WV SPF SIG Reports/Evaluation

The WV Prevention Resource Center's evaluation team and independent researchers from Marshall University have evaluated WV’s implementation of federal Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant funds, which began in 2004 and ended September 2010.

Implementation Plans

Internal (WVPRC Produced) Evaluation Reports

External (Marshall University Research Team) Qualitative Evaluation Reports

Since 2004, a qualitative study by independent researchers has been conducted to monitor WV’s SPF SIG processes, successes, and challenges. Methodologies include participant observation of WV Partnership To Promote Community Well-Being and County Prevention Partnership meetings; face-to-face interviews of WV Partnership members, WVPRC staff, and County Partnership members; and primary source document review. Notes From the Field updates were presented to the WV Partnership, which served as WV’s SPF SIG advisory board, each quarterly meeting. In addition to the ongoing feedback, this evaluation contributed to knowledge about collaborative community change through the publication of a scholarly journal article; a dissertation; and the development of a theoretical model of community change. The non-linear, evolving model comprises the following five components: getting the right people to the table, engaging those individuals, developing a shared vision, locating/accessing/sharing resources and learning. Additional journal articles—and perhaps eventually a book-length manuscript—are also possible outcomes of this evaluation.

JOURNAL ARTICLES
Spatig, L., Swedberg, A., LeGrow, T., & Flaherty, P. (2010). The Power of Process: A Story of Collaboration and Community change. Journal of Community Development, 41(1), 3-20.
ABSTRACT: Based on a year-long ethnographic study, this narrative chronicles the planning year of the WV Partnership to Promote Community Well-Being — a collaborative effort to develop a comprehensive statewide substance abuse prevention system. The study provides evidence that the WV Partnership’s focus on people- and relationship-oriented processes, rather than only outcomes, was key to its success in obtaining a State Incentive Grant and laid a foundation for creating a comprehensive statewide prevention system. The essay explores the sustainability and replicability of the WV Partnership in relation to the high human and organizational costs of the ambitious, collaborative endeavor. Using a critical theory framework, the project is discussed as a site of social transformation in the context of economic and social circumstances in central Appalachia at the turn of the twenty-first century. Transformative elements include: (1) countering within-state community imbalances between levels of need and availability of resources; (2) featuring inclusive, community-based, capacity-building approaches to social reform; and (3) challenging recent trends to legislate narrow, quantitative definitions of social science.

DISSERTATIONS
Regional Learning Opportunities: A Story of Place-Based Learning Among Adults in WV
Examines learning in a program that was delivered state-wide but had a local focus for all participants.

QUALITATIVE EVALUATION SUMMATIVE REPORTS Qualitative Evaluation Quarterly Reports
  • 5/2004 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention partnership: inclusiveness of stakeholders, teambuilding among stakeholders, shared vision, leadership, federal distribution of SPF-SIG funds.

  • 4/2005 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention partnership: process, honoring people, relationships among partners, shared vision, resources, sustainability and replicability; State prevention staff: collaborative leadership.

  • 10/2005 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention partnership: communication, balance (flexibility/accountability, relationships within/outside the partnership, relationships/outcomes).

  • 1/2006 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention partnership: role/relationships (with state staff), roles/participation (within state partnership), shared vision of goals/mission; State prevention staff: roles and responsibilities, community-based staff roles; Community-based prevention: community informational meetings, purpose of planning grants, community collaboration, Regional Learning Opportunities (RLOs).

  • 4/2006 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention staff: communication with each other (input, timing), organization/culture; Community-based prevention: Regional Learning Opportunities (experimental, open participation, community-based staff role), non-participation in SPF-SIG by some counties, future funding concerns, resistance, engagement, financial reimbursement, excitement.

  • 7/2006 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- Community-based state staff & community-based prevention (project directors and local prevention partners): SPF-SIG size and scope (big, different, varied), Regional Learning Opportunities, coalition building (successes, challenges), changing role of community-based state staff, parallel nature of state and county development.

  • 10/2006 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention staff: changing roles (higher value, sense of closeness, not experts, exhaustion); Community-based prevention (project directors, local prevention partners): SPF-SIG Phase II funding responses (sustainability concerns, increasing optimism, diversity of funding sources), growth in county prevention partnerships.

  • 1/2007 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention staff: community-based staff perspective (timing, trust), learning/co-learning; Community-based prevention: hope vs. doubt, necessary skills, relationships, Regional Learning Opportunities (evaluation team’s beliefs, intentions, actions, outcomes, learning, lingering questions).

  • 4/2007 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention staff: accountability to various stakeholders, communication, SPF-SIG “under construction,” trust issues, state-wide staffing demands; Community-based prevention: Regional Learning Opportunities (mixed results, successful learning, more guidance/substance needed, effectiveness of facilitators), county implementation grants (too small, lack of multi-year funding).

  • 6/2007 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention partnership: general assessment, involvement (levels, benefits/barriers, satisfaction with roles, satisfaction with influence, satisfaction with fairness of decision-making, extent of voice), assessment of strengths (partnership formation and state-level processes, impact on local capacity development, effective state prevention staff), assessment of shifting concerns (full engagement of all members, trust and collaboration, sustaining momentum/enthusiasm/excitement/involvement, partnership sustainability, communication beyond the partnership), partnership vision (state-wide comprehensive plan, narrow versus broader view of prevention).

  • 10/2007 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- Progress report

  • 1/2008 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention staff: general assessment of SPF-SIG, level of involvement, role satisfaction, state staff influence, relationship with state prevention partnership, fairness of decision making concerning SPF-SIG, staff voice, state staff strengths (right staff at the table, focus on learning, scope/complexity of project), state staff concerns (communication, county-level participation and perceptions, sustainability), vision (positive and sustainable outcomes, broader prevention focus, increased visibility).

  • 4/2008 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- Community-based prevention (project directors): state staff helpfulness, usefulness of Regional Learning Opportunities, satisfaction with SPF-SIG decision-making, voice in SPF-SIG process, SPF-SIG influence on community, other funding sources besides SPF-SIG, involvement of local education entity, local SPF-SIG strengths (new/strengthened coalitions, focus on local community needs, broad focus on prevention), local SPF-SIG concerns (funding decisions, communication, sustainability, prevention as a concept).

  • 1/2009 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- Community-based prevention (local prevention partners): passion/commitment, teamwork, youth focus, importance of resources.

  • 4/2009 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- State prevention partnership & state prevention staff: data-driven decision making, environmental strategies, Perdue Pharma settlement funds, state prevention partnership; Evaluation Team: reflections on emerging data-based community change model (people, engagement, vision, resources, change/growth).

  • 7/2009 Notes from the Field
    • Focus On- Community-based prevention (project directors): local coalition structures and operating procedures - informal (small county/coalition informality, informality within pre-existing coalitions), evolving toward formal (benefits of formality, readiness for formality); local coalition member engagement (core members within less active membership, youth); ownership of local prevention partnership, relationship with other SPF-SIG players (state partnership, state prevention staff, community-based state staff), environmental strategies (understanding, support/resistance, transitioning, local staff understanding and role, success stories); state comprehensive strategic plan - positive views, concerns (how funding decisions will be made, increased competition); evaluation and assessment (weak at local level, difficulty in measuring environmental strategies, state staff assistance with evaluation); sustainability (funding, people, training, SPF).; Evaluation Team: reflections on emerging data-based community change model (people, engagement, vision, resources, change/growth).

  • 10/2009 Notes from the Field


  • 1/2010 Notes from the Field


  • 4/2010 Notes from the Field


County Reports

SPF SIG National Cross-Site Evaluation Reports