Assessing state substance abuse prevention infrastructure through the lens of CSAP's Strategic Prevention Framework

Although the organizational structures and operating procedures of state substance abuse prevention systems vary substantially across states, there is scant empirical research regarding approaches for rigorous assessment of system attributes and which attributes are most conducive to overall effectiveness. As one component of the national cross-site evaluation of the SPF State Incentive Grant Program (SPF SIG), an instrument was developed to assess state substance abuse prevention system infrastructure in order to measure infrastructure change and examine the role of state infrastructure in achieving prevention-related outcomes. In this paper we describe the development of this instrument and summarize findings from its baseline administration. As expected, states and territories were found to vary substantially with respect seven key characteristics, or domains, of state prevention infrastructure. Across the six domains that were assessed using numeric ratings, states scored highest on data systems and lowest on strategic planning. Positive intercorrelations were observed among these domains, indicating that states with high capacity on one domain generally have relatively high capacity on other domains as well. The findings also suggest that state prevention infrastructure development is linked to both funding from state government and the presence of a state interagency coordinating body with decision-making authority. The methodology and baseline findings presented will be used to inform the ongoing national cross-site evaluation of the SPF SIG and may provide useful information to guide further research on state substance abuse prevention infrastructure.

► We developed an instrument to assess state substance abuse prevention infrastructure.
► Seven infrastructure domains were assessed at baseline for 26 SPF-funded states.
► States scored highest on data systems and lowest on strategic planning.
► State funding and interagency coordination predicted higher domain scores.
► Additional rounds of data will be analyzed to assess change in state infrastructure.