Cross-Site Analysis and Case Study of STOP Program Grantee Perspectives on Violence Prevention and Mental Health Training Program Implementation, United States, 2021-2023 (ICPSR 38878)

Version Date: Aug 28, 2024

Cite this study |

Principal Investigator(s):
Anna Davidson Abella, University of South Florida; Amy C. Vargo, University of South Florida

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38878.v1

Version V1

Slide tabs to view more

Summary

The Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence Act was enacted in 2018 to improve school safety by providing grants to states, local governments, and Indian tribes in the United States. Under this legislation, the Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA) was allocated $50 million per year to dedicate to grants for mental health and violence prevention training and education for school personnel and students, as well as the development or enhancement of threat assessment systems and crisis response teams. In the first two years, 2018 and 2019, 43 and 85 grantees were awarded funding for STOP programs, respectively. In 2020, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded funding to researchers to study the implementation of the first STOP programs. A cross-disciplinary team of researchers from the University of South Florida Child and Family Studies Department and the College of Education received an NIJ grant to study the STOP programs from the first two years of the grant program.

The research questions guiding this study were:

  1. How have diverse stakeholders (e.g., school administrators, school-based and community mental health professionals, teachers, student and families, law enforcement/SROs, policymakers) been involved in the various stages of implementation?
  2. How have violence prevention and mental health training programs reflected community needs?
  3. What are the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing violence prevention and mental health training programs across grantee sites?
  4. How do various components of the implementation process contribute to satisfaction with implementation at different stages among stakeholders?
  5. What measures are in place to evaluate and inform continuous implementation processes, and where do opportunities and needs exist for incorporating feedback to strengthen overall implementation?

This mixed-methods study included a cross-site survey and a case study analysis. The cross-site survey was sent to representatives from 128 grantee U.S. agencies who were involved in implementing programs or training from STOP grants (final n=90 respondents). Questions in the survey asked about implementation factors, barriers and facilitators to implementation, the capacity of schools at each site to address mental health, satisfaction of the implementation process, and how COVID-19 has impacted the implementation of STOP programs. There was also an opportunity to share open feedback. This survey was administered in July 2021 and in July 2022. The case study was an in-depth analysis of a smaller sample of grantee agencies. The researchers conducted stakeholder interviews, meeting observations, and document review to gain insights on participant experiences with implementation of STOP programs and what social, political, and cultural factors may have affected implementation.

Citation

Davidson Abella, Anna, and Vargo, Amy C. Cross-Site Analysis and Case Study of STOP Program Grantee Perspectives on Violence Prevention and Mental Health Training Program Implementation, United States, 2021-2023. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2024-08-28. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38878.v1

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote

Funding

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2020-RF-CX-0001)

Subject Terms

Geographic Coverage

Smallest Geographic Unit

Region (U.S.)

Restrictions

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Distributor(s)

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
Hide

Time Period(s)

2021-01-01 -- 2023-06-30

Date of Collection

2021-01-01 -- 2022-12-31

Data Collection Notes

  1. Please visit the study website for more information and findings.

  2. Qualitative data are not currently available. Please refer to the ICPSR README for the case study interview data file list. Full versions of all data collection instruments and the qualitative codebook are also available as appendices in the final report submitted to NIJ under Related Publications.

Hide

Study Purpose

The purposes of this study were to:

  • Understand the challenges and facilitators of implementing violence prevention and mental health training programs;
  • Assess contextual factors influencing program implementation, as well as regional and population variances; and
  • Provide evidence to inform program implementation in violence prevention and mental health programs in schools to improve program outcomes and sustainability

Study Design

The cross-site survey was distributed in July 2021 (Wave 1) and July 2022 (Wave 2) as a Qualtrics link and emailed to all 2018 and 2019 Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grantees who received funding in the Violence Prevention and Mental Health Training category (219 contacts from 128 sites in each wave). The survey was open to all contacts at each interval to maximize response rate. Respondents who completed the survey received a $10 gift card.

For the case study, a random sample of grantees stratified by grant year, region, and population category was contacted for participation starting in July 2021. Six sites were recruited from across the U.S. Midwest, East, and South regions. Across all sites, data were collected from stakeholder interviews, meeting observations, and project-related document review. Interviews and meeting observations were conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams. Interviews were recorded for transcription, and open notes were taken during meetings. Qualitative data were analyzed with a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques, using ATLAS.ti software.

Time Method

Cross-sectional

Universe

Representatives from agencies granted Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funding between 2018-2019.

Unit(s) of Observation

Individual

Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables

Cross-site survey variables asked about the following:

  • Respondent's role and number of years served
  • Individuals serving on the program implementation team
  • The degree of engagement at different stages of implementation (i.e., exploration, installation, initial, and full implementation)
  • Severity of mental health issues (e.g., disruptive behavior, depression, stress, trauma) within schools at the site
  • Presence of systems, protocols, policies, and structures in schools to address mental health
  • Facilitators and/or barriers to implementation
  • Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on implementation
  • Satisfaction with overall implementation efforts and technical assistance received

Stakeholder interviews covered reasons for pursuing the grant, background information about the project, strategic planning process, progress and effectiveness of the implementation, decision-making processes, degree of support for the program, and barriers and challenges to implementation.

Response Rates

Wave 1 (2021) had 52 completed responses (40%), and wave 2 (2022) had 38 completed responses (34%). Sixteen respondents completed the survey during both waves.

Presence of Common Scales

  • National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) Stages of Implementation (Bertram et al., 2015)
  • School Mental Health Capacity Instrument (SMHCI) (Feigenberg et al., 2010)
  • NIRN Hexagon Tool (Metz and Louison, 2019)
  • NIRN Implementation Drivers (Aarons et al., 2011; Fixsen et al., 2009)
  • NIRN Improvement Cycles (NIRN, n.d.)
  • Western and Pacific Child Welfare Center Implementation Center's (WPIC) Framework for Implementing Systems Change in Child Welfare (WPIC, 2009)

Hide

Original Release Date

2024-08-28

Version History

2024-08-28 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:

  • Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Hide

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.

  • ICPSR usually offers files in multiple formats for researchers to be able to access data and documentation in formats that work well within their needs. If you have questions about the accessibility of materials distributed by ICPSR or require further assistance, please visit ICPSR’s Accessibility Center.

  • 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.