Table 1.

CEBC Rating Criteria

Rating	Scientific Rating Criteria
1 – Well supported by Research Evidence	There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specify components of the service and describes how to administer it. Multiple Site Replication: At least 2 rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in different usual care or practice settings have found the practice to be superior to an appropriate comparison practice. The RCTs have been reported in published, peer-reviewed literature. In at least one RCT, the practice has been shown to have a sustained effect at least one year beyond the end of treatment. Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects. If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of the evidence supports the effectiveness of the practice.
2 – Supported by Research Evidence	There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk or harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specifies the components of the practice protocol and describes how to administer it. At least 1 rigorous randomized controlled trial (RCT) in usual care or a practice setting has found the practice to be superior to an appropriate comparison. In at least 1 RCT, the practice has been shown to have a sustained effect of at least six months beyond the end of treatment. Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects. If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence supports the benefit of the practice.
3 - Promising Research Evidence	There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating this practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specifies the components of the practice protocol and describes how to administer it. At least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g. untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list) have established the practice’s benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. The study has been reported in published, peer-reviewed literature. If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence supports the benefit of the practice.
4 - Research Evidence Fails to Demonstrate Effect	Two or more randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have found that the practice has not resulted in improved outcomes, when compared to usual care. The studies have been reported in published, peer review literature. If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence does not support the benefit of the practice.
5 – Concerning Practice NR – Not Rated*	If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence suggests the intervention has a negative effect upon clients served, AND/OR There is a reasonable theoretical, clinical, empirical, or legal basis suggesting that, compared to its likely benefits, the practice constitutes a risk of harm to those receiving it. There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits. The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specifies the components of the practice protocol and describes how to administer it. The practice is generally accepted in clinical practice as appropriate for use with children receiving services from child welfare or related systems and their parents/caregivers. The practice does not have any published, peer-reviewed study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list) that has established the practice’s benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice.
Rating	Relevance to Child Welfare Populations
1- High	The program was designed or is commonly used to meet the needs of children, youth, young adults, and/or families receiving child welfare services.
2 - Medium	The program was designed or is commonly used to serve children, youth, young adults, and/or families who are similar to child welfare populations (i.e. in history, demographics, or presenting problems) and likely included current and former child welfare services recipients.
3- Low	The program was designed or is commonly to serve children, youth, young adults, and/or families with little or no apparent similarity to the child welfare services population.
Rating	Relevance to Child Welfare Outcomes
Yes/No	The program evaluation had measures relevant to safety. Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect. Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Yes/No	The program evaluation had measures relevant to permanency. Children have permanency and stability in their living
Yes/No	The program evaluation had measures relevant to child and family well-being. Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs. Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs. Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.