Selecting the Reporting Period

QUESTION

One of our Community Partners opened the CLI Part I to begin data entry and tried to select the correct reporting period, but the drop-down list only displayed the previous reporting period (and not the current period). What should they do?

ANSWER

If a Community Partner‘s CLI for the previous period was not submitted to and accepted by the grantee, the previous reporting period will remain the only period accessible to the Community Partner. If the Community Partner did enter data for the previous reporting period, the grantee should determine whether the CLI was never submitted to the grantee, or whether the Community Partner submitted to the grantee but the grantee did not yet accept the submission. If a Community Partner was delinquent in entering their data for the previous reporting period, they will need to first enter their data for the previous period and submit the CLI before they will be able to access the CLI for the current period.

It is possible that a Community Partner was correct in not submitting data— for example, the Community Partner was just selected/funded during the current period and therefore would not have submitted a CLI Part I for the previous period. In these cases, the grantee should email DITIC Support (DiticSupport@kitsolutions.net) to let them know that the record for the previous reporting period needs to be removed. Once DITIC has removed the previous reporting period, the Community Partner should be able to access the current period.

See: CLI Part I Item 6



Time period

(with reference to Item 16)

QUESTION
Our Community Partners started working on assessment, data collection, and capacity development prior to receiving funding at the local level. The state provided technical assistance to help them begin implementing the SPF steps, but direct funding to Community Partners did not occur until later. In the CLI Part I, should Community Partners only report activities that began after they received funding?

ANSWER
No. The Community Partners should report on SPF SIG work that they conducted since the time of the grantee award, rather than since the time of the Community Partners' funding. We are aware that in some instances, Community Partner SPF implementation began prior to the date that Community Partner began receiving funds (reported in Item 16).



Items 2336

QUESTION
When a Community Partner is partnering with 2 coalitions, how should they record responses about the 2 different coalitions in questions 23–26?

ANSWER
If one of the 2 coalitions is more primary or more central to the efforts of the Community Partner, then the Community Partner should focus on this coalition.

If neither coalition is more central to the Community Partner ‘s efforts, then the Community Partner should report across the 2 coalitions. First, in question 23 the Community Partner should indicate in the text field that they are reporting on 2 different coalition partners. In questions 24–32, the Community Partner should report coalition functioning on average across the 2 coalitions. For question 33 (the date the coalition was established), we would like the Community Partner to enter the date the oldest of the 2 coalitions was established. In questions 34–36, the Community Partner should report an average across the 2 coalitions.



Items 24 - 32

QUESTION
Our Community Partner communities are community coalitions. One of the coalitions in the early stage of development has asked which response option is appropriate for Questions 24-32 given that they are not able to respond to the question/provide the information yet. It seems that the --We are partnering with the coalition and don‘t have enough information to answer option may be the best fit (even though the community is a coalition, rather than partnering with one). What would you recommend in this situation?

ANSWER
Our preference would be that the coalition not use the --We are partnering with the coalition . . . option. Using the --Neither agree nor disagree option would be a better choice if they are not far enough along to know the answer to any of items 24-32.

Our analysis team is cognizant of the fact that low ratings across these coalition items may indicate an early stage of development at the time of reporting rather than low coalition functioning. They will consider item 33 (month/year coalition was established) as well as the date the Community Partner was funded when analyzing responses for the CLI I reporting period. For such coalitions, responses to these items at subsequent CLI I submissions may show a change as they progress to a later stage of development. Finally, it is always useful to us if the coalition would like to provide a comment in the open text field at the end the CLI I (item 178) explaining anything such as this that is relevant to interpreting their responses.



Item 36

QUESTION
Can a single individual represent multiple agencies or sectors within a coalition? We are not referring to cases in which someone from an agency also happens to be a parent, but the case in which a single individual really does represent more than one sector. We weren't sure because in that case, there could be more sectors represented than there are members on the coalition.

ANSWER
Yes, it is possible for this item that a single individual could represent more than one sector within the coalition, resulting in having more sectors represented than there are coalition members.



Items 38 - 41

QUESTION
We are a tribal grantee and these questions do not seem to fit our situation as our target population consists of only American Indians/Alaska Natives. Cultural appropriateness and relevancy underlie everything we do but our ways are not codified into formal written policies and practices. How should we respond to these questions? We do not want to appear insensitive to cultural competency when in fact we take culture very seriously.

ANSWER
We recognize that these questions do not adequately capture the manner in which tribal grantees might address cultural responsiveness in their organizations and communities. Please respond to the questions as written with the understanding that the questions do not capture the varied culturally responsive approaches of tribal and jurisdiction grantees, and may omit such approaches for some state grantees as well. We welcome a qualitative description of how you address cultural factors and invite you to use the open text field in item 178 to provide us with more detailed information.



Item 54

QUESTION
On the CLI Part I, question 54, the example given in the question guide for "pregnant Latina women" is a little confusing. It sounds as if a community targeting "pregnant Hispanic women" should select both "Pregnant Women" and "Hispanic" on this question instead of writing "pregnant Latina women" under "Other." Is that correct?

ANSWER
You are understanding correctly that the intent is to use existing categories rather than ?Other even if the actual target population is a combination of 2 existing categories.



Items 66 - 67

QUESTION
For CLI Part I, question 66–67, we have several questions:
1. Question 66 asks if the Community Partner has "identified" key stakeholders to participate. Is it enough that partners may have been identified, even if they have not yet been contacted or participated in the project?
2. The subheading for this section is Relationship Building. Does it count as relationship building if the Community Partner is partnering with a pre-existing coalition?
3. If a stakeholder organization is participating in the Community Partner community coalition (as indicated in the answer to question 36), is that enough of a relationship to say that the Community Partner has partnered with them (item 67)?

ANSWER
1. Yes, if the Community Partner has identified stakeholders but has not yet partnered with them, they may answer ?yes to Item 66. However, in Item 67, the Community Partner should only include those organizations with which they have actually begun partnering during the reporting period.
2. Yes, this would count.
3. Yes, if an organization is participating in the Community Partner community coalition, the Community Partner can list them as a partnering organization in Item 67.



Item 72

QUESTION
In item 72, would Community Partner s include any groups that may have provided some input? Or are you really looking for those groups who actually worked to develop this plan?

ANSWER
We are looking for those people or groups that were actually involved in developing and writing the strategic plan.



Section 5D: Items 77 - 163

QUESTION
For Section 5D on the CLI Part I, we are assuming that interventions refers only to SPF funded interventions, not all prevention interventions in the community. Is that correct?

ANSWER
Not quite. While it is true that all existing prevention interventions occurring in the community would not be included in the CLI Part I, it is not necessarily true that the interventions in the CLI Part I would be exclusively those funded by SPF. Rather, the interventions and strategies listed in CLI Part I (and in the CLI Part II subforms) should be those that were selected on the community‘s SPF strategic plan as the result of the assessment steps identifying community needs and resource gaps. It is possible