![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.7770833333333333in"
height="0.9111111111111111in"}![](media/image6.jpeg){width="2.5125in"
height="0.9659722222222222in"}

CPP GENERAL GUIDELINES

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant

"Colorado Prevention Partners"

2006-2007

A project of the:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Awarded To the Office of the Governor of Colorado

and

Administered by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division, Colorado

Department of Human Services

State Partners:

-   Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

-   Colorado Department of Human Services

-   Colorado Department of Education

-   Colorado Department of Public Safety

-   Colorado Department of Transportation

## **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Section PAGE**

1\. Eligible Communities, Funding Options and Timeframes 1

2\. Strategic Prevention Framework Grant Overview 1

> Award Details 1
>
> Purpose 1
>
> Colorado's Model for SPF Implementation 2
>
> SPF SIG Oversight 2
>
> Administration of Funds 2
>
> Organizational Structure 2
>
> SPF SIG Community Prioritization 3
>
> Community Process 3
>
> Unique Aspects of Grant 4
>
> Benefits to Communities 4

3\. Outcome Priorities 5

4\. Evaluation Requirements 6

5\. Training and Technical Assistance Support 8

6.  Responsibilities of OMNI, the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division, CPP
    Advisory Council\
    and the CPP Management Team 8

**Appendix A:** Prevention Leadership Council (PLC) 9

**Appendix B:** CPP Advisory Council & Management Team 10

**Appendix C:** History of Colorado Prevention Partners 11

**Appendix D:** State and Community Level Implementation of Strategic
Prevention Framework 12

**Appendix E:** Guiding Prevention/Intervention Principles for Programs

Funded by SAMHSA/CSAP 15

**Appendix F**: Definition of Evidence-Based 16

**Appendix G**. RPS Regional Prevention Consultants Contact List & Map
17

**Appendix H**: PLC's Uniform Minimum Standards 19

###### GENERAL GUIDELINES

###### 

###### Section 1. Eligible Communities, Funding Options & Timeframes

**[Purpose]{.underline}**: The purpose of this document is to provide
information for eligible communities participating in the State of
Colorado's Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF
SIG). In Colorado, the grant is known as *Colorado Prevention Partners
(CPP)*. The application is issued by the Colorado Department of Human
Services, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division (ADAD).

[Eligible Communities]{.underline}: Counties and Tribal Communities
eligible for funding are:

  ----------------- -----------------------------------------------------
  Urban\*           Denver, Mesa, Pueblo, Weld

  Rural\*           Alamosa, Garfield, Prowers, Rio Grande

  Frontier\*        Costilla, Gunnison, Kit Carson, Las Animas, Saguache

  Tribal Community  Ute Mountain Ute
  ----------------- -----------------------------------------------------

> \*U.S. Census Definitions

As required by federal SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework State
Incentive Grant \# SP04-002A, communities were selected based on a
data-driven needs assessment process that compared county and state
level indicators of substance abuse rates, prevalence, and consequences.
Selected communities were assessed to be high on two or more substance
abuse-related indicators relative to geographically comparable
communities. The goal of the grant is to decrease substance use, abuse,
and consequences in selected communities.    (See Section 2 for more
information.)

###### Section 2. Strategic Prevention Framework Grant Overview

**[Award Details]{.underline}**: In October 2004, the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) awarded Colorado
Governor Bill Owens' Office a \$11.75 million, five-year Strategic
Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). In Colorado, the
grant is known as *Colorado Prevention Partners (CPP)*.

Colorado was awarded \$2.35 million per year for each of five years.
From years 2-5, communities across the state will receive sub-grants to
implement the five-step Strategic Prevention Framework process.

**[Purpose]{.underline}:** The purpose of the SPF SIG grant is to:

-   Reduce substance abuse-related problems in Colorado communities;

-   Prevent the onset and reduce the progression of substance abuse,
    including childhood and underage drinking of alcohol, within
    Colorado communities;

-   Build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the State and
    community levels; and

-   Develop a replicable, sustainable SPF SIG model through the use of
    learning groups within and between state and community efforts.

(Note: In this document "prevention infrastructure" is defined as the
policies, networks, coalitions, resources, professional staff and
skills, programs and delivery system that serve as a foundation for
prevention work within a community.)

Applicants for community funding will be required to align their work
with these purposes.

######## Colorado's Model for SPF Implementation

The Strategic Prevention Framework describes five data-driven steps that
are implemented both at the state and local levels to build prevention
infrastructure and to address substance abuse related issues:

(1) Needs assessment

(2) Capacity building and community mobilization

(3) Strategic planning

(4) Implementation

(5) Evaluation and monitoring

In addition, the state and local communities must address the cultural
responsiveness and sustainability of SPF implementation.

**[SPF SIG Oversight]{.underline}:**

The Prevention Leadership Council (PLC), coordinated through the
Interagency Prevention Systems Program at the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment and established by statute CRS
25-20.5-106(2)(b), is charged with implementing the grant (see
**Appendix A**).

Participating state agencies include:

-   Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

-   Colorado Department of Human Services

-   Colorado Department of Education

-   Colorado Department of Transportation

-   Colorado Department of Public Safety.

