What the research supports now
2026 Evidence and Claims Guide
A plain-language guide to the strength, limits, and responsible public use of the current Growing HOPE evidence base.
Visual evidence report
A wider evidence base, with clear boundaries.
This snapshot summarizes 26 source records and 25 draft claims reviewed on July 24, 2026. Counts describe the research library, not the size of an intervention effect.
Start with the four building blocks and the plain-language evidence signals.
Begin with a warm welcomeUse claim readiness, local-data cautions, and the test-before-scaling guidance.
Choose a practical next stepFollow the source trail to inspect study design, effect estimates, and limitations.
Open the research pathwayWhat the pattern means
Match the strength of the sentence to the strength of the evidence.
Use official HOPE sources for the named framework and four building blocks.
Multiple reviews and a meta-analysis support careful association language.
Direct study supports constructs, not the effectiveness of a HOPE program.
Average effects are small and become null after publication-bias adjustment.
What is well supported
- HOPE is a strengths-based framework organized around relationships, safe and stable environments, engagement, and emotional growth.
- Across recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis, more positive childhood experiences are consistently associated with better mental-health and psychosocial outcomes.
- Longitudinal studies add support for relationships, belonging, connectedness, and other positive experiences as meaningful developmental conditions.
What is still emerging
- Direct empirical study of the HOPE framework is limited, and the strongest direct study does not test whether implementing a HOPE program causes better outcomes.
- Evidence is more mixed for behavior, physical health, family functioning, and whether positive experiences consistently buffer the effects of adversity.
- Broad social-norms messaging has small and uncertain average effects. A large 2025 meta-analysis found that the apparent effect became null after adjustment for publication bias.
Language that fits the evidence
- Use associated with, linked with, or related to for observational findings.
- Do not translate modeled prevented fractions, correlations, or odds ratios into promised program results.
- Treat Growing HOPE implementation pathways as testable practice unless an evaluation directly supports the specific claim.
- Place the study population, geography, and data year near any number used publicly.
Tennessee and local data
- Tennessee is not included in the CDC public 2024 BRFSS file because it did not meet minimum data requirements. Use a verified alternate year or state source.
- National Survey of Children's Health estimates support state-level context, not county-level claims.
- PLACES estimates are modeled from older BRFSS inputs and should not be described as direct local survey counts.
- Rural, Appalachian, and county comparisons require an explicit geographic definition and the same collection period.
Source use and quotation
- Prefer primary studies, systematic reviews, official datasets, and original HOPE materials.
- Use Montana Institute quotations sparingly and pair them with a comparable independent or primary source whenever possible.
- A verified citation confirms the source and recorded interpretation; it does not by itself establish causality.
Source trail
Read and attribute the foundation.
Apply it with care
Bring this resource into a real setting.
Growing HOPE can support adaptation, facilitation, implementation planning, and learning.