State of New Mexico SPF-SIG Programs

Site ID#: ____

(REQUIRED) SPF-SIG Community Survey Findings Sheet- 2008 to 2010

(Target Community only)

Project Goal and Objectives

Description of Target Community

Data Collection Method and Brief Sample Description (eg., information from the data collection protocol)

Demographic Characteristics

Descriptive statistics are provided for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and language for 3 years (2008, 2009 and 2010). Tests of significant differences are also provided.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of target community

2008 / 2009 / 2010
Characteristic / Mean / SD / Min / Max / Mean / SD / Min / Max / Mean / SD / Min / Max
Age (n= )
% / % / %
Biological Sex
Male (n= )
Female (n= )
Race/Ethnicity
White (n= )
Hispanic (n= )
Native American (n= )
Other (n= )
Language other than English spoken most (n= )

Intervening Variable Outcomes

Means and tests of significance across years (2008, 2009 and 2010) within target site are provided below for the intervening variable outcomes of interest.

Table 2. Intervening variable outcomes for year 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Outcome / Mean (SD) / F / p-value / Pairwise comparison / Trend observed from 2008 to 2010 /
Likelihood of police involvement in patrolling underage drinkinga / Ex: 2008 is significantly different than 2009 / Ex: perceived police involvement in patrolling underage drinking has increased significantly from 2008 to 2010.
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Perceived likelihood of legal consequences for driving under the influenceb
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Support for local prevention effortsc
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Awareness of teen drinking prevention efforts in communityd
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Approval of regular alcohol use and drinking and drivinge
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Ease of teen access to alcohol in communityf
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )

Note. Individual scale scores were computed by taking the mean value across all of the scale’s items

aScale contains 4 items; 1=not at all likely, 4=very likely

bScale contains 3 items; 1=not at all likely, 4=very likely

cScale contains 3 items; 0=none, 2=a lot

dScale contains 2 items; 0=none, 2=a lot

eScale contains 2 items; 1=strongly approve, 5=strongly disapprove

fOne-item measure; 0=very easy, 5=very difficult

Behavioral Outcomes

Frequencies and tests of significance across years (2008, 2009 and 2010) within target site are provided below for the behavioral outcomes of interest. P-value that is equal to .05 or smaller indicates these three years are significantly different.

Table 3. Behavioral outcomes for year 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Outcome / % / χ2 / p-value / Trend observed from 2008 to 2010 /
30-day alcohol use / Ex: reported 30-day alcohol use has decreased significantly from 2008 to 2010.
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Five or more drinks on one occasion in past 30 days
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Driven under influence in past year
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Driven under influence in past 30 days
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Outcome / % / χ2 / p-value / Trend observed from 2008 to 2010 /
Driven in past 30 days after having had 5 or more drinks
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Ridden in car in the past 30 days driven by someone who had been drinking
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
Not asked to show proof of age at least once when purchasing alcohol in past 30 days
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )
18-20 year olds who report drinking and having access to keg in past year
2008 (n= )
2009 (n= )
2010 (n= )

6

Summary of 2008 to 2010 SPF SIG Community Survey Findings

The questions below should be used to help you think about the findings presented above. These should be used as guidelines or examples of things to discuss but you may include additional information as you see fit. You can also include any graphs that might be informative in this section. Use this section to highlight any successes that are not included in the tables above and reflect on lessons learned and how the findings will be used to inform prevention in your community. There are four main evaluation questions that you should try to answer along with sub questions for each that should help you develop your response:

Question 1: Has the SPF SIG contributed to the increase in ATOD prevention capacity in your community? How?

Question 2: Has the SPF SIG contributed to the reduction of alcohol related traffic crashes and deaths in the community? (Look at the trends over time if possible.)

1)  To what extent do these findings indicate the success of your community’s SPF SIG goals? Do the findings suggest the effectiveness of SPF SIG on your community?

Question 3: Has the SPF SIG contributed to positive changes in reported alcohol consumption behavior in your community?

1)  Based on the results of behavioral outcomes from 2008 to 2010, have you seen any significant decrease in any of these outcomes? For instance, has 30-day alcohol use decreased from 2008 to 2010?

2)  To what do you attribute these changes? (e.g., This might be your prevention programming in addition to other community changes that have taken place in addition to the SPF SIG efforts.)

3)  If the results indicate that changes in the environmental prevention strategies are needed, what changes do you suggest?

Question 4: Has the SPF SIG contributed to positive changes in the targeted intervening variables in the community? How?

1)  How have the strategies implemented by your program affected the targeted IV’s in your community?

2)  Going forward, would you alter what you’ve been doing based on your results? If yes, how?

6