Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation [Restricted Use] (ICPSR 28921)

Published: Mar 24, 2014 View help for published

Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28921.v2

Version V2

The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation was conducted to evaluate the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)'s SPF SIG initiative, which sought to: (1) prevent the onset and reduce the progression of substance abuse, including childhood and underage drinking; (2) reduce substance abuse-related problems in communities; and (3) build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the state and community levels. This cross-site evaluation included the 21 states and territories CSAP funded in FY2004 (Cohort 1) and an additional 5 States funded in Cohort 2 in FY2005 that were funded for up to 5 years to implement the SPF. The SPF is a five-step prevention planning model that requires states to: (1) conduct a statewide needs assessment, including the establishment of a State Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW); (2) mobilize and build state and community capacity to address needs; (3) develop a statewide strategic plan for prevention; (4) implement evidence-based prevention, policies, and practices (EBPPP) to meet state and community needs; and (5) monitor and evaluate the implementation of their SPF SIG project. Under contract to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) with funding provided by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Westat, in collaboration with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) and The MayaTech Corporation, implemented a multilevel, multi-method quasi-experimental design to evaluate SPF SIG's impact. The scope of the evaluation encompassed national, state, and community levels. The design included comparison conditions at both the state and community levels. These data represent Phase I of the restricted use data release and contains extensive data on state-level implementation, community-level implementation, and state-level infrastructure, as well as other reference elements. A subsequent release (Phase II) will include state- and community-level outcomes, as well as data on community-level implementation, community-level implementation fidelity, state-level sustainability, and mediating variables.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation [Restricted Use]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2014-03-24. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28921.v2

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote
United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
African Americans   alcohol abuse   client characteristics   college students   community participation   community health   community involvement   community service programs   continuing education   counties   crime   delinquent behavior   demographic characteristics   drug dependence   health policy   human services   illigal drugs   intervention   juveniles   labor force   law enforcement   liquor law violations   middle school   Native Americans   needs assessment   organizational structure   outcome evaluation   outreach programs   parents   planning   policies and procedures   pregnancy   program evaluation   public health   race   risk factors   schools   skill development   substance abuse   substance abuse treatment   tobacco use   training   treatment programs   young adults   zip code areas

ZIP code

The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG), requires the user complete an online application before access. See the ICPSR restricted data contract portal for information and instructions.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
2005-08 -- 2007-09 (Strategic Plan Data), 2006-12-14 -- 2007-08-14 (Infrastructure Round 1 Data), 2010-01-01 -- 2010-06-30 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 6 Data), 2008-07-01 -- 2008-12-31 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 3 Data), 2008-01-01 -- 2008-06-30 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 2 Data), 2009-01-01 -- 2009-06-30 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 4 Data), 2008-07-01 -- 2008-12-31 (Community Level Instrument Part 1 Round 3 Data), 2009-01-01 -- 2009-06-30 (Communitly Level Instrument Part 1 Round 4 Data), 2008-01-01 -- 2008-06-30 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 2 Data), 2009-07-01 -- 2009-12-31 (Communitly Level Instrument Part 1 Round 5 Data), 2009-07-01 -- 2009-12-31 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 5 Data), 2005-12 -- 2007-12 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 1 Data), 2005-12 -- 2007-12 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 1 Data), 2010-01-01 -- 2010-06-30 (Communitly Level Instrument Part 1 Round 6 Data), 2009-07-01 -- 2009-12-31 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 5 Data), 2008-07-01 -- 2008-12-31 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 3 Data), 2008-09-15 -- 2009-06-30 (Infrastructure Round 2 Data), 2008-10-15 -- 2009-06-15 (Implementation Data), 2009-01-01 -- 2009-06-30 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 4 Data), 2006-07-01 -- 2006-09-30 (Final Quarterly Report Data), 2005-12 -- 2007-12 (Community Level Instrument Part 1 Round 1 Data), 2008-01-01 -- 2008-06-30 (Community Level Instrument Part1 Round 2 Data), 2010-01-01 -- 2010-06-30 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 6 Data)
2005-06 -- 2007-08 (Strategic Plan Data), 2006-12-14 -- 2007-08-14 (Infrastructure Round 1 Data), 2009-07-01 -- 2009-08-15 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 4 Data), 2010-06-30 -- 2010-11-16 (Community Level Instrument Part 1 Round 6 Data), 2010-06-30 -- 2010-11-16 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 6 Data), 2009-12-31 -- 2010-02-16 (Community Level Instrument Part 1 Round 5 Data), 2009-07-01 -- 2009-08-15 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 4 Data), 2008-07-01 -- 2008-08-15 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 2 Data), 2008-09-22 -- 2009-06-30 (Infrastructure Round 2 Data), 2007-03-27 -- 2008-08-22 (Implementation Data), 2008-12-31 -- 2009-03-15 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 3 Data), 2008-10-15 -- 2009-06-15 (Implementation Data), 2009-12-31 -- 2010-02-16 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 5 Data), 2005-01-31 -- 2006-10-31 (Quarterly Report Data), 2008-01-01 -- 2008-02-15 (Community Level Instrument Part 1 Round 1 Data), 2009-12-31 -- 2010-02-16 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 5 Data), 2008-07-01 -- 2008-08-15 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 2 Data), 2008-01-01 -- 2008-02-15 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 1 Data), 2008-12-31 -- 2009-03-15 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 3 Data), 2008-07-01 -- 2008-08-15 (Community Level Instrument Part1 Round 2 Data), 2008-12-31 -- 2009-03-15 (Community Level Instrument Part 1 Round 3 Data), 2008-01-01 -- 2008-02-15 (Community Level Instrument Part 2 Round 1 Data), 2009-07-01 -- 2009-08-15 (Communitly Level Instrument Part 1 Round 4 Data), 2010-06-30 -- 2010-11-16 (Community Level Instrument ZIP Codes Part 2 Round 6 Data)

