Programs That Have Not Met Blueprints Criteria

More than 90 percent of interventions we review do not receive Blueprints certification. Supported through funding from Arnold Ventures, Blueprints has extended its classification system to provide an evidence rating for interventions that fail to meet Blueprints certification standards. In providing descriptive information on common problems that disqualify interventions from Blueprints certification, we hope to offer concrete ways moving forward that will improve the methods and analyses employed in future program evaluation efforts.

In addition to rating the certified interventions that meet Blueprints criteria, non-certified interventions are also now rated based on whether they are ineffective, harmful, or lack strong evidence. Interventions lacking strong supportive evidence are generally reviewed and rated internally by Blueprints staff, though the advisory board may also conclude an intervention they have reviewed lacked sufficient evidence for certification despite having made it through the internal review process. The rating for non-certified interventions is on a continuum, from having no credible evaluations to having some non-experimental evidence, to having limited experimental evidence, to having very strong experimental evidence. Individual studies are rated on the continuum and the program receives the rating of the study with the highest level of evidence. All programs in our database are provided a rating based on specific review rationale.

The interventions that have been reviewed and rated as lacking strong evidence are as follows: