early-intervention-next-steps

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annex B Programmes and how they were selected The process by which evidence-based <strong>intervention</strong>s were selected, and allocated to the three levels, is set out in Figure B.1 below. Figure B.1: How programmes were selected and allocated to levels 119
120 Early Intervention: The Next Steps The three levels of evidence are defned as follows, starting with the highest standard. Level 1 All of the Level 2 criteria must apply plus: • programme gets a ‘best’ on evaluation quality and/or impact criteria. In the case of evaluation quality this means that any of the ‘best’ criteria must apply, while in the case of impact criteria both of the ‘best’ criteria must apply. Level 2 All of the Level 3 criteria must apply plus: • programme meets all evaluation quality criteria. Level 3 All of the following must apply: • programme has one randomised controlled trial (RCT) or two quasi-experimental designs (QEDs); • programme has a positive impact on an Allen Review outcome; • programme has no iatrogenic efect; and • there are no obvious concerns about <strong>intervention</strong> specifcity or system readiness. The criteria used to inform this work are listed in Annex C of this Report. They are based on the standards developed by the Social Research Unit for the Greater London Authority’s Project Oracle. These were further developed with the help of leading experts in the feld of Early Intervention at the the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington and the Blueprints for Violence Prevention Group in the United States as well as the Institute for Efective Education in the UK. The institutions and individuals involved in review of the criteria, and coding of programmes against these standards, are listed below. The panel used to inform selection Lead individuals Delbert Elliott (University of Colorado, Boulder, and developer of the Blueprints for Violence Prevention database) � David Hawkins (Social Development Research Group, University of Washington, US, and developer of the Prevention Strategies Guide that is part of Communities that Care) � Michael Little (The Social Research Unit, Dartington, UK) � Kristen Moore (Child Trends, Washington, US, and Developer of the LINKS database) � Robert Slavin (Success for All, Johns Hopkins University, US, and developer of the Best Evidence Encyclopaedia) � Reviewers Nick Axford Gretchen Bjornstad Frances Kemp Michaela Santen (The Social Research Unit, Dartington, UK) � Nicole Eisenberg Andrew Woolley (Social Development Research Group, University of Washington, US) � Abigail Fagan (University of North Carolina, US) � Tawana Bandy Jordan Khan Mary Terzian (Child Trends, US) � Bette Chambers (Success for All, US) �
Page 1 and 2:
Early Intervention: The Next Steps
Page 3 and 4:
Acknowledgement The images on the f
Page 6 and 7:
Letter to the Prime Minister Rt Hon
Page 8:
The core message on Early Intervent
Page 11 and 12:
x Early Intervention: The Next Step
Page 14 and 15:
Executive summary Introduction In t
Page 16:
The chief executives of 26 local au
Page 19 and 20:
xviii Early Intervention: The Next
Page 21 and 22:
xx Early Intervention: The Next Ste
Page 24:
Part 1: Introduction 1. This frst h
Page 27 and 28:
4 Early Intervention: The Next Step
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33:
10 Early Intervention: The Next Ste
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 54 and 55:
Chapter 4 Early Intervention: good
Page 56 and 57:
The returns on investment 11. The r
Page 58 and 59:
savings from them. This means going
Page 60 and 61:
Box 4.1: Brighter Futures Birmingha
Page 64 and 65:
Part 2: The Way Forward 1. Part 1 o
Page 68 and 69:
Chapter 5 Moving on If we are to gi
Page 70 and 71:
to invest in this area. This entail
Page 72 and 73:
18. The Healthy Child Programme is
Page 74 and 75:
Recommendation I recommend that, bu
Page 76 and 77:
40. I believe that centres should b
Page 78 and 79:
53. This Report supports the recomm
Page 80 and 81:
Recommendations I recommend that we
Page 82 and 83:
teenage mothers who could beneft fr
Page 84 and 85:
the UK but hardly any have been pro
Page 86 and 87:
Chapter 5 Moving on 63 Box 5.1: Ear
Page 90 and 91:
Chapter 6 The programmes: a new met
Page 92 and 93: 16. The standards have four dimensi
Page 94 and 95: age has already been highlighted in
Page 96 and 97: prosocial fgures in their lives, es
Page 98 and 99: involving more than 6,000 students
Page 100 and 101: Box 6.2: From lower leagues to the
Page 102 and 103: 77. If our country is to take this
Page 106 and 107: Chapter 7 The Places: pioneers for
Page 112 and 113: have already been allowed to escala
Page 116 and 117: 36. I recognise that efecting chang
Page 118 and 119: 43. The Report also supports explor
Page 122 and 123: Chapter 8 The Early Intervention Fo
Page 124 and 125: approach to fdelity - staying true
Page 126 and 127: I also drew on a database of efecti
Page 128 and 129: in these contracts, whether they ar
Page 132 and 133: Chapter 9 Making it happen: strong
Page 134: Recommendation As soon as ministers
Page 137: 114 Early Intervention: The Next St
Page 141: 118 Early Intervention: The Next St
Page 145 and 146: 122 Early Intervention: The Next St
Page 153 and 154: Evaluation quality (Good enough) Ev
Page 159 and 160: 136 Annex C Standards of evidence c
Page 161 and 162: 138 Annex D Evidence of programme c
Page 171 and 172: 148 Annex F Consultation Formal res
Page 179: The three major party leaders suppo
show all

early-intervention-next-steps

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?