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.