State of New Mexico12-17 ATOD Prevention Programs

______Project, Site ID#: ____

Strategies for Success Supplemental Findings - 2017

Project Goal and Objectives:

Description of Target Community:

Evaluation Design and Sample Description:

1

Updated 10/2014

Module B______

Table 1. Reliability of Violence Perpetration Scales

Scale / Cronbach's Alpha
Violence Perpetration at baseline / .00
Violence Perpetration at posttest / .00

Table 2.The Percentage of Violence Perpetration in the Last 4 Weeks

Time / Almost None %
(0 ≤ mean score ≤ 1) / Some Violence %
(2 ≤mean score ≤ 4)
Violence Perpetration at baseline / 0.0 / 0.0
Violence Perpetration at posttest / 0.0 / 0.0

Table 3. Examining the effect of time on the Violence Perpetration scale score at post-test controlling for pre-test score

Scale / Range / Baseline Mean / Post-Test Mean / F-test & sig. (indicated by asterisk[s]) / Effect sizea / Desired Outcome
Violence Perpetration / 0-4 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 

Note: *p≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p≤ .001.

1

Updated 10/2014

Module C______

Table 1. Reliability of Violence Victimization Scales

Scale / Cronbach's Alpha
Violence Victimization at baseline / .00
Violence Victimization at posttest / .00

Table 2. The Percentage of Violence Victimization in the Last 4 Weeks

Time / Almost None %
(0 ≤ mean score ≤ 1) / Some Victimization %
(2 ≤mean score ≤ 4)
Violence Victimization at baseline / 0.0 / 0.0
Violence Victimization at posttest / 0.0 / 0.0

Table 3. Examining the effect of time on the Violence Victimization scale score at post-test controlling for pre-test score

Scale / Range / Baseline Mean / Post-Test Mean / F-test & sig. (indicated by asterisk[s]) / Effect sizea / Desired Outcome
Violence Victimization / 0-4 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 

Note: *p≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p≤ .001.

Table 4. The percentage of respondents who did not go to school at least once during the past 30 days because they felt unsafe at or on their way to school by frequency category

0 days / 1 day / 2 or 3
days / 4 or 5 days / 6 or more days / Desired Outcome
Baseline (n= ) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 
Post-test (n= ) / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 

Table 5. Examining the effect of time on school absence at post-test controlling for pre-test score

Range / Baseline Mean / Post-Test Mean / F-test & sig. (indicated by asterisk[s]) / Effect sizea / Desired Outcome
School Absence / 0-4 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 

Note: *p≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p≤ .001.

1

Updated 10/2014

Module D______

Table 1. Reliability of Module DInternal Resiliency Scales

Cronbach’s Alpha
Scales / baseline / posttest
Cooperation and Communication / .00 / .00
Self-efficacy / .00 / .00
Empathy / .00 / .00
Problem Solving / .00 / .00
Self-awareness / .00 / .00
Goals and Aspirations / .00 / .00

Table 2. Examining the effect of time on Module D Internal Resiliencyscale scores at post-test controlling for pre-test scale scores

Scale / Range / Baseline Mean / Post-Test Mean / F-test & sig. (indicated by asterisk[s]) / Effect sizea / Desired Outcome
Cooperation and Communication / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Self-efficacy / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Empathy / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Problem Solving / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Self-awareness / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Goals and Aspirations / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 

Note: *p≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p≤ .001.

1

Updated 10/2014

Module E______

Table 1. Reliability of Module E External Resiliency Scales.

Cronbach’s Alpha
Scale / baseline / posttest
Caring Relationships: Adults in School / .00 / .00
High Expectations: Adults in School / .00 / .00
Meaningful Participation: In the School / .00 / .00
Caring Relationships: Adults in Home / .00 / .00
High Expectations: Adults in Home / .00 / .00
Meaningful Participation: In the Home / .00 / .00
Caring Relationships: Adults in Community / .00 / .00
High Expectations: Adults in Community / .00 / .00
Meaningful Participation: In the Community / .00 / .00
Caring Relationships: Peers / .00 / .00
High Expectations: Pro-social Peers / .00 / .00

Table 2. Examining the effect of time on Module E scale scores at post-test controlling for pre-test scale scores

Range / Baseline Mean / Post-test Mean / F-test & sig.
(indicated by asterisk[s]) / Effect sizea / Desired Outcome
Caring Relationships: Adults in School / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
High Expectations: Adults in School / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Meaningful Participation: In the School / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Caring Relationships: Adults in Home / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
High Expectations: Adults in Home / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Meaningful Participation: In the Home / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Caring Relationships: Adults in Community / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
High Expectations: Adults in Community / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Meaningful Participation: In the Community / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
Caring Relationships: Peers / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 
High Expectations: Pro-social Peers / 0-3 / 0.0 / 0.0 / 0.000 / .000 / 

Note: *p≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p≤ .001.

Discussion of Findings from MODULES A to E

Consider the following statements & questions as prompts only. You may remove these and summarize the information & findings you feel are most important to communicate to OSAP. This is also a space where you can include any graphs from the GLM analyses that you feel present a better picture of your results. Also use this space to reflect on how the prevention programming contributed (or did not contribute) to the findings and how these results could be used to improve prevention programming for your site.

1)Note any observed trends in demographics described in Module A that might contribute to your results in Modules B through E (e.g., program participants tended to be very young, low SES, etc.)

2)To what extent is your prevention program designed to address constructs measured in Modules A-E? (Only address the modules you used.) If it was designed to directly address the constructs measured, please discuss the extent to which the programming had a positive or negative effect on the measure(s). If the prevention programming was designed to address the constructs only indirectly, please discuss why the program might or might not have an effect with respect to the actual results.

3)Last FY, many programs saw significant improvements in external resiliency, which was unexpected. If you have significant improvements in external resiliency this year, why do think that is?

4)Are these non-significant results that you anticipated being significant? What were they? Why do you think they were not significant?

5)What do these results tell you about how prevention programming at this site can be improved upon, or alternatively, what is being done well and needs to continue?

1

Updated 10/2014