These agencies work in partnership with other state and community
partners to plan, manage, and evaluate the grant.

The PLC has developed Uniform Minimum Standards for
Prevention/Intervention Programs in Colorado (see **Appendix H**). These
standards will serve as one of the tools to move all CPP-funded
communities toward positive results as they implement evidence-based
programs, practices and/or policies

**[Administration of Funds]{.underline}**: The Colorado Department of
Human Services' Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division (ADAD) administers the
CPP funds provided to communities.

**[Organizational Structure]{.underline}**: *Colorado Prevention
Partners (CPP)* has been a functioning structure since October 2004. At
that time, it established a state Advisory Council (CPPAC) to guide
grant implementation and an interagency Management Team (CPPMT) to
manage day-to-day grant activities (see **Appendix B**). Two key
workgroups also were established in October 2004: the State
Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW) and the Underage Drinking
Prevention and Reduction Workgroup. See **Appendix C** for more
information on CPP's history.

**[SPF SIG Community Prioritization:]{.underline}** A unique aspect of
the federal SPF SIG grant is that it requires the use of data driven
decision-making to identify communities that are eligible for funding.
To assist with this process, Colorado established a 36-member State
Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW) that assessed highest need
areas based on indicators of major substance abuse and related issues,
as well as gaps in needed resources. Membership included representatives
of various state departments as well as private partners.

The State Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup played a key role in
compiling data from a wide array of sources, assessing data quality and
its reliability across years, and analyzing these data longitudinally.
The indicator data that was compiled and analyzed by the SEOW included
alcohol and drug-related incidents and rates of:

-   treatment admissions

-   judicial filings

-   motor vehicle deaths

-   arrests

-   school incidents

-   hospital discharges

-   domestic violence filings

-   violent crime

-   child welfare cases

-   property crime.

In addition, other indicators such as rates of teen fertility, hepatitis
C, and suicide were examined. The existence of a Higher Education
residential entity in the county was another criterion for selection of
many target communities.

Data findings from the SEOW were presented to the CPPAC in June 2005.
CPPAC made recommendations for prioritizing counties for SPF SIG
participation based on the prevalence and severity of documented
substance abuse-related problems.

**[Community Process]{.underline}:** The five-step Strategic Prevention
Framework incorporates essential elements needed for comprehensive,
research-based and sustainable prevention planning. Communities that
apply for CPP funding will:

1.  conduct needs assessments;

2.  build local capacity;

3.  develop a comprehensive strategic plan;

4.  implement evidence-based prevention policies, programs and practices
    (see **Appendix F** for definition); and

5.  monitor and evaluate program effectiveness, sustaining what has
    worked well.

(For more details on state and community-level implementation of the
Strategic Prevention Framework process, see **Appendix D**.)

This process is developmental. Each community will be required to
complete Steps One through Three within the first six months of the
2006-2007 funding year. Program implementation can begin once a
Strategic Plan has been submitted and approved. The goal of all
communities will be to reach sustainability by the end of the federal
grant period. (The federal grant ends September 29, 2009, and the State
can request a no-cost extension for a minimum of one additional year).

Each community must convene a **Prevention Coalition** to work in
conjunction with a **Prevention Policy Board** (PPB) to implement the
Strategic Prevention Framework. The board and coalition may be existing
bodies, or may build upon existing groups to comply with membership
guidelines.

The PPB must bring together key policy makers that represent different
sectors. The Coalition, which may be a separate entity, should bring
together prevention professionals to work across disciplinary approaches
and sectors to strengthen prevention infrastructure, practices and
outcomes.

To facilitate community-state partnership, key staff from the funded CPP
communities, including the Project Director and Evaluation Liaison, will
participate in quarterly 2-day Community Infrastructure Workgroup and
CPP Advisory Council meetings in Denver, and annual CPP regional
trainings. Local CPP communities are encouraged to send representatives
to other statewide CPP workgroups of interest.

[Unique Aspects of Grant]{.underline}: The federal SPF SIG grant is
unique in its focus on:

-   Linking substance abuse consumption patterns, related causes and
    consequences;

-   [Addressing underage and childhood drinking prevention and
    reduction,]{.underline} as well as substance-abuse issues across the
    lifespan;

-   Changing population-based outcomes at the community level;

-   Developing prevention infrastructure at the state and local levels;

-   Using data driven decision-making to identify geographical "hot
    spots" statewide that show the greatest severity of substance abuse
    and correlate with lower levels of publicly funded prevention
    projects;

-   Emphasizing implementation of evidence-based programs and
    strategies, with a particular emphasis on environmental strategies
    that impact norms, policies & practices that contribute to systems
    change;

-   Developing and strengthening of state-community partnerships; and

-   Emphasizing cultural responsiveness and sustainability.

[Benefits to Communities]{.underline}: Communities that participate in
Colorado Prevention Partners will benefit by:

-   Receiving financial support and technical assistance that provides
    broad-based planning groups an opportunity to critically assess
    local data, needs, and resources, and to build community-wide
    strategic prevention plans;

-   Strengthening prevention infrastructure, state-community
    collaboration, and linkages across prevention disciplines;

-   Developing a long-term prevention plan that incorporates:

    -   an assessment of target groups that need support;

    -   baseline data related to the extent of the problem;

    -   identification of what is working in the community;

    -   selection of specific programs and strategies that are shown to
        work, that

> are indicated based on the data, and that will result in positive
> changes; and

-   evaluation activities that will guide program and infrastructure
    improvements;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strengthening the community's ability to attract future prevention
    funds; and

-   Achieving positive outcomes for substance abuse and related problems
    in the community.

**Section 3. Outcome Priorities for SPF SIG:**

States receiving SPF SIG funding must comply with the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L.103-62, or "GPRA"). This Act
requires all entities receiving federal funding to:

-   Develop strategic plans that specify what they will accomplish over
    a 3- to 5-year period;

-   Set performance targets annually related to their strategic plan;
    and

-   Report annually on the degree to which the previous year's targets
    were met.

In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires
funded entities to

1\) evaluate programs regularly and to use results of these evaluations
to adjust strategic plans accordingly and 2) rationalize budget
allocations based on performance data.

To measure Colorado's performance on SPF SIG goals, ADAD will be
required to submit performance data on National Outcome Measures
(formerly "GPRA") to SAMHSA. The National Outcome Measures (NOMs) and
Colorado's plan for the collection of related performance data are
outlined in the table below.

National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Required of States Receiving SPF SIGs

+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| National       | National Measure     | Source of Colorado          |
| Outcome        |                      | Performance Data            |
+================+======================+=============================+
| Abstinence     | 30-day substance use | *Healthy Kids Colorado      |
| from Drug      |                      | Survey* (to be implemented  |
| Alcohol Use    | (non-use/reduction   | by participating schools)   |
|                | in use)              |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
|                | Perceived risk of    | *Healthy Kids Colorado      |
|                | use                  | Survey*                     |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
|                | Age at first use     | *Healthy Kids Colorado      |
|                |                      | Survey*                     |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
|                | Perception of        | *Healthy Kids Colorado      |
|                | disapproval          | Survey*                     |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Incr           | ATOD suspensions and | Colorado Department of      |
| eased/Retained | expulsions           | Education will work with    |
| Employment or  |                      | OMNI                        |
| Return to/Stay |                      |                             |
| in School      |                      |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
|                | Workplace AOD use    | State Epidemiological and   |
|                |                      | Outcomes Workgroup will     |
|                |                      | identify data collection    |
|                |                      | plan                        |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
|                | Perception of        | SEOW and OMNI evaluation    |
|                | workplace policy     | staff will identify data    |
|                |                      | collection plan             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Decreased      | Drug-related crime   | ASPIRE (Assessment          |
| Criminal       |                      | Prevention Indicators and   |
| Justice        |                      | Resources) needs assessment |
| Involvement    |                      | and prevention planning     |
|                |                      | system                      |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
|                | Alcohol-related car  | ASPIRE                      |
|                | crashes and injuries |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Increased      | Number of persons    | Colorado KIT                |
| Access to      | served by age,       |                             |
| Services       | gender, race and     |                             |
|                | ethnicity            |                             |
| (Service       |                      |                             |
| Capacity)      |                      |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Increased      | *Under development   | Colorado KIT                |
| Social         | by the federal       |                             |
| S              | government*          |                             |
| upports/Social |                      |                             |
| Connectedness  |                      |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Cost           | Increased services   | Colorado KIT                |
| -Effectiveness | provided within      |                             |
|                | costs bands within   |                             |
| (Average Cost) | universal, selective |                             |
|                | and indicated        |                             |
|                | programs             |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+
| Use of         | Total number of      | Colorado KIT                |
| Evidence-Based | evidence-based       |                             |
| Practices      | programs and         |                             |
|                | strategies           |                             |
+----------------+----------------------+-----------------------------+

These data will be collected through a state evaluation conducted by
OMNI Institute (also OMNI Research and Training, Inc.). Fund recipients
will be required to participate in the state evaluation and to use
evaluation information to make adjustments to prevention plans that will
strengthen prevention outcomes.

**Section 4. Evaluation Requirements:**

ADAD has contracted with OMNI Institute to collect performance data on
National Outcome Measures (NOMs) and to provide additional evaluation
services for the state. OMNI will:

-   Coordinate evaluation activities related to Colorado's participation
    in the national evaluation;

-   Assess and monitor Colorado's implementation of the Strategic
    Prevention Framework at state and community levels;

-   Assess and monitor Colorado's performance on the NOMs; and

-   Provide evaluation technical assistance and training to communities
    to support their ability to participate in federal and state
    evaluations.

Throughout the SPF SIG, OMNI will work with communities to implement:

> 1\) An annual youth survey (*Healthy Kids Colorado Survey*) with
> middle and high schools in the school districts within the geographic
> area targeted by grant recipients, beginning in Grant Year 3.
>
> 2\) Web-based systems for reporting evaluation and performance data
>
> 3\) Reviews of data housed in ASPIRE as part of local needs assessment
> activities
>
> 4\) Assessments of coalition and community readiness
>
> 5\) Other evaluation activities, such as community stakeholder
> interviews and site visits.

