A constructive Indian country response to the evidence-based program mandate
Abstract
Over the last 20 years governmental mandates for preferentially funding evidence-based "model" practices and programs has become doctrine in some legislative bodies, federal agencies, and state agencies. It was assumed that what works in small sample, controlled settings would work in all community settings, substantially improving safety, effectiveness, and value-for-money. The evidence-based "model" programs mandate has imposed immutable "core components," fidelity testing, alien programming and program developers, loss of familiar programs, and resource capacity requirements upon tribes, while infringing upon their tribal sovereignty and consultation rights. Tribal response in one state (Oregon) went through three phases: shock and rejection; proposing an alternative approach using criteria of cultural appropriateness, aspiring to evaluability; and adopting logic modeling. The state heard and accepted the argument that the tribal way of knowing is different and valid. Currently, a state-authorized tribal logic model and a review panel process are used to approve tribal best practices for state funding. This constructive response to the evidence-based program mandate elevates tribal practices in the funding and regulatory world, facilitates continuing quality improvement and evaluation, while ensuring that practices and programs remain based on local community context and culture. This article provides details of a model that could well serve tribes facing evidence-based model program mandates throughout the country.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A fundamental gap involves understanding how Western evidence-based prevention programs can be appropriately adapted to Indigenous cultures while maintaining their effectiveness.
“Another fundamental gap in the literature involves understanding how Western evidence-based prevention programs can be appropriately adapted to Indigenous cultures while maintaining their effectiveness (Walker & Bigelow, 2011).”
From Bridging Traditions and Prevention: Insights into Implementing and Sustaining Substance Use Programs for Urban AI/AN Communities (2026) · cites this paper as Walker & Bigelow, 2011
Cites
Oxman, A. D., Thomson, M., Davis, D. A., & Haynes, R. B. (1995) · PubMed Central · Cited by 1,847 · see citing works
Assessing the impact of planned social change
Campbell, D. T. (1979) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-x · Cited by 867 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The problem with disseminating model programs has been identified for decades ( Bachrach 1986 ; Campbell 1979 ; Suchman 1967 ) while the major importance of local context in the efficacy of programs has been identified ( Pawson & Tilley 1997 ).”
BackgroundIs evidence‐based implementation of evidence‐based care possible?
Grimshaw, J., & Eccles, M. (2004) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05945.x · Cited by 214 · see citing works
What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice?
Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., & Mark, M. M. (2009) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412995634 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Chandler, M. J., & Lalonde, C. E. (2004) · Scholarship@Western (Western University) · Cited by 65 · see citing works
People, Groups, and Organizations.
Walker, J. W., Indik, B. P., & Berrien, F. K. (1969) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2095993 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
An overview: Model programs for the schizophrenic patient
Bachrach, L. L. (1987) · New Directions for Mental Health Services · doi:10.1002/yd.23319873504 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Okoli, C. T. C. (2011) · UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Leske, S., Harris, M. G., Charlson, F. J., Ferrari, A. J., Baxter, A. J., Logan, J. M., Toombs, M., & Whiteford, H. (2016) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/0004867416662150 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Substance Abuse Prevention in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities
Whitbeck, L. B., Walls, M. L., & Welch, M. L. (2012) · The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse · doi:10.3109/00952990.2012.695416 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Critical epidemiology in action: Research for and by indigenous peoples
Prussing, E. (2018) · SSM - Population Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2018.09.003 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Palimaru, A. I., Malika, N., Brown, R. A., Holmes, P., Dickerson, D. L., Johnson, C. L., Sanchez, V. A., Schweigman, K., & D’Amico, E. J. (2026) · Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.josat.2026.209892
- Authors
- Walker, R. D., & Bigelow, D. A.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bigelow, Douglas A.
- Venue
- Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-10
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 276-281
- ISSN
- 0279-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 2159-9777
- OpenAlex
- W1983253664
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Keywords
- tribal sovereignty, Indian Country, cultural appropriateness, program evaluation, program funding, substance use prevention, implementation fidelity
- MeSH terms
- Cultural Characteristics, Health Promotion, Humans, Indians, North American, Oregon, Program Evaluation, Evidence-Based Practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
