Home > Promising Practices

Promising Practices

The Promising Practices database informs professionals and community members about documented approaches to improving community health and quality of life.

The ultimate goal is to support the systematic adoption, implementation, and evaluation of successful programs, practices, and policy changes. The database provides carefully reviewed, documented, and ranked practices that range from good ideas to evidence-based practices.
Learn more about the ranking methodology.

Submit a Promising Practice

Search Filters Clear all
(311 results)

Save a link to this search

Ranking
Featured
Primary Target Audience
Topics and Subtopics
Geographic Type
Search

Flex Your Power Case Study: City of Napa (Napa, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: Napa's goal was to save up to 15 percent in electricity usage in 2001.

Flex Your Power Case Study: City of Sacramento (Sacramento, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability, Urban

Goal: The objectives of the program were to reduce energy consumption (kWh) and maximize energy savings through approved incentive programs administered by the CEC and SMUD and through employee/public education.

Flex Your Power Case Study: City of Visalia (Visalia, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: The goal of these projects is to conserve energy and to reduce energy costs.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Kings County (Kings County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: The energy goals of the committee were to save money, reduce energy usage and to "stay on" during blackouts to avoid sending employees home.

Flex Your Power Case Study: North Tahoe Public Utilities District (PUD) (Placer County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: The goal of this project was to provide a safe fresh-water supply in an efficient manner.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Orange County Water District (Orange County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: OCWD's goals in 2001 were to reduce energy load, save money and preserve/extend equipment life. Its projects targeted power use in buildings' electrical/lighting systems; chemical and energy management issues concerning the plant treatment process and HVAC systems; and energy use by employees and ultimately customers.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Otay Water District (San Diego County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability

Goal: The goal of these projects was to promote water and energy conservation.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Patterson Irrigation District (Stanislaus County, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Toxins & Contaminants, Rural

Goal: The goal of this project was to reduce electricity usage by 10-20 percent.

Flex Your Power Case Study: San Francisco Civic Center Facility (San Francisco, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability, Urban

Goal: The goal of this project was to reduce energy usage at the San Francisco Civic Center.

Flex Your Power Case Study: Santa Clara Valley Water District (San Jose, CA)

Filed under Effective Practice, Environmental Health / Energy & Sustainability, Urban

Goal: Besides attempting to prevent rolling blackouts, the City of San Jose wanted to participate in the water conservation program to reduce the amount of treated wastewater that is released into San Francisco Bay.
Specific goals included:
-Continue to support SCVWD's mission of water supply and management in spite of external power interruptions,
- Provide 24-hour battery backup for SCADA instrumentation and communications,
-Provide indefinite power backup via backup generators for critical source pumping, water treatment and emergency operations, and
- Reduce HVAC and lighting use to prudent levels.

An Effective Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success and/or promise in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures of improvement in outcome of interest (i.e. increase in voter registration, not just delivery of voter registration drive) and/ or the outcome measure is increased or improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant.

A Good Idea meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program funding source, program implementation steps and outcomes.
  2. The program evaluation is limited to descriptive measure(s) of success/accomplishment (i.e., program participation rates, number of services/education sessions/radio messages provided). Note: oftentimes, the program has been newly implemented and a program evaluation has not yet been conducted. Programs that have not yet been evaluated, but which show promise in improving health or quality of life, are classified as Good Ideas until an evaluation is conducted.

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.