Other contributors include: Robert Orwin, Principal Investigator, Westat; Rebecca M. Buchanan, Westat; John J. Park, Task Order Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administrations (SAMHSA); Augusto Diana, Project Lead, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

Data from the 26 comparison States are not available as part of this collection.

The study design used both quantitative and qualitative data, the latter providing process data and systems outcomes at the state and community levels, as well as context for analyzing National Outcome Measures (NOMs) and other epidemiological outcomes. However, the qualitative data are not available as part of this data collection.

Two rounds of implementation interviews were conducted. The data are not meant to be interpreted longitudinally, however, so the data file contains a combination of data collected at each time

The cross-site evaluation team implemented a multilevel, multi-method quasi-experimental design. The scope of the evaluation encompasses national, state, and community levels. The design included comparison conditions at both the state- and community-levels.

States were selected by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the program funding agency, based on the merits of their applications. States, in turn, selected communities for funding using a wide variety of criteria and processes.

The universe for Phase I includes 24 states and 2 terrritories in the United States. Phase II will include all States and two territories in the United States.

community partner, ZIP code, state, intervention

Members of the cross-site evaluation team coded State Strategic Plans (2005-2007)

State interviews were conducted to assess implementation of the SPF steps, cultural competence, and sustainability (2004-2009).

Community Partners completed the CLI using a Web-based system. Data were collected to evaluate the Community Partners' progress in implementing the SPF framework, expanding their prevention capacity, and selection and implementation of interventions, including EBPPPs. The Geographic Area files contain information about the geographical coverage for each intervention (2007-2010).

Community Partners completed the CLI using a Web-based system. Data were collected to evaluate the Community Partners' progress in implementing the SPF framework, expanding their prevention capacity, and selection and implementation of interventions, including EBPPPs. Part I of the survey collected data about each Community Partner's progress through the SPF steps (2007-2010).

Community Partners completed the CLI using a Web-based system. Data were collected to evaluate the Community Partners' progress in implementing the SPF framework, expanding their prevention capacity, and selection and implementation of interventions, including EBPPPs. Part II of the survey collected information about each of the specific intervention being implemented by each Community Partner (2007-2010).

Round 1 Interviews were conducted across 7 domains to assess state-level system changes in substance abuse prevention infrastructure and capacity (2003-2007).

Information from quarterly management and oversight reports was extracted and coded to inform the cross-site evaluation about ongoing activities within each State. These data primarily concern staffing, SEOW/Advisory Council membership, challenges and successes for each SPF step (2004-2006).

Round 2 interviews were conducted across 6 domains to assess state-level system changes in substance abuse prevention infrastructure and capacity (2006-2009).

administrative records data, survey data

2012-06-12

2014-03-24

2018-02-15 The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. The previous citation was:
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) National Cross-Site Evaluation [Restricted Use]. ICPSR28921-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2014-03-24. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28921.v2

2014-03-24 Codebooks, frequency files, and data files for Parts 14 and 15 have replaced ones previously released.

2012-06-21 Removed invalid characters in the labels.

2012-06-18 Edited the PI field.

2012-06-12 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

  • Standardized missing values.
  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Notes

  • The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

  • One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.

  • The citation of this study may have changed due to the new version control system that has been implemented. Please see version history for more details.
NAHDAP logo

This study is maintained and distributed by the National Addiction & HIV Data Archive Program (NAHDAP). NAHDAP is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).