Why evaluate?

 

The SPF SIG evaluation is required by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), the federal funding agency, as part of the conditions for the grant.  An evaluation is required to provide feedback on the process and outcomes of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) to local and state level stakeholders, as well as to CSAP.

 

What’s involved in this evaluation?

 

Missouri is conducting an evaluation for internal and federal feedback and reporting purposes.  We are also part of a national cross-site evaluation, which compares Missouri’s process and outcomes to other SIG states and the states that did not receive SIGs.  The cross-site evaluation will answer the question, “Does it make a difference, i.e., do substance abuse rates and consequences decrease, if you invest money and personnel in the strategic prevention framework for substance abuse prevention?”

 

The process, or formative, part of the evaluation provides feedback to committee members and CSAP that can be used to improve or validate the process underway and before the end of the project.  It involves the observation of advisory committee and subcommittee meetings, interviews with committee members, the review of related documents, and the collection of numerical data, such as advisory committee attendance rates.  At the community or sub-grantee level, an example of a process evaluation instrument is a program implementation fidelity survey, which includes questions about the similarity between a prevention program as conducted with the original program design.

 

The outcome part of the evaluation provides a statement of accomplishments and challenges and is conducted after a grant’s work is completed. It measures the extent to which the project’s goals and objective were met and identifies unintended consequences. The outcome evaluation uses process evaluation results to place the findings from numerical or statistical data in context.  For example, changes in prevention program participant pre-test/post-test scores will be monitored in conjunction with program implementation fidelity characteristics that might influence program test scores. The results are used for making decisions about continuing, expanding, reducing, or funding future programs.

 

The summative part of the evaluation provides evidence to support the judgment about the merit or worth of the project. It can be used to make decisions about continuing the project or implementing it in other places. Its intended audience is the funding agency, the state (useful for future planning) and others interested in the merits of the Strategic Prevention Framework as implemented. It is usually conducted after the project is completed.