A mixed-method exploration of functioning in Safe Schools/Healthy Students partnerships.

This paper presents a mixed-method approach to measuring the functioning of Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative partnerships. The SS/HS national evaluation team developed a survey to collect partners' perceptions of functioning within SS/HS partnerships. Average partnership functioning scores were used to rank each site from lowest to highest.

An introduction to the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative.

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative offers a unique opportunity to conduct large-scale, multisite, multilevel program evaluation in the context of a federal environment that places many requirements and constraints on how the grants are conducted and managed. Federal programs stress performance-based outcomes, valid and reliable data, addressing important problems, ensuring efficiency and fiscal responsibility, reducing burden on federal staff and grantees, and developing and disseminating useful solutions and recommendations. MANILA Consulting Group, Inc.

Correlates of perceived effectiveness of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative.

A three-level growth-curve model was applied to estimate perceived impact growth trajectories, using multi-year data from project and school surveys on outcome and program implementation collected from 59 sites and approximately 1165 participating schools in the Safe Schools and Healthy Students Initiative. Primary interest is to determine whether and how project-level and school-level correlates affect schools' perceptions of the Initiative's effectiveness over time when the effects of the pre-grant environmental conditions, grant operations, and near-term outcomes are considered. Coordination and service integration, comprehensive programs and activities for early childhood development, and change in school involvement were found to be significant predictors of school-perceived overall impact when the effect of poverty was considered.

Evaluation of a complex, multisite, multilevel grants initiative.

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) national evaluation seeks to assess both the implementation process and the results of the SS/HS initiative, exploring factors that have contributed to or detracted from grantee success. Each site is required to forge partnerships with representatives from education, mental health, juvenile justice, and law enforcement, coordinating and integrating their efforts and working together to contribute to comparable outcomes (e.g.

A national evaluation of Safe Schools/Healthy Students: outcomes and influences.

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative has awarded over $2 billion in grants to more than 350 school districts in partnership with local mental health, law enforcement, and juvenile justice agencies. To estimate the impact of grantee characteristics, grant operations, and near-term outcomes in reducing violence and substance use, promoting mental health, and enhancing school safety, logged odds ratios (LORs) were calculated contrasting Year 3 with Baseline performance from grantee-provided data on seven outcome measures. After comparing grantee performance across outcomes and outcomes across grantees, the LORs were entered as dependent variables in a series of meta-regressions in which grantee characteristics, grant operations, and near-term outcomes were tested after controlling for pre-grant characteristics.

Consumer-Operated Service Programs: monetary and donated costs and cost-effectiveness.

Objective: Examine cost differences between Consumer Operated Service Programs (COSPs) as possibly determined by a) size of program, b) use of volunteers and other donated resources, c) cost-of-living differences between program locales, d) COSP model applied, and e) delivery system used to implement the COSP model.

Methods: As part of a larger evaluation of COSP, data on operating costs, enrollments, and mobilization of donated resources were collected for eight programs representing three COSP models (drop-in centers, mutual support, and education/advocacy training). Because the 8 programs were operated in geographically diverse areas of the US, costs were examined with and without adjustment for differences in local cost of living.