Copy URL
Home > Promising Practices

Promising Practices

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

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

Submit a Promising Practice

Search Filters Clear all
(2132 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Fight Asthma Milwaukee Allies (Milwaukee County, WI)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Children's Health, Children

Goal: The goal of FAM Allies is reduce asthma related hospital stays among children by linking patients, their families, caregivers, and healthcare professionals with resources and education.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Kings County (Kings County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: The energy goals of the committee were to save money, reduce energy usage and to "stay on" during blackouts to avoid sending employees home.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Orange County Water District (Orange County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: OCWD's goals in 2001 were to reduce energy load, save money and preserve/extend equipment life. Its projects targeted power use in buildings' electrical/lighting systems; chemical and energy management issues concerning the plant treatment process and HVAC systems; and energy use by employees and ultimately customers.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Paradise Irrigation District (Butte County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Toxins & Contaminants

Goal: The goal of this program was to reduce energy and water consumption, improve efficiency, and save money.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Patterson Irrigation District (Stanislaus County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Toxins & Contaminants, Rural

Goal: The goal of this project was to reduce electricity usage by 10-20 percent.

Homeless Prenatal Program (San Francisco)

Filed under Effective Practice, Health / Maternal, Fetal & Infant Health, Children, Women, Families, Urban

Goal: The Homeless Prenatal Program works with families to break the cycle of homelessness and poverty by providing prenatal and parenting support, family finances and stability, and basic needs services.

Hometown Walk of Hope (Union City, TN)

Filed under Good Idea, Health / Cancer, Urban

Goal: The goal of Hometown Walk of Hope is to raise money to help Obion County residents who have been diagnosed with cancer.

Hope Street Family Center- Family Literacy Program (Los Angeles)

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

Goal: The program's overall goal is to support parents in their role as their child's first teacher by providing parents with literacy training and children with early development skill building, including language skills.

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

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

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

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

In Our Own Back Yard (Sonoma, CA)

Filed under Good Idea, Environmental Health / Built Environment, Children

Goal: The goal of the In Our Own Back Yard program is to cultivate connection to, comfort in, and informed appreciation of the outdoors among participants.

An Effective Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

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

A Good Idea meets the following HCI criteria:

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

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

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