These evaluation activities will support state and community level
learning about the Strategic Prevention Framework and the implementation
of prevention policies, practices and programs. Evaluation information
will be shared with the Colorado Prevention Partners Advisory Council
and participating communities, but the confidentiality of information
collected from individual stakeholders will be protected.

Evaluation efforts are a significant part of the overall program, and
are an essential part of each community process. Fund recipients will be
required to participate in all aspects of the state evaluation and to
partner with the CPP's evaluation contractor, OMNI Institute. Technical
assistance and awarded funds will support communities in building
capacity to implement the Strategic Prevention Framework, including the
evaluation requirements of this grant. Applicants must specify the
individuals to work with OMNI as an evaluation liaison and to attend
regional evaluation trainings, CPPAC and Community Infrastructure
Workgroup meetings.

*School Participation in Evaluation Requirements*

Beginning with applications for the 2006-2007 funding year, communities
will be required to submit a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) from school
officials:

-   Signed by participating school districts' representatives;

-   Renewed annually;

-   Providing permission for the community project to administer the
    Healthy Kids Colorado Survey and other program evaluation
    instruments, required for school-based programs implemented with
    funds;

-   Releasing school survey and program evaluation data (appropriately
    aggregated to protect individual and school confidentiality) to the
    community project for prevention planning purposes; and

-   Providing school survey and program evaluation data to ADAD's
    contractor, OMNI, for inclusion in the state evaluation.

This Memorandum of Agreement is a condition of future funding, and
community strategic plans cannot be implemented until this letter is
received by ADAD.

Funds available during the 2005-2006 funding year are being used to
engage schools in the SPF process and to obtain a Memorandum of
Agreement for survey administration for upcoming 2006-2007 applications.
2006-2007 CPP funds may be used to cover the costs associated with
survey administration and supplies, as this is an important evaluation
requirement of the state and funded communities.

It should be noted that only schools and districts within the
geographically targeted area will be required to participate in the
survey and evaluation, although it is the intention of all federal and
state partners to gather broad-based school participation in the SPF
SIG. OMNI evaluation staff will provide technical support to communities
regarding survey coordination, administration and data confidentiality
protections. In addition, CPP Management Team members and OMNI RPCs will
work together to provide communities with ongoing technical support in
engaging schools in the larger CPP process.

Targeted schools and districts are not required to survey the entire
student population, unless the size of the student population in the
school district(s) makes sampling unfeasible and requires a full census
of students to participate. A sampling strategy can be developed with
OMNI to collect survey data from at least some students within some
grades, schools, and districts in each funded community. Keep in mind,
however, that depending on the size of the sample and how the student
population is sampled, school level data may not be available for
community prevention planning (i.e., data may only be generalizeable to
certain grades in the district overall). OMNI, therefore, encourages
communities to work with schools to determine whether full participation
is feasible and desirable.

**Section 5. Training and Technical Assistance Support for
Communities:**

Each community will receive extensive technical assistance and training
from ADAD and OMNI Institute, including the services of:

-   An OMNI Regional Prevention Consultant (RPC) to provide group
    facilitation, technical assistance and training related to the
    framework steps and Uniform Minimum Standards; and;

-   An OMNI Evaluation contact to assist with all aspects of the CPP
    evaluation and technical aspects of the needs assessment process
    (including the use of the Assessment of Prevention Indicators and
    Resources database, ASPIRE), in addition to training sessions on
    state-level evaluation and monitoring requirements such as Colorado
    KIT and the school survey.

Funds can be budgeted to acquire additional training and technical
assistance as needed.

**Section 6. Responsibilities of OMNI, the Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Division, CPP Advisory Council and the CPP Management Team:**

Staff from OMNI, ADAD, CPPAC and the CPP Management Team will work in
partnership with each grantee to meet the conditions of the contract as
well as to promote the success of the program.

-   OMNI RPCs will coordinate technical assistance, training, and other
    evaluation assistance and monitoring with the funded communities
    tailored to the needs of those communities and reflective of grant
    requirements;

-   OMNI evaluation staff will provide evaluation support, coordinated
    through the Local Evaluation Liaison and OMNI Evaluation team
    contact;

-   ADAD Prevention Liaisons will work with funded communities to
    oversee ADAD funding requirements and to conduct biannual site
    visits;

-   The CPPAC will involve representatives from each funded community in
    3 annual 2-day CCPAC meetings and in all related correspondence and
    activities; and

-   The CPP Management Team, represented by the CPP Project Coordinator,
    will provide broad coordination among the grantees, OMNI, the
    various representatives of SAMHSA/CSAP, CPPAC, and the CPP
    Management Team, including the Department of Education.

######### APPENDIX A Prevention Leadership Council

**Mission**

The Prevention Leadership Council's (PLC) mission is to provide a
strong, unified voice for prevention and early intervention in Colorado
and to promote coordinated planning, implementation and evaluation of
quality prevention and early intervention services for children, youth
and families at the state and local level.

