Translating research into evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: brand-name programs, meta-analysis, and key issues

Objectives To investigate the utility of two main approaches for translating research into evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: (a) brand-name programs that are identified by lists of various expert groups and come with implementation and quality assurance packages offered by program developers; and (b) results of large-scale meta-analyses that offer a number of generalized strategies (or generics) for improving existing programs. Methods Informed by prospect theory, a first-stage analytic decision-tree model was developed that included three comparable evidence-based programs (two brand names and one generic). Implementation success was a key factor, and analyses were conducted under two conditions. Results Under the first condition, where brand-name programs have a large advantage in implementation success over generic programs, it was found that the brand-name programs had the highest expected values. Under the second condition, which considered the role of Lipsey et al.’s ( 2010 ) Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol, it was found that all three programs produced highly favorable expected values. Conclusions Brand-name programs and meta-analyses represent two rigorous and transparent approaches for advancing evidence-based practice in juvenile justice. State governments should consider the merits of both approaches through a decision-tree model, paying particular attention to implementation success as well as financial costs and benefits derived from rigorous cost–benefit analysis.