The Pew Charitable Trusts transferred the Results First Clearinghouse Database to Penn State University and ended its work on this resource in 2021. As such, the data in the interactive below may no longer be accurate and should not be used. Please visit Penn State University’s website for an updated version of the Clearinghouse Database.
Sorry, this visualization requires JavaScript. You can download the source data here:
The Results First Clearinghouse Database is an online resource that brings together information on the effectiveness of social policy programs from nine national clearinghouses. It applies color-coding to the clearinghouses’ distinct rating systems, creating a common language that enables users to quickly see where each program falls on a spectrum from negative impact to positive impact. As such, this database can help users easily access and understand the evidence base for a variety of programs.
The database currently includes information on 3,155 programs and was last updated on November 19, 2021.
Please note that the National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) stopped updating in January 2018 and is no longer accessible as of August 2018. Although the Results First Clearinghouse Database still contains NREPP’s program reviews, links to its website will direct you to a third-party archived version of the NREPP website, where available.
An interactive from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Page loading...Please wait
An interactive from The Pew Charitable TrustsPew-MacArthur Results First Initiative
Please enter more characters or use the filters to search the database.
The Pew Results First Initiative created the Results First Clearinghouse Database to provide users with an easy way to access and understand the evidence base for programs in social policy areas such as behavioral health, criminal justice, education, and public health. More specifically, it allows users to see if there have been rigorous evaluations of a program and, if so, to review information on the program's effectiveness.
The database compiles and displays key information from nine national clearinghouses, including the rating they assigned to each program and the program's description, outcomes, setting, and target population (where available). It also contains a link back to the program's original source page on the clearinghouse website so that users can obtain additional details.
Clearinghouses develop this information by reviewing and summarizing rigorous evaluations of programs within their focus area. Then, they assign a rating to each program using their own methodology and terminology (such as top tier, effective, positive, and model).
The database applies color-coding to the clearinghouses' distinct rating systems, creating a common language that allows users to quickly see where each program falls on a spectrum from negative impact to positive impact. This coding consists of five rating colors that correspond to different levels of impact as shown below.
Negative impactPositive impact
Negative effects
No effects
Mixed effects
Second-highest rated
Highest rated
It is important to note that while the clearinghouses' ratings within each rating color are based on similar criteria, the color does not indicate that their methodologies are identical. In addition, there is an "insufficient evidence" classification included in the database that has no corresponding rating color. This indicates that a program's current research base does not have adequate methodological rigor to determine impact.
A Microsoft Excel version of the database is also available for download.
There are currently 3,155 programs in the database. The graphs below show how these programs are broken out by clearinghouse and by Results First rating color.
Programs by clearinghouse
Programs by Results First rating color
The Results First Clearinghouse Database contains information from nine national clearinghouses that conduct systematic research reviews to identify what works. While each uses slightly different procedures, criteria, and terminology, all use the same overall approach. First, they review and summarize rigorous evaluations of different programs. Such studies must use research designs that involve valid and reliable comparison groups, such as randomized control trials and quasi-experimental designs. Next, the clearinghouses rate the programs based on this information. In general, the ratings reflect the program's level of effectiveness, as well as the quality and quantity of the evidence.
The clearinghouses included in the database are:
ClearinghouseAbbreviation usedDescriptionBlueprints for Healthy Youth DevelopmentBlueprints"Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development provides a registry of evidence-based positive youth development programs designed to promote the health and well-being of children and teens."California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare CEBC"The mission of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC) is to advance the effective implementation of evidence-based practices for children and families involved with the child welfare system."The Laura and John Arnold Foundation’s Social Programs That WorkSocial Programs That Work"This site seeks to identify those programs found in rigorous studies to produce sizable, sustained benefits to participants and/or society."The U.S. Department of Education’s What Works ClearinghouseWWC"Our goal is to provide educators with the information they need to make evidence-based decisions. We focus on the results from high-quality research to answer the question ’What works in education?’"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Evidence-Based Cancer Control Programs (EBCCP)EBCCP"The EBCCP (formerly RTIPs) website is a searchable database of evidence-based cancer control programs and is designed to provide program planners and public health practitioners easy and immediate access to program materials."The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Teen Pregnancy Prevention Evidence Review TPP Evidence Review"From 2009-2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sponsored an independent systematic review of the teen pregnancy prevention literature to identify programs with evidence of effectiveness in reducing teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and associated sexual risk behaviors."The U.S. Department of Justice’s CrimeSolutions.gov CrimeSolutions.gov"The National Institute of Justice’s CrimeSolutions.gov uses rigorous research to determine what works in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and crime victim services."The U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and PracticesNREPP"NREPP is a searchable online registry of more than 400 substance use and mental health interventions." The University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s County Health Rankings and Roadmaps What Works for Health What Works for Health"In What Works for Health, analysts review and assess research to rate the effectiveness of a broad variety of strategies (i.e., policies, programs, systems & environmental changes) that can affect health through changes to: health behaviors, clinical care, social and economic factors and the physical environment."
