Two composite assessments of quality - one with treatment staffing and delivery elements and the other with clinical supervision elements - can be used to measure the sustainment of evidence-based treatment.
Open peer review is happening in a variety of forms, but it still accounts for a small percentage of reviews carried out, and it is not clear whether open peer review is increasing in usage. In the future, as the Publons dataset grows, it will be worth exploring the data in more detail.
Researchers from the RAND Corporation are administering an Air Force-sponsored survey to provide members of the Air Force community an opportunity to speak out on the challenges they face and the services they find most helpful.
This Getting To Outcomes guide helps with the planning, implementation, evaluation, continuous quality improvement, and sustainability of community emergency preparedness programs. It includes instructions, completed examples, and blank tools.
This guide provides an overview of and guidance on the Resilience Dividend Valuation Model, a framework designed to help policymakers and practitioners estimate the resilience dividend from projects they are considering or have implemented.
This report describes the development of the Resilience Dividend Valuation Model, a complementary framework designed to help communities estimate the resilience dividend from resilience projects or investment.
The qualitative element of the study took a small sample from the top 1% of highly cited papers and, through an online survey, asked expert peer reviewers to assess each paper's overall contribution to its field. Reviewers were also asked to comment on the characteristics that might have led to the paper becoming highly cited or attracting social media attention. It should be noted that this part of the study did not look at all ERC-funded research, instead considering a small sample of publications (95 reviews of 56 "top" papers). As such the analysis cannot be considered representative of the wider body of ERC-supported work.
In order to better understand the effects of an individual-focused predictive policing program in the field, this study analyzes a pilot program implemented in Chicago in 2013 aimed at reducing gun violence.
This paper seeks new evidence on the impact of private police on crime, exploiting a unique setting, the University of Chicago Police Department, that permits a credible examination of the causal effect of police in both the short and long run.
The study investigates mechanisms thought to support immediate and sustained change after a DMI by analyzing qualitative data collected in community focus groups conducted at three-, six-, and 15-months following a DMI across three different sites.
The benefits of a stronger evaluation culture for counter-extremism and radicalization programs are clear. Evaluation can provide an evidence-based judgement as to whether a program is working, delivering expected results, and providing value for the cost.
Multi-annual core funding might allow grantees to grow and mature, and develop or change their ways of doing business. But unlimited renewal of funding is unfeasible as funding priorities change. Providers of multi-annual core funding could develop long-term strategies to prepare for challenges when a funding stream ends.
This report presents findings from an evaluation of The Atlantic Philanthropies Migration Programme, which provided grants to organisations supporting migrants. It looks at the impacts achieved in law, policy and practice in Ireland.
The Office of Health Economics and RAND Europe were commissioned by the Oxford BRC to undertake a programme of top-down evaluations of aspects of the impact of the BRC. This programme of research has looked at the health, economic and scientific impact of Oxford BRC's research activity.
The Army must monitor Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) units to ensure that it attracts and commissions highly-qualified officers. Two new strategic planning tools can help the Army to evaluate and choose ROTC hosts and affiliates.
More than 95 per cent of academic biomedical research funding is controlled by peer review of grant applications. It is generally cited as the gold standard for awarding funding, but it appears most effective when used conservatively.