Objective
In order to address the social determinants of health, an increasing
number of public health practitioners are implementing Health in All
Policies initiatives aimed at increasing cross-sector collaboration and
integrating health considerations into decisions made by
“non-health” sectors. Despite the growth in practice
nationally and internationally, evaluation of Health in All Policies is a
relatively new field. In order to help inform evaluation of Health in All
Policies initiatives in the United States, this study sought to develop a
practice-grounded approach, including a logic model and a set of potential
indicators, which could be used to describe and assess Health in All
Policies activities, outputs, and outcomes.
Design
Methods included: a) a review of the literature on current Health in
All Policies approaches, practices, and evaluations; and b) consultation
with experts with substantive knowledge in implementing or evaluating Health
in All Policies initiatives. Feedback from experts was obtained through
individual (n=11) and group (n=14) consultation.
Results
The logic model depicts a range of potential inputs, activities,
outputs, and outcomes of Health in All Policies initiatives; example
indicators for each component of the logic model are provided. Case studies
from California, Washington, and Nashville highlight emerging examples of
Health in All Policies evaluation and the ways in which local context and
goals inform evaluation efforts.
Conclusions
The tools presented in this article synthesize concepts present in
the emerging literature on Health in All Policies implementation and
evaluation. Practitioners and researchers can the tools to facilitate
dialogue among stakeholders, clarify assumptions, identify how they will
assess progress, and implement data-driven ways to improve their Health in
All Policies work.
Processing juvenile offenders in the traditional justice system can lead to a range of negative consequences. As an alternative to formal criminal processing, many jurisdictions have begun to implement diversion programs for first-time or low-level offenders. This systematic review sought to summarize evidence of the effectiveness of one commonly used diversion model, Teen Courts, on outcomes for juvenile offenders. Teen Courts were defined as any intervention for youth (ages 10-17) in which the participating offenders' peers were involved in verdict or sentencing. Final analysis included 22 studies. Among the 15 studies that assessed statistical significance of recidivism, 4 found statistically significant results favoring Teen Courts, 1 found statistically significant results favoring the traditional justice system, and 10 found null results. Most studies provided little detail regarding the structure or approach of Teen Courts under study and varied widely in research design, comparison group, and operationalization of recidivism, making it difficult to compare results. In order to inform decisionmaking about the use of Teen Courts, additional studies are needed that maximize internal and external validity, consider pathways of intervention effects, and examine potentially differential impacts of the program on participating youth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.