The Results First Clearinghouse Database applies color-coding to the clearinghouses' rating systems, creating a common language that allows users to quickly see where each program falls on a spectrum from negative impact to positive impact. This coding consists of five rating colors: green (highest rated), yellow (second-highest rated), blue (mixed effects), gray (no effects), and red (negative effects).
The database assigns each of the clearinghouse's programs only one rating color:
When a clearinghouse provides an overall rating for a program, the color reflects this rating. For example, if Blueprints rated a program as "promising," the database would designate the program as yellow (second-highest rated). Blueprints, CEBC, CrimeSolutions.gov (programs), EBCCP, Social Programs that Work, and What Works for Health provide one overall rating to each program.
When a clearinghouse provides multiple ratings based on a program's individual outcomes, the color reflects the highest-rated one. For example, if WWC rated one outcome as "positive" and another as "no effects," the database would designate the program as green (highest rated). CrimeSolutions.gov (practices), NREPP, TPP Evidence Review, and WWC provide ratings to individual outcomes.
In addition, there is an "insufficient evidence" classification included in the database that has no corresponding rating color. This indicates that a program's current research base does not have adequate methodological rigor to determine impact. This classification is applied when a clearinghouse has determined there is not sufficient evidence to rate the program's effectiveness. For example, CEBC refers to these programs as "NR=not able to be rated on the CEBC scientific rating scale." However, this classification is also applied to clearinghouse ratings that Results First has determined do not meet the same rigorous standards as the other ratings in the database. For example, EBCCP's ratings of 2.9 and below and What Works for Health's "expert opinion" fall into this category.
The table below shows the clearinghouses' ratings and the corresponding Results First rating color or insufficient evidence classification. It is important to note that while the clearinghouses' ratings within each rating color are based on similar criteria, the rating color does not indicate that their methodologies are identical.
* "No effects" includes interventions found to have either no or harmful effects.
† In November 2015, NREPP began to review programs under new guidelines. The new ratings are shown in the first row. The legacy ratings, which correspond to the quality of research scores, are shown in the second row.
‡ "Ineffective" includes interventions found to have either no or potentially harmful effects.
§ The ratings are based on the Research Integrity score.
|| Note that one of the four possible criteria to be rated as "Some evidence" or "Mixed evidence" is for the program to have three studies with unmatched comparisons or pre-post measures. Such research designs do not incorporate valid or reliable comparison groups.
For more details on Results First categories, settings, and the rating systems used by each clearinghouse, please see the Technical Appendix.
How did Results First determine which clearinghouses to include in its database?
In general, the database includes clearinghouses that operate at a national level (such as part of a federal agency), are well-known, examine policy areas that mirror those supported by Results First, and employ a rating system with a clear methodology that requires rigorous evaluations.
How can I learn more about a clearinghouse's review of a particular program?
Each program in the database contains a link to the clearinghouse's source page, which can be accessed by clicking "Learn more ." The source page contains a wealth of additional information on the program. Depending on the clearinghouse, this can include more details on the program's goals, its key components, evaluations reviewed and their findings, implementation resources, and contact information for the developer. It is highly recommended that users visit the clearinghouse's source page to better understand the evidence base for a particular program.
Why are the outcomes, target populations, ages, or settings not specified for certain programs?
The program details are sourced directly from the clearinghouses and some of them do not provide information on outcomes, target population, ages, or settings. When such information is not available, the database displays "not specified."
How can clearinghouses assign different ratings to the same program?
First and foremost, each clearinghouse has its own rating system. As such, clearinghouses have different criteria for the quantity and quality of evidence needed for their ratings. For instance, a program must have two evaluations to receive Blueprints' top rating, while TPP Evidence Review requires only one evaluation for its highest rating. Similarly, CEBC and Social Programs That Work require that evaluations use randomized control trials to receive their top ratings. Other clearinghouses, such as CrimeSolutions.gov and NREPP, consider other rigorous evaluation designs for their highest ratings.
Second, clearinghouses often examine different research for the same program. For example, CEBC and EBCCP review only published, peer-reviewed research, while the rest of the clearinghouses consider evaluations from other sources. As another example, CrimeSolutions.gov requires that evaluations be published after 1990; WWC has different publish date requirements for every topic area; and What Works for Health has no requirements around publication date.
Are the programs in the database evidence-based?
Results First considers every program that is assigned a rating color to be "evidence-based." That is, these programs have demonstrated measurable impact on a desired outcome, gauged by rigorous evaluations that incorporate valid and reliable comparison group designs. Under this broad definition, evidence-based programs don't necessarily have a positive impact. Instead, they can have no impact or even a negative impact. This differs from how many in the field define evidence-based. Each jurisdiction or organization will need to determine what definition best suits their needs. For more information, see "A Common Language for Evidence-Based Programming."
Please note that programs classified as "insufficient evidence" should not be considered "evidence-based".
What does it mean when a program is classified as "insufficient evidence"?
The "insufficient evidence" classification indicates that a program's current research base does not have adequate methodological rigor to determine impact and therefore cannot be considered evidence-based. This classification is applied when a clearinghouse has determined there is not sufficient evidence to rate the program's effectiveness. It is also applied to programs that have received ratings that Results First has determined do not meet the same rigorous standards as the other ratings in the database. For more information, see Rating Colors & Systems.
Note that for programs classified as "insufficient evidence," the database displays only the description (this is not available for WWC), clearinghouse, Results First classification, and Results First category.
How are programs mapped to the different Results First categories?
Results First maps each program to the categories using information available on the clearinghouses' websites. For instance, Results First uses "program outcomes" for Blueprints, "topics" for CrimeSolutions.gov, and "policy area" for Social Programs That Work. Note that each program can be mapped to more than one category. This reflects the fact that programs often span multiple domains.
For more information, please see the Technical Appendix, which is available for download in Rating Colors & Systems.
How do I submit a program evaluation or nominate a program for inclusion in the database?
Results First does not conduct systematic research reviews or rate programs but rather compiles information from clearinghouses. Please consult each clearinghouse's website for more information on its process for submitting program evaluations or nominating programs for review.
How frequently will the Results First Clearinghouse Database be updated?
The database will be updated once every two months to reflect the most accurate data contained within each clearinghouse. Check the database's home page for details about when the most recent update took place.
Can I access the Results First Clearinghouse Database offline?
The database is best experienced online using the interactive tool. However, users can download a Microsoft Excel version with limited functionality. Please visit Overview for a link to download the database.
Social Programs That WorkSocial Programs That Work
TPP Evidence ReviewTPP Evidence Review
What Works for HealthWhat Works for Health
WWCWWC
Legend
Highest ratedThe program had a positive impact based on the most rigorous evidence.
Second-highest ratedThe program had a positive impact based on high-quality evidence.
Mixed effectsThe program had inconsistent impacts based on high-quality evidence. That is, study findings showed a mix of positive impact, no impact, and/or negative impact.
No effectsThe program had no impact based on high-quality evidence. That is, there was no difference in outcomes between program participants and those in the comparison group.
Negative effectsThe program had a negative impact based on high-quality evidence.
Insufficient evidenceThe program’s current research base does not have adequate methodological rigor to determine impact.
DisclaimerPlease be advised that the program information displayed here is sourced directly from the clearinghouses and is not written or owned by The Pew Charitable Trusts or the Pew Results First Initiative.
The Results First Clearinghouse Database is an online resource that provides an easy way for users to access and understand the evidence base for programs in social policy areas, such as behavioral health, criminal justice, education, and public health.
The Results First Clearinghouse Database contains information from nine clearinghouses that rate programs in social policy areas such as behavioral health, criminal justice, education, and public health, based on the findings of rigorous evaluations.
