Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Research Articles

Primary drug prevention — stopping use before it starts — under budget threat

The White House budget request for fiscal year 2021 for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) proposes to zero out a major prevention program — the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant — Partnerships for Success program. This is a cut of $109 million. It recommends using the prevention set‐aside (20%) from the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment block grant instead. But it doesn't give any more money to the block grant.

White House budget request decimates substance use prevention

The White House budget request for fiscal year 2021 for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) proposes to zero out a major prevention program — the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant — Partnerships for Success program. This is a cut of $109 million. It recommends using the prevention set‐aside (20%) from the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) block grant instead. But it doesn't give any more money to the block grant.

Assessing Community Coalition Capacity and its Association with Underage Drinking Prevention Effectiveness in the Context of the SPF SIG.

Community coalitions are a prominent organizational structure through which community-based substance abuse prevention efforts are implemented. There is little empirical evidence, however, regarding the association between coalition attributes and success in achieving community-level reductions in substance abuse behaviors. In this study, we assessed the relationship between coalition capacity, based on coalition coordinator responses to 16 survey items, and reductions in underage drinking prevalence rates. The coalitions were funded through the federally sponsored Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). We first examined whether coalition capacity increased over the life of the projects. Mean capacity scores increased for all 16 capacity items examined (N = 318 coalitions), the majority of which were statistically significant. Analysis of the associations between capacity and reductions in underage drinking was limited to coalitions that targeted underage drinking and provided usable outcome measures based on student survey data for either past 30-day alcohol use (N = 129) or binge drinking (N = 100). Bivariate associations between the capacity items and prevalence reductions for each outcome were consistently positive, although many were not statistically significant. Composite measures of correlated items were then created to represent six different capacity constructs, and included in multivariate models to predict reductions in the targeted outcomes. Constructs that significantly predicted reductions in one or both outcome measures included internal organization and structure, community connections and outreach, and funding from multiple sources. The findings provide support for the expectation that high functioning community coalitions can be effective agents for producing desirable community-level changes in targeted substance abuse behaviors.

The performance of the K6 scale in a large school sample: A follow-up study evaluating measurement invariance on the Idaho Youth Prevention Survey.

Since 2013, Idaho has been building capacity and infrastructure through the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant to prevent substance abuse and related problems, namely psychiatric morbidity. As this federal initiative requires states to engage in data-driven strategic planning at the state and community levels, clinically validated instruments are particularly valuable in the context of school surveys that have limited space and require timely administration. Thus, the K6 scale was included on the 2014 Idaho Youth Prevention Survey as a measure of nonspecific psychological distress. To verify the unidimensional structure of the K6, principal axis and confirmatory factor analyses were performed in a school-based sample of Idaho students (n = 12,150). A series of multigroup confirmatory factor analyses were then performed to evaluate measurement invariance across gender, age, and race. Overall, the prevalence of serious psychological distress in the past 30 days was 17.2% in Idaho. Factor analyses confirmed the 1-factor solution of the K6. Four levels of measurement invariance were demonstrated across gender, age, and race. Together, these results further illustrate the construct validity of the K6 for use in adolescent populations. Other states are encouraged to include the K6 on their school surveys to facilitate policy planning and resource allocation as well as generate cross-state comparisons. (PsycINFO Database Record

Sustainability of State-Level Substance Abuse Prevention Infrastructure After the Completion of the SPF SIG.

Recent national substance abuse prevention efforts that have been disseminated at the state level have provided fertile ground for addressing the dearth of systematic research on state-level substance abuse prevention infrastructure. The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program (SPF SIG), a national public health initiative sponsored by the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and its Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, is one such effort, providing an opportunity to examine state-level substance abuse prevention infrastructure across the country. The aims of the SPF SIG initiative include reducing substance abuse and its related problems, as well as enhancing state and local prevention infrastructure and capacity. In this article, we describe the status of state-level substance abuse prevention infrastructure and capacity 1 year after the first 26 funded states ended their projects, based on follow-up interviews with state prevention decision-makers. We found that, in five of the six prevention domains we measured, prevention infrastructure capacity increased during the 12-month period after the grants ended. The evidence for further SPF capacity development even after the conclusion of the grants suggests that states recognized the benefits of using the SPF and took deliberate steps to sustain and enhance the integration of this framework into their state prevention systems. In addition, the findings suggest that state agencies and organizations can benefit from time-limited resources aimed at increasing their capacity and that such efforts can have a lasting impact on measures of state prevention system capacity.

Effects of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentives Grant (SPF SIG) on State Prevention Infrastructure in 26 States

The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) program is a national public health initiative sponsored by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention to prevent substance abuse and its consequences. State grantees used a data-driven planning model to allocate resources to 450 communities, which in turn launched over 2,200 intervention strategies to target prevention priorities in their respective populations. An additional goal was to build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the state and community levels. This paper addresses whether the state infrastructure goal was achieved, and what contextual and implementation factors were associated with success. The findings are consistent with claims that, overall, the SPF SIG program met its goal of increasing prevention capacity and infrastructure across multiple infrastructure domains, though the mediating effects of implementation were evident only in the evaluation/monitoring domain. The results also show that an initiative like the SPF SIG, which could easily have been compartmentalized within the states, has the potential to permeate more broadly throughout state prevention systems.

Data-Driven Decision Making in the Prevention of Substance-Related Harm: Results from the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program

The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program (SPF SIG) is a national public-health initiative in the United States to prevent and reduce substance-related harm. The model promotes data-driven decision making (DDDM), with an emphasis on using epidemiological data to help select prevention priorities and to allocate prevention resources. This article examines how well the first two cohorts of SPF SIG states (N = 26) implemented DDDM, and also explores what factors facilitated and hindered the process. Data were collected by reviewing and coding states' strategic plans, supplemented by interviews with state project directors, evaluators, and epidemiological workgroup chairs. Fidelity to the process was scored as high, medium, or low, based on transparency and support from relevant evidence. On selecting prevention priorities, 81% of states received high or medium scores on all priorities selected. On allocating prevention resources, 85% received a high or medium score. Facilitators included collaboration among stakeholders, training and technical assistance, and efforts of epidemiological workgroups and evaluators. However, states that lacked established data infrastructures for prevention were at a decided disadvantage in implementing the model. Future implications for SPF SIG states and ongoing challenges to DDDM in general are discussed.