a team of finance and administration professionals to identify funding sources within their agency budgets and coordinate funding to invest in programs that respond to the outcomes prioritized by the partnership. In recent years, the Foundation has carefully tracked the resources leveraged by sites in support of Blueprints programs and supporting infrastructure. Since 2017, sites have leveraged more than $6 million across child welfare, juvenile justice, school district, public health, social service, city, county, and substance abuse and mental health systems. The addition of related activities, such as clinical services and trauma trainings in Providence, raises the total amount leveraged to $15 million.
2. Arnold Ventures’ Moving the Needle initiative, which seeks to spur expanded implementation of programs with credible evidence of meaningful positive effects in order to make significant headway against U.S. social problems. Specifically, the initiative is designed to encourage state or local jurisdictions, or other entities, to: (1) Adopt social programs shown in well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to produce large, sustained effects on important life outcomes (see attachment 1 in the RFP for the list of eligible programs; many are listed on the Blueprints registry); (2) Implement these programs on a sizable scale with close adherence to their key features; and (3) Determine, through a replication RCT, whether the large effects found in prior research are successfully reproduced so as to move the needle on important social problems. Arnold Ventures (AV) has provided more than $38 million in funding over the past five years to help scale up and conduct replication trials of these interventions. Click here to listen to a 10-minute interview with David Anderson, VP of AV’s Evidence-Based Policy Initiative, for insights about building credible evidence in social policy.

Reallocation of Criminal Justice Dollars to Prevention
 
The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (Virginia DJJ) built a more robust continuum of services, with a focus on implementing evidence-based and evidence-informed programs and services statewide, thereby reducing the overuse of juvenile correctional centers and developing alternatives to incarceration. The Blueprints registry is identified within the Virginia DJJ’s guidance document as a resource in selecting effective prevention programs ready for large-scale adoption. As a result of Virginia DJJ’s commitment to evidence-based programs and high-quality implementation, youth and families who are involved with the juvenile justice system anywhere in the Commonwealth now have access to one or more Model/Model Plus programs. Click here for a summary report on Virginia DJJ’s Transformation over the past five years.
 
Conclusion
 
Attempts to scale inconclusive, ineffective, or harmful programs are a waste of time, money, and opportunity. As such, we advocate for identifying and implementing interventions that are known to work, that can be implemented at scale with fidelity, and that are cost effective. Blueprints provides a trusted source of accessible information on experimentally proven interventions recommended for large-scale implementation that meet a high evidentiary standard based upon a rigorous systematic review of all the research evidence. This newsletter provides just a few models for scaling social programs that produce important improvements in people’s lives.
 
If you are aware of additional models or frameworks for large-scale dissemination of evidence-based interventions, including those on the Blueprints registry, we would be interested in profiling your work. Please contact us at blueprints@colorado.edu.
 
And as always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.
 
Happy Holidays!

Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
Principal Investigator
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Co-Principal Investigator
Chair of the Blueprints Board
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is hosted by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the Blueprints database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

2021 in Review
By the numbers
 
Below is a summary of our year in review. 
 
Interventions Reviewed & Certified in the Past Year
 
•  Number of Unique Interventions Reviewed = 47
•  Number of Individuals Articles or Reports Reviewed = 191
•  Number of Interventions Certified = 5
 
Coping Power Universal (Promising)
Added: Feb. 18, 2021
Learn more
 
YouthBuild (Promising)
Added: Mar. 24, 2021
Learn more
 
EveryDay Intervention (Promising)
Added: Jun. 4, 2021
Learn more
 
Cannabis eCHECKUP TO GO (Promising)
Added Jul. 7, 2021
Learn more
 
ASSISTments (Promising)
Added Nov. 22, 2021
Learn more

© 2021 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Welcome to the Blueprints Bulletin

Leadership Letter: 

We are excited to share with you an important milestone Blueprints recently reached. But first, a quick summary of our history will help frame the discussion.
 
Blueprints History

The Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development mission is to provide a comprehensive registry of scientifically proven and scalable interventions that prevent or reduce the likelihood of antisocial behavior and promote a healthy course of youth development and adult maturity. Those interventions are rated as either Promising or Model/Model Plus.
 
Originally started as Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Blueprints was one of the earliest efforts to establish a clear scientific standard for evaluating the evidence of an intervention’s effectiveness, implementing a rigorous expert review process and certifying those interventions that met this standard. Launched in 1996 by internationally renowned researcher Dr. Delbert S. Elliott (who also founded the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence in 1992), the early years of Blueprints focused on identifying programs that were effective in addressing violence and drug use outcomes. Since its inception, Blueprints has expanded its scope to include mental and physical health, self-regulation, educational achievement, and other positive developmental outcomes.

Celebrating an Important Milestone: 100 Certified Interventions!

In August 2021, Blueprints reached an important milestone by certifying its 100^th intervention!
 
Of these, 18 are rated Model/Model Plus and 82 are Promising.
 
The Blueprints website provides an interactive search feature to identify Blueprints-certified interventions based on specific criteria that allows users to browse through a wide range of interventions that match those criteria.
 
Model and Model Plus interventions are listed separately from Promising interventions.
 
This is because Model and Model Plus interventions have demonstrated efficacy for changing outcomes over time and are recommended by Blueprints for large-scale implementation.
 
Promising interventions show promise of efficacy but require follow-up research before being recommended for large-scale adoption.
 
How does an Intervention receive a Rating of Model or Model Plus?

The Blueprints registry standard for a Model rating requires: 

1. A theoretical rationale/logic model
2. One or more high quality randomized control trials
3. An experimental replication
4. Sustainability of effects for at least one-year post intervention
5. No evidence of negative or harmful effects
6. The organizational capacity to provide materials, training, and information for new users to adopt and implement the model intervention with fidelity

Blueprints also has a Model Plus rating, which requires at least one trial by an evaluation team independent of the program developer and his or her colleagues. In sum, the logic is that to consider any program as ready to be relied on in practice or for scaling up, there should be a clearly specified theoretical rationale, reliable evidence of positive, sustained impact based on a sound experimental research design, and at least one replication of positive findings.
 
A high-quality quasi-experimental design (QED) can meet Blueprints standards, but to earn a Model or Model Plus rating, effective interventions must have demonstrated positive effects in at least one high-quality RCT.
 
The Blueprints website provides more information about our standards and review process.

Testing Promising Interventions for Scale-up
 
While most certified interventions listed on the Blueprints website are rated Promising (82 out of 100), several are currently being tested for replication.
 
Under the Research Grants Focused on Systematic Replication (84.305R) competition, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which is the research arm of the US Department of Education, will support systematic replication studies of interventions that have produced beneficial effects on education outcomes in one or more rigorous causal-impact studies. We are aware of two replications of Blueprints Promising programs that IES is currently funding:

• Targeted Reading Instruction (TRI, formerly called Targeted Reading Intervention) is a teacher professional development program designed to help classroom teachers acquire key diagnostic reading instruction strategies differentiated to meet the exact needs of individual students who are struggling with early reading. Blueprints certified the program based on an RCT conducted by Amendum et al. (2011). Dr. Robin Wisniewski from RTI International received a 5-year grant (07/01/2021 – 06/30/2026) that will follow first grade students and teachers for an additional 2 years beyond the intervention to test TRI’s long-term impacts on reading achievement.
• Whole Number Foundations Level K (Roots) is a 50-session small group mathematics intervention delivered as a pull-out program during the regular school day. The aim is to help strengthen whole number concepts and operations skills in students at risk for developing long-term mathematics difficulties. Blueprints certified the intervention based on an RCT conducted by Clarke et al. (2016). Dr. Ben Clarke from the University of Oregon received a 5-year grant (07/01/2020 – 06/30/2025) to conduct a replication study of ROOTS for students at risk for mathematics learning disabilities across school types and student populations intentionally selected to differ from previous efficacy studies.

Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy dedicated to tackling some of the most pressing problems in the United States, has provided support for RCTs of programs across the spectrum of social policy whose prior evidence shows potential for sizable effects on education, earnings, crime, and other important outcomes. Not only has Arnold Ventures provided support for the Blueprints registry, but it has also supported replications of several interventions rated as Promising on Blueprints:

• Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) is a community mentoring program that matches a volunteer adult mentor to an at-risk child or adolescent to delay or reduce antisocial behaviors and improve academic success. The program was certified based on an RCT conducted by Grossman & Tierney (1998). Dr. David DuBois from the University of Illinois at Chicago and Dr. Carla Herrera (an independent consultant) are conducting a multi-site RCT with a sample of 20 BBBSA agencies nationwide (the grant term runs from 2016-2024).
• Career Academies, which are school-based programs designed to provide students with the credentials and skills needed to make successful transitions to post-secondary education and careers, was certified by Blueprints based on a multi-site RCT conducted in a diverse set of urban and small-city high schools in California, Texas, and several cities on the east coast (Kemple & Snipes, 2000; Kemple, 2004; Kemple & Wilner, 2008). MDRC is conducting a replication of Career Academies in California high schools. The term of the grant is from 2017-2032.
• Child First, a two-generation home visitation program which works to heal and protect young children and their families from the devastating effects of chronic stress and trauma, was certified based on an RCT conducted by Lowell et al. (2011). With support from Arnold Ventures and The Duke Endowment, MDRC is leading an experimental study that aims to replicate the findings from the earlier study in multiple locations across Connecticut and North Carolina.
• EAAA (Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act) Sexual Assault Resistance Education is a four-unit program to help first-year college women resist acquaintance sexual assault by providing them with information and resistance training. The intervention was certified based on an RCT conducted at three universities in Canada by Senn et al. (2015). Dr. Koss from the University of Arizona is leading a multi-site RCT that includes a one-year follow-up across five U.S. universities.
• Rochester Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (R-FACT) is an outpatient treatment program to reduce recidivism and promote recovery among justice-involved adults with a serious mental illness that was certified based on an RCT conducted in New York by Lamberti et al. (2017). The University of Rochester is conducting an RCT to evaluate the R-FACT model in Minnesota. The grant runs from 2018 to 2025.
• Year Up is a training and internship program that helps young people with limited post-secondary education get high-quality jobs by learning to work with technology, developing employment skills, and obtaining internships. The program was certified based on an RCT conducted by Fein & Hamadyk (2018) in eight sites across the US. Dr. David Fein of Abt Associates is leading long-term follow-ups to two RCTs of adaptations of the Year Up model, and the grant runs from 2019-2022.

Nominate an Intervention
 
If you are aware of an intervention Blueprints has rated as Promising that is being replicated and you would like us to review the study, please send all evaluation articles/papers to: blueprints@colorado.edu.
 
And if you are a funding agency awarding grants to replicate intervention programs designed to promote healthy youth development, please contact us as well. We would be interested in profiling your work and any interventions from the Blueprints registry you are funding to replicate.
 
More information on nominating an intervention for Blueprints review can be found on our website by clicking here.
 
As always, thank you for your continued interest in and support of Blueprints.

Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
Principal Investigator
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Co-Principal Investigator
Chair of the Blueprints Board
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is hosted by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current support from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the Blueprints database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

© 2021 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309

Announcement: 

We are excited to announce that Dr. Pamela Buckley is the new Principal Investigator (PI) of Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. Dr. Buckley joined the Blueprints team in 2016 and has been serving as Co-PI and Director. Dr. Karl Hill is still involved in the vision and scientific integrity of Blueprints and will assume the role of Co-PI and will remain Chair of the Blueprints Advisory Board. Read more about Drs. Buckley and Hill’s experience here.

Leadership Letter: 

This newsletter features results from an online survey conducted in collaboration with our friends at Evidence-Based Associates on Model/Model Plus and Promising Programs’ COVID-19 (COVID) response.
 
In May 2020, Blueprints self-funded a survey that was administered to contacts listed for the Blueprints certified programs on how evidence-based interventions had responded to, and begun to plan for, the aftermath of the COVID pandemic. The 2020 survey contained eight questions and 58 of the 94 programs surveyed responded, for a 62 percent response rate. 
 
This one-year follow-up, administered between May and June 2021, had a 58% response rate (57 of the 99 certified programs responded).
 
Results show most programs have experienced a small (or no) impact in delivering services as a direct result of COVID. However, a wide range of modifications to service delivery and implementation strategies were reported – findings that remained relatively stable over time.

Go here to review the May 2021 findings. 
 
Impact of COVID-19 on dissemination/implementation 

Most programs reported either no significant impact in service delivery from COVID, or a small impact causing some difficulties in maintaining dissemination but overall stability. In addition, more than one-quarter reported a positive impact, with COVID providing new opportunities for development. There was, however, a small percentage of programs that experienced a great impact, leading to discontinuation or serious difficulties in sustaining dissemination of their Blueprints-certified program.
 
Status of the dissemination/implementation 

The data show the majority of programs that completed our survey had received requests for changes to the delivery modality and training/support of their intervention. These findings were relatively consistent across the initial (May 2020) and follow-up (May 2021) surveys. As of May 2020, just under half reported experiencing new requests for the adoption of their model – a number that increased by ten percentage points, as measured by the May 2021 responses. Meanwhile, none had discontinued implementation in the wake of COVID as of May 2020 (a percentage that slightly increased in May 2021), but some reported they temporarily suspended their program (a percentage that slightly decreased from the initial to the follow-up survey).
 
Modifications to service delivery 

We conducted our May 2020 survey as many states were experiencing varying levels of stay-at-home orders, schools had been abruptly closed, and most business and childcare facilities were either shut down or beginning to phase in opening plans. As a result, programs were quickly faced with important decisions to ensure the safe continuity of programming while following public health guidelines. Just under one-quarter had not modified the intervention or its delivery due to COVID at the time of our May 2020 survey. The majority, however, provided online resources, turned to tele-sessions and/or video conferencing, and/or offered online training or lessons to support service delivery. A small percentage started a blog as a forum for conversation.
 
By May 2021, as the United States and some countries around the world had begun to ease restrictions with the availability of the COVID-19 vaccine, most programs continued to modify their service delivery by providing online resources and training and turning to tele-sessions/video conferencing – however, these numbers consistently increased by roughly 10 percentage points. Meanwhile, those blogging to offer a forum for conversation remained a small percentage (and this number dropped in half from May 2020 to May 2021).
 
In a new question posed with the follow-up survey, we found that an overwhelming majority had implemented changes to their delivery modality. An even greater majority also had implemented changes to their training/support model. 
 
Impact of modified service delivery on intervention outcomes 

More than one-third of survey respondents are either collecting data or plan to collect data soon on the relationship between modifications made due to COVID and intervention outcomes. This finding was consistent across both surveys. However, just over one-quarter reported in May 2020 that they do not have the resources to collect these data – a number that increased to over one-third in May 2021.
 
What was learned about implementing evidence-based interventions in the context of COVID?

We included an open-ended item asking about lessons learned. Responses are summarized here:

• The pandemic highlighted the importance of evidence-based programs for youth as needs increased (e.g. increased levels of behavioral and mental health problems) and virtual programming revealed the basic needs of families supporting these youths (e.g. food insecurity, housing, mental and basic health resources).
• Though developing virtual formats while maintaining fidelity to essential program elements is a lot of work, many programs found various levels of success in providing online/virtual training and/or implementation.
• There is a need for in-person/online hybrid models. Virtual delivery encounters challenges – e.g., lack of access to or difficulties among participants with incorporating technology, inability to fully conduct interactive program activities, and lower levels of engagement and community-building. Virtual delivery also provides opportunities – e. g., increased engagement by removing barriers to access, reaching a wider audience, and reducing costs of training and delivery.
• For school-based programs, hard copy curricula must take advantage of the modern classroom and technology so that schools will continue to adopt these programs. Teachers have learned to use technology more effectively, and will continue to use technology platforms to assist with teaching.
• Flexibility is key for any program.

On March 11, 2020, the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. Since then, COVID has touched all aspects of life, from health care and mental health services to education, the environment, and the economy. Blueprints seeks to assist evidence-based interventions in sharing our survey data so that we can work together in supporting families and communities through the complexities of these challenging times. We hope the resources provided by survey respondents and shared in the next section of this newsletter offer helpful tips and ideas.
 
Sincerely,

Pamela Buckley, PhD
Principal Investigator
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Pamela.Buckley@Colorado.edu

Karl G. Hill, PhD
Co-Principal Investigator
Chair of the Blueprints Board
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado Boulder
Karl.Hill@Colorado.edu

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is hosted by the University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, with current funding from Arnold Ventures and former funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Each intervention included in the Blueprints database has been reviewed carefully by an independent advisory panel that looked at research on the intervention’s impact, practical focus and potential for implementation in public systems.

© 2021 Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, Regents of the University of Colorado. All rights reserved. 

Our mailing address is:
University of Colorado Boulder | Institute of Behavioral Science
483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309