**History**

The Prevention Leadership Council formed after the Colorado Legislature
passed the Prevention, Intervention and Treatment Services Act for
Children and Youth (C.R.S. 25-20.5). Since passage of C.R.S 25-20.5,
ADAD, Colorado state agencies and community groups have worked together
to identify issues and strategies for improving both state and community
infrastructure.

The PLC has received recognition for its role in shaping prevention
initiatives in the State of Colorado. It was awarded the Strategic
Prevention Framework/State Incentive Grant from the Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention through the Office of the Governor to enhance the state
collaborative prevention efforts.

The Colorado Prevention Leadership Council consists of representatives
from six state agencies, two universities and various partners. State
Agency members are the Colorado Departments of Education, Human
Services, Public Health and Environment, Public Safety, Transportation
and the Department of Law. University members include the Colorado State
University Cooperative Extension Service and the University of Colorado
Health Sciences Center - Department of Preventive Medicine. Other
members include the Southwest Center for the Application of Prevention
Technology and OMNI Research and Training/OMNI Institute. The PLC
actively maintains linkages with foundations, local community coalitions
and prevention service providers in carrying out its mission. 

APPENDIX B\
Colorado Prevention Partners Advisory Council

& Management Team

**Colorado Prevention Partners Advisory Council:**

The grant requires states to establish an advisory council to guide the
implementation process. Colorado's advisory group is known as the
Colorado Prevention Partners Advisory Council (CPPAC). CPPAC has met
quarterly since November 2004. It advises SPF SIG workgroups, such as
the Colorado Underage Drinking Prevention and Reduction Workgroup and
the State Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup, and has made
recommendations to the interagency Management Team regarding the
selection of target communities and grant roll out.

CPPAC membership includes:

-   Governor's Office representative;

-   Interagency representatives from the Prevention Leadership Council;

-   Other organizations involved in the prevention field in Colorado,
    such as Assets for Colorado Youth, The Bacchus Network, and the
    Mental Health Association of Colorado; and

-   Representatives from long-standing community coalitions that have
    been active in different regions of the state.

Funded SPF SIG communities will be asked to send the CPP Project
Director/Coordinator and Local Evaluation Liaison to the CPPAC and to
take part in its three annual 2-day meetings of the CPPAC and Community
Infrastructure Workgroup.

Contact: José Esquibel, Chair, CPP Advisory Council, Director,
Interagency Prevention Systems, Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, (303) 692-2302, email <j.esquibel@state.co.us>

Colorado Prevention Partners Management Team:

The interagency Colorado Prevention Partners Management Team (CPPMT)
meets biweekly and is co-chaired by the CPPAC chair and the CPP project
coordinator. Membership consists of representatives from the Department
of Public Health & Environment, Department of Human Services/ADAD,
Department of Public Safety/Division of Criminal Justice, and Department
of Education, as well as OMNI Institute and the Southwest Center for
Application of Prevention Technology (SWCAPT).

Contacts: José Esquibel, Co-chair Melody Mock Durso, Co-Chair

CPP Management Team CPP Management Team

CPPAC Chair CPP Project Coordinator

\(303\) 692-2302 (303) 866-7507

<j.esquibel@state.co.us> <melody.durso@state.co.us>

APPENDIX C\
History of Colorado Prevention Partners

*Colorado Prevention Partners* or *CPP* is the name of the SPF SIG in
Colorado. CPP has been a functioning structure since the SPF SIG grant
was awarded to Colorado in early October of 2004.

**History**

Upon receipt of funding, Colorado assembled its SPF SIG Advisory Council
(known as the Colorado Prevention Partners Advisory Council, or CPPAC),
established an interagency Management Team, formed a State
Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup, and established an Underage
Drinking Prevention and Reduction Workgroup.

The State Epidemiological and Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW) convened a
36-member body of epidemiologists, other health researchers, data
managers, and diverse agency representatives that met regularly to
conduct an assessment of substance abuse and related problems across
Colorado. These data were later shared with the CPPAC to use in
prioritizing communities for funding.

The Underage Drinking Prevention and Reduction Workgroup brought
together 17 individuals from a variety of state agencies, including the
Department of Education, Department of Revenue/Liquor Enforcement and
Division of Motor Vehicle, County Sheriff's of Colorado, Department of
Transportation, Department of Public Safety/Colorado State Patrol,
Judicial/Probation, and others. This workgroup will examine data and
evaluation, policies, and evidence-based programs and practices related
to underage drinking prevention and reduction.

CPP also organized a Capacity Building Learning Partnership project that
funded six pilot communities, referred to as Learning Partnerships, as a
preliminary test of the Strategic Prevention Framework. The Capacity
Building Learning Partnerships provided opportunities for Colorado to
develop and pilot Strategic Prevention Framework implementation
strategies and activities for the first two steps of the SPF that can be
refined and utilized for SPF SIG grantees. For example, SEOW provided
dataset presentations to Learning Partnership communities to facilitate
community interaction and discussion regarding the issue of underage
drinking.

