Marijuana Use Prevention Resource Bank Help Page

Components

The Marijuana Use Prevention Resource Bank has three main components: (1) the Registry Programs list and (2) the additional resources page. Please see below for an explanation of each section:

Registry Programs
- The first component of the marijuana resource bank is a table of curricula that are cross-checked for evidence using six registries (a guide for the registries and their rating practices can be in the Evidence-based Registry Information section below). Each curriculum has enough information presented to provide an overview of the curriculum. If more information is needed, multiple links to the curriculum's program costs, evidence-base, or program home-site is provided. For information on how these initial programs were selected, please view the Programs in the Registry Programs section below.
Additional Resources
- The second component of the resource bank holds other resources that do not fit in the first two components above. These resources focus generally on marijuana prevention or marijuana education, directly or indirectly. Resources listed here are agency-related resources, like the Responsibility Grows Here campaign. These resources offer cost-effective options that users of the marijuana resource bank can use in their schools.

Programs in the Registry Programs Page

The initial list of programs on the Registry Program page were retrieved from the Washington State Institute of Public Policy's Youth Cannabis Inventory (PDF) for a few reasons which include, but are not limited to the following:

Like Colorado, Washington State passed a retail marijuana law in 2012. Washington HB 2536 mandated the Washington Department of Social and Health Services to work collaboratively to define evidence-based and research-based programs and practices for the delivery of services to children and juveniles. The terms "evidence-based" and "research-based" were defined by a joint effort between the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, the Washington State Institute of Public Policy (WSIPP) and the University of Washington Evidence-based Practice Institute. Evidence-based, research-based, and promising were amended to be defined as follows:
- "Evidence-based" means a program or practice that is cost-effective and includes at least two randomized or statistically controlled evaluations that have demonstrated improved outcomes for its intended population.
- "Research-based" means a program or practice that has some research demonstrating effectiveness, but that does not yet meet the standard of evidence-based practices.
- "Promising Practice" or "Emerging Best Practice" means a practice that presents, based on preliminary information, potential for becoming a research-based or consensus-based practice.
The 3-tiered classification system used to display level of evidence in WSIPP's Youth Cannabis Inventory included terms similar to what was needed for the resource bank. These terms are evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs/practices. The Washington State Institute of Public Policy defines these terms for the Youth Cannabis Inventory as:
- "Evidence-based:" A program or practice that has been tested in heterogeneous or intended populations with multiple randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluations, or one large multiple-site randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluation, where the weight of the evidence from a systematic review demonstrates sustained improvements in at least one outcome. Further, “evidence-based” means a program or practice that can be implemented with a set of procedures to allow successful replication in Washington and, when possible, has been determined to be cost-beneficial.
- "Research-based:" A program or practice that has been tested with a single randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluation demonstrating sustained desirable outcomes; or where the weight of the evidence from a systematic review supports sustained outcomes as identified in the term “evidence-based” in RCW (the above definition) but does not meet the full criteria for “evidence-based.”
- "Promising Practice:" A program or practice that, based on statistical analyses or a well-established theory of change, shows potential for meeting the “evidence-based” or “research-based” criteria, which could include the use of a program that is evidence-based for outcomes other than the alternative use.
Additionally, research for the programs in the inventory was focused on the prevention and treatment of youth cannabis use, classified using the definitions from the joint effort described above, and were subsequently added to the Youth Cannabis Inventory for public use.
The program list was used to provide an initial set of programs for the resource bank. research was done to find program pages on one of five other registries, hence the title, "Registry Programs".
Feedback from those who use the resource bank will be used to improve it through quarterly reviews and updates.

If any information is missing, or to suggest a correction to any of the listed programs on the resource bank, please submit your feedback using the Marijuana Use Prevention Resource Bank feedback form .

The Registry Programs Component Chart Overview

Programs are cross-checked using evidence-based registries. When a match is found on a particular evidence-based registry, program attribute information is consolidated and used to provide an overview on the Registry Programs component on the resource bank. The table below defines the attribute categories used in the marijuana resource bank and what information is provided by the attribute.

Program Attribute	Information provided by the attribute
Program Name	States the name of the program.
Description	Gives a short description of the program. Disclaimer: This information is provided in the application process or is pulled from the program/registry site.
Registry	Lists the registry which programs were found on. This column will also provide the rating for that registry in parenthesis. The different ratings that you may see on the resource bank for each registry is summarized in the Registry rating table summary.
Grade Level	Gives the grade level(s) found effective for. This information can be found on the program’s registry page for evidence-based and research-based programs, or as stated on the program’s promising program application.
Support Tier	Indicates the support tier this program serves to satisfy, listed in the following manner: "1. ALL," "2. SOME," and "3. FEW." Some programs can satisfy more than one tier. For more information, view the summary of school-wide positive behavior support system. View the MTSS page on the CDE website
Resources	Provides the estimated costs of implementing the program, a link to a cost-benefit analysis that accompanies the program, or a link with more information on estimated costs to implement the program.

Evidence-Based Registry Information

Each of the six different registries used to cross-check programs in the Registry Programs list has different rating practices and style. A list of the programs used and more information on each registry is provided below:

Evidence-Based Registries Used

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP)

Display

Registry Rating Style

NREPP assigns a color to quickly identify outcome evidence ratings on program pages, under "Program Snapshot." The majority evidence rating will be used to identify the registry rating on this resource bank.

Note: Legacy programs were graded on a 4-point scale, but will not be considered for this resource bank.

(Green) Effective Outcomes (highest rating)
(Yellow) Promising Outcomes
(Red) Ineffective Outcomes
(Black) Inconclusive Outcomes (lowest rating)

More Information

New method of review as of 11/23/2015: 4-tiered ratings system for individual outcomes.
The four possible ratings include programs with, "Effective Outcomes," "Promising Outcomes," "Ineffective Outcomes," and "Inconclusive Outcomes."
Those reviewed under the previous criteria (Model, Effective, and Promising) are known as "Legacy" programs. These programs were reviewed under NREPP review criteria in effect from 2008 through September 2015 and will be reviewed by 2018.

Notice: Legacy programs are not accepted as "evidence-based" on the resource bank, due to SAMHSA’s shift in reviewing practices.

View more NREPP information

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)

Display

Registry Rating Style

What Works Clearinghouse summarizes the studies that support the program. Each program's outcomes are rated on a scale from -- to ++. When a plurality of ratings is not available, the higher rating is taken into account. Their ratings are further expanded below:

(--) Negative (highest rating)
(-) Potentially Negative
(0) No Discernible
(+) Potentially Positive
(++) Positive (lowest rating)

More Information

WWC and IES (Institute of Education Science) collects both published and unpublished impact studies that are potentially relevant to the topic. WWC review teams screens all collected studies and uses topic-specific screen standards. Main considerations are listed below:

Relevant Time-frame: The study must have been conducted during a time-frame relevant to the WWC review.
Relevant Intervention: The intervention must be relevant to the WWC review.
Relevant Sample: The study’s sample must be relevant to the WWC review.
Relevant Outcome: The study must report on at least one outcome relevant to the WWC review.
Adequate Outcome Measure: The measure used must be able to reliably measure a relevant outcome that it is intended to measure.
Adequate Reporting: It must be possible to calculate the effect size for at least one adequate measure of a relevant outcome*
*Effect sizes are measured using a pooled std. deviation, if not available, the std. deviation of the comparison group is used

View more What Works Clearinghouse information (PDF)

Blueprints Programs, CU Boulder

Display

Registry Rating Style

Blueprints uses three different rating levels for their programs:

Model Plus (highest rating)
Model
Promising (lowest rating)

More Information

The ratings above are further expanded below. Please click on the link below for full details.

Model Plus: All of the below + Independent replication
Model: All promising standards + higher eval quality and 12-months sustainability
Promising: Meet standards on intervention specificity, evaluation quality, intervention impact, and dissemination readiness.

View more Blueprints information

Office of Justice Programs Registry, CrimeSolutions.gov

Display

Registry Rating Style

3 Levels of Evidence Ratings:

Effective (highest rating)
Promising
No Effect (lowest rating)

Each rating can include a 1 rating icon or multiple showing the number of studies reviewed

More Information

Effective: Programs have strong evidence indicating they achieve their intended outcomes when implemented with fidelity.
Promising: Programs have some evidence indicating they achieve their intended outcomes. Additional research is recommended.
No Effects: Programs have strong evidence indicating that they did not achieve their intended outcomes when implemented with fidelity.

View more CrimeSolutions.gov information

National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (NDPC)

Display

Registry Rating Style

Programs are placed in 4 categories, based on strength of evidence-base. These categories are listed below:

Strong Evidence (highest rating)
Moderate Evidence*
Limited Evidence*
Insufficient Evidence** (lowest rating)

* 3-Levels of evidence will be accompanied by 1 (Limited Evidence) to 3 (Strong Evidence) Blue Graduation Caps.
** The Insufficient Evidence category will have no Blue Graduation Caps.

More Information

Rating based on evaluation literature on specific prevention, intervention, and recovery program. Overall rating based on 3 summary dimensions on program effectiveness: (1) years in existence, (2) evaluation design, and (3) empirical evidence demonstrating the prevention or reduction of dropouts or the improvement in graduation rates and/or significant impact on dropout-related risk factors.

Strong Evidence: Program has existed for 3+ years; evaluated using an experimental design conducted by an external evaluation team and have strong empirical evidence demonstrating program effectiveness in reducing dropout and/or increasing graduation rates and/or having significant impact on dropout-related risk factors.
Moderate Evidence: Program has existed for 3+ years; evaluated using a quasi-experimental design conducted by an external or internal evaluation team and have adequate empirical evidence demonstrating program effectiveness in reducing dropout and/or increasing graduation rates and/or having significant impact on dropout-related risk factors.
Limited Evidence: Program is "relatively new;" evaluated using a limited evaluation design (single group pre- and post-test) conducted by an external or internal evaluation team. They have promising empirical evidence demonstrating program effectiveness at reducing risk factors, but requires confirmation from more appropriate experimental techniques.
Insufficient Evidence - Programs have dated evaluation results; require additional info before rated.

View more NDPC information

The Washington State Institute of Public Policy (WSIPP)

Display

Registry Rating Style

WSIPP uses 3 separate tiers to grade the level of evidence:

Evidence-based (highest rating)
Research-based
Promising (lowest rating)

View more WSIPP inventory information (PDF)

More Information

Evidence-based: A program or practice that has been tested in heterogeneous or intended populations with multiple randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluations, or one large multiple-site randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluation, where the weight of the evidence from a systematic review demonstrates sustained improvements in at least one outcome. Further, "evidence-based" means a program or practice that can be implemented with a set of procedures to allow successful replication in Washington and, when possible, has been determined to be cost-beneficial.
Research-based: A program or practice that has been tested with a single randomized and/or statistically-controlled evaluation demonstrating sustained desirable outcomes; or where the weight of the evidence from a systematic review supports sustained outcomes as identified in the term "evidence-based" in RCW (the above definition) but does not meet the full criteria for "evidence-based."
Promising practice: A program or practice that, based on statistical analyses or a well-established theory of change, shows potential for meeting the "evidence-based" or "research-based" criteria, which could include the use of a program that is evidence-based for outcomes other than the alternative use.

View more WSIPP information (PDF)