In June 2005, the Advisory Council reviewed the SEOW data and
prioritized needs and resource indicators among geographical and tribal
communities throughout Colorado. Based on these data, the Council
prioritized 13 counties and one tribal community for funding. A State
Strategic Plan that listed the targeted communities was submitted to
SAMHSA and approved in December of 2005.

Subsequently, CPP representatives conducted community meetings in all 14
communities and invited target communities to join the Colorado
Prevention Partners process. All 14 communities agreed to participate in
CPP. An Application for Funding announcement was posted and communities
were encouraged to apply for funds for a 7-month period between February
and September of 2006. Twelve of the communities applied for Community
Mobilization and Planning funds to initiate the CPP process, one
community applied for Strategic Prevention Framework implementation
funds, and another community is still in the negotiation phase.

Appendix D

State and Community Level Implementation of the

Strategic Prevention Framework

[[State Level Implementation of the Strategic Prevention
Framework]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}

The following graph provides examples of state level implementation of
the Strategic Prevention Framework:

+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| **Framework | **State Level Activities**                             |
| Steps**     |                                                        |
+=============+========================================================+
| Needs       | -   Establishment of the State Epidemiological and     |
| Assessment  |     Outcomes Workgroup                                 |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Future publication and dissemination of state data |
|             |     briefs                                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Development of an online database to facilitate    |
|             |     state and local needs assessment activities        |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Centralization, geo-mapping and analysis of        |
|             |     health, transportation, public safety, human       |
|             |     services and other longitudinal data               |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Centralization and geo-mapping of public funds     |
|             |     allocated to health, transportation, public        |
|             |     safety, human services-related prevention          |
|             |     activities                                         |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Gap analysis in resource allocation based on       |
|             |     indicated needs                                    |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Establishment of a state school survey to obtain   |
|             |     state estimates about youth health behaviors and   |
|             |     attitudes                                          |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Capacity    | -   Formation of a statewide prevention leadership     |
| Building    |     advisory group (the CPPAC)                         |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Establishment of a Underage Drinking Prevention    |
|             |     and Reduction Workgroup                            |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Sponsorship of regional prevention summits         |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Development of an interdisciplinary prevention     |
|             |     curriculum for technical assistance and service    |
|             |     providers                                          |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Strategic   | -   Development and monitoring of a State Strategic    |
| Planning    |     Plan for prevention infrastructure development and |
|             |     the reduction of substance abuse-related problems  |
|             |     in Colorado                                        |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Imp         | -   Funding, technical assistance and other support    |
| lementation |     for target communities, selected based on          |
|             |     epidemiological data on substance abuse and        |
|             |     related issues                                     |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Evaluation  | -   Development and implementation of the Colorado KIT |
| and         |     evaluation system to assess and monitor the        |
| Monitoring  |     effectiveness of prevention coalitions, programs   |
|             |     and services                                       |
|             |                                                        |
|             | -   Evaluation of Colorado's implementation of the     |
|             |     Strategic Prevention Framework and its outcomes:   |
|             |                                                        |
|             |     -   Federal cross-site                             |
|             |                                                        |
|             |     -   State level                                    |
|             |                                                        |
|             |     -   Community-level                                |
+-------------+--------------------------------------------------------+

**[[Community Level Implementation of the Strategic Prevention
Framework]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

At the community level, implementation of the Strategic Prevention
Framework will include the following activities and anticipated
timeline:

+-------------+---------------------------------------------+---------+
| **Framework | **Community Level Activities**              | **Grant |
| Steps**     |                                             | Years** |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------+---------+
| Needs       | Examine state, regional and county data in  | Year 1  |
| Assessment  | ASPIRE.                                     |         |
|             |                                             | Years   |
|             | Collect local data that supports more       | 1-2     |
|             | in-depth learning about substance           |         |
|             | abuse-related issues, including underage    | Years   |
|             | drinking                                    | 2-4     |
|             |                                             |         |
|             | Conduct school survey(s) to learn about and |         |
|             | monitor youth issues                        |         |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------+---------+
| Capacity    | Assess, monitor and build Community         | Years   |
| Building    | Coalition & PPB readiness to implement the  | 1-4     |
|             | SPF                                         |         |
|             |                                             | Years   |
|             | Assess, monitor and build community         | 2-4     |
|             | readiness to implement the SPF              |         |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------+---------+
| Strategic   | Develop a strategic plan in ASPIRE that     | Year 2  |
| Planning    | responds to the needs and resources         |         |
|             | identified in your community.               |         |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------+---------+
| Imp         | Coalition/PPB implement the community       | Years   |
| lementation | strategic plan to build local prevention    | 3-4     |
|             | infrastructure and address local substance  |         |
|             | abuse related problems                      |         |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------+---------+
| Evaluation  | Participate in federal cross-site and state | Years   |
| and         | evaluation activities                       | 1-4     |
| Monitoring  |                                             |         |
|             | Implement school survey to evaluate changes | Years   |
|             | in the National Outcome Measures over time. | 2-4     |
|             |                                             |         |
|             | Implement use of the Colorado KIT system to | Years   |
|             | evaluate and monitor Coalition/PPB          | 3-4     |
|             | activities and prevention services          |         |
|             |                                             |         |
|             | Implement other local evaluation activities |         |
|             | to supplement evaluation data collected by  |         |
|             | the state                                   |         |
+-------------+---------------------------------------------+---------+

Appendix E

Guiding Principles for Prevention/Intervention Programs

###### Funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration (SAMHSA), **Center**

for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)

1.  [Prevention is an ordered set of steps along a continuum to promote
    individual, family and community health, prevent mental and
    behavioral disorders, support resilience and recovery and prevent
    relapse.]{.underline} Prevention activities range from deterring
    diseases and behaviors that contribute to them, to delaying the
    onset of disease and mitigating the severity of symptoms, to
    reducing the related problems in communities. This is based on the
    Institute of Medicine model that recognizes the importance of a
    whole system of interventions.

2.  [Prevention is prevention is prevention.]{.underline} That is, the
    common components of effective prevention for the individual, family
    or community within the public health model are the same---whether
    the focus is on preventing or reducing the effects of cancer,
    cardiovascular disease, diabetes, substance abuse or mental illness.

3.  [Common risk and protective factors exist for many substance abuse
    and mental health problems. Good prevention focuses on these common
    risk factors that can be altered.]{.underline} For example, family
    conflict, low school readiness, and poor social skills increase the
    risk for conduct disorders and depression, which in turn increase
    the risk of adolescent substance abuse, delinquency and violence.
    Protective factors such as strong family bonds, social skills, and
    opportunities for success and involvement in community activities
    can foster resilience and mitigate the influence of risk factors.
    Risk and protective factors exist in the individual, the family, the
    community and the broader environment.

4.  [Resilience is built by developing assets in individuals, families
    and communities through evidence-based health promotion and
    prevention strategies.]{.underline} For example, youth who have
    relationships with caring adults, good schools and safe communities
    develop optimism, good problem-solving skills and other assets that
    enable them to rebound from adversity and go on with life with a
    sense of mastery, competence and hope.

5.  [Systems of prevention services work better than service
    silos]{.underline}. Working together, researchers and communities
    have produced a number of highly effective prevention strategies and
    programs. Implementing these strategies within a broader system of
    services increases the likelihood of successful, sustained
    prevention activities. Collaborative partnerships enable communities
    to leverage scarce resources and make prevention everybody's
    business. National prevention efforts are more likely to succeed if
    partnerships with States, communities and practitioners focus on
    building capacity to plan, implement, monitor, evaluate and sustain
    effective prevention.

\* Strategic Prevention Framework, State Incentive Grant Request for
Proposal, 2004

Appendix F

Definition of Evidence-Based

(Quoted from SAMHSA's SPF SIG Project Officer, October 19, 2005)

CSAP's Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG)
Program requires States to select and implement "evidence-based"
prevention interventions to address identified State and community
problems and needs.

For purposes of securing funding under the SPF/SIG, CSAP defines the
term "evidence -based" to include those interventions that fall within
one of the following three categories:

-   "Appearing on a Federal List" of evidence-based programs and
    practices;

-   "Appearing in a peer reviewed journal" with positive results
    documenting effectiveness; or

-   Demonstrating "documented effectiveness".

CSAP has commissioned an Expert Workgroup to develop recommendations
about the types of evidence to be required, and guidelines to be used by
States to determine whether the evidence provided in support of a
particular prevention intervention is acceptable and sufficient to
qualify that intervention for funding under the SPF SIG requirement.

CSAP's expects to receive a draft of these recommendations from the
Expert Workgroup by late November 2006 and hopes to provide a draft of
these guidelines to the States in December 2006.

###### APPENDIX G

> **[Regional]{.smallcaps}**
>
> **[Prevention Services]{.smallcaps}**

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="1.30625in"
height="0.49722222222222223in"}![](media/image9.jpeg){width="0.7798611111111111in"
height="0.3486111111111111in"}![](media/image10.png){width="2.0625in"
height="1.426388888888889in"}

**Region 1**

*Jodi Radke*

504 W Eisenhower Blvd.

Suite 201, Box 1

Loveland, CO 80537

970-278-4091

970-214-4808 (cell)

970-278-4091 (fax)

E-mail: jradke@omni.org

**Region 2**

# Amy Swiatek

*[Office physical address]{.underline}:*

899 Logan Street, Suite 109

Denver

*[Office mailing address]{.underline}:*

OMNI

899 South Logan St, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80203

303-839-942 ext. 15

303-229-9193 (cell)

303-839-9420 (fax)

Email: aswiatek@omni.org

**Region 3**

# Lucia Hand

134 F Street, Suite 208A

Salida, CO 81201

719-539-2434

303-547-2604 (cell)

E-mail: lhand@omni.org

# **Region 4**

# Valarie Ruybal

641 East Northern Avenue

Pueblo, CO 81006

719-546-1630

719-251-4820 (cell)

719-546-1837 (fax)

Email: <vruybal@omni.org>

**Region 5**

**TBA**

**Region 6**

# Jill Havens

C/o WCAHEC

592 32 Road

Clifton, CO 81520

970-434-5474 ext. 107

970-261-6951 (cell)

970 434-9212 (fax)

E-mail: jhavens@omni.org

# 

**RPS TGYS Specialist**\
(Tony Grampsas Youth Services)

# Michelle Von Fange

*[Office physical address]{.underline}:*

899 Logan Street, Suite 109

Denver

*[Office mailing address]{.underline}:*

OMNI

899 South Logan St, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80203

303-839-9422, ext. 18\
719-640-6943 (cell)

303-839-9420 (fax)\
Email: mvonfange@omni.org

**Project Director**

# Carole Broderick

899 South Logan St, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80203

303-839-9422 ext. 30

303-319-8712 (cell)

303-839-9420 (fax)

Email: cbroderick@omni.org

**Project Manager**

# Ailala Kay Trujillo

*[Office physical address]{.underline}:*

899 Logan Street, Suite 109

Denver

*[Office mailing address]{.underline}:*

OMNI

899 South Logan St, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80203

303-839-9422 ext. 23

303-956-3019 (cell)

303-839-9420 (fax)

Email: atrujillo@omni.org

**Project Assistant**

# Gabriel Ratliff

899 Logan St, Suite 600

303-839-9422 x28

303-882-1476 (cell)

303-839-9420 (fax)

Email: <gratliff@omni.org>

###### Regional Prevention Services Project Map

###### ![](media/image11.jpeg){width="8.390972222222222in" height="5.998611111111111in"} 

###### Appendix H

![](media/image12.wmf)Uniform Minimum Standards for Prevention and

Early Intervention Programs

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #1**: **Clear Statement of Problem/Issue(s) to be  |
| Addressed.**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| The program/project identifies the specific problem/issue(s) to be    |
| addressed, and describes a population or geographic area where the    |
| problem/issue exists. Estimates of the extent and nature of the       |
| problem in the population or geographic area to be served are based   |
| on relevant existing local, regional, state or national data (e.g.    |
| data from health, human services, education, law enforcement          |
| agencies, relevant studies or program data).                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #2: Focus on Contributing Factors.**               |
|                                                                       |
| The program/project specifies risk factors known to contribute to the |
| problem and/or protective factors known to prevent or reduce the      |
| problem/issue(s) identified; and focuses its resources on changing    |
| these risk and/or protective factors. If specific risk and protective |
| factors related to the problem have not been identified in the        |
| literature, the program/project provides a clear rationale for the    |
| program focus, based on relevant prevention/intervention or           |
| child/youth development principles, theories or frameworks.           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #3**: **Intended Outcomes Specified.**             |
|                                                                       |
| The program/project specifies one or more measurable outcomes it      |
| intends to achieve as a result of the prevention and intervention     |
| program/services to be provided. These intended outcomes are related  |
| to changing factors contributing to the problem, or factors           |
| contributing to the prevention or reduction of the problem. The       |
| intended outcomes specify the changes in knowledge,                   |
| attitudes/beliefs, skills, behaviors, obstacles/enabling factors in   |
| the physical or social environment and/or changes in the physical or  |
| emotional health status, educational achievement or well-being of the |
| individual, group or community being served.                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #4:** **Evidence-Based Programs/ Services**.       |
|                                                                       |
| The program/project provides prevention or intervention services that |
| have been previously implemented in one or more communities with      |
| demonstrated success in achieving the intended results, or that       |
| otherwise demonstrate a reasonable potential for success based on     |
| research, sound prevention/intervention principles or relevant        |
| theory.                                                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #5: Services and Target Population Specified.**    |
|                                                                       |
| The program/project specifies the amount and type of services to be   |
| provided, and the proposed number of individuals, groups or the       |
| target population that will receive or benefit from the various       |
| program activities/services.                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #6: Evaluation.**                                  |
|                                                                       |
| \(a\) The program/project systematically documents and is able to     |
| provide data regarding services provided/activities carried out and   |
| the number of individuals, groups and/or target population(s)         |
| receiving the services or benefiting from program activities; and (b) |
| the program/project systematically documents changes occurring as a   |
| result of the program services and activities provided; and is able   |
| to provide evidence of progress in meeting one or more of its         |
| intended outcomes.                                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #7:** **Agency Capacity**                          |
|                                                                       |
| \(a\) Staff carrying out the program/project are trained in the       |
| specific program, services or model that they will be implementing;   |
| or they have at least two years prior experience in the successful    |
| implementation of similar prevention or intervention programs,        |
| practices and/or policies; and (b) The agency maintains records of    |
| revenues and expenditures by funding source, and can produce          |
| verification of expenses upon request. An independent review of the   |
| fiscal records/practices is conducted periodically, but no less       |
| frequently than annually.                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Minimum Standard #8: Collaboration.**                               |
|                                                                       |
| The program/project regularly exchanges information with other        |
| public, private and non-profit prevention, intervention programs at   |
| the state, regional or local level (e.g. faith-based organizations,   |
| health, law enforcement, human service agencies, or other units of    |
| government) for the purposes of resource sharing, coordination of     |
| efforts, case management and to avoid duplication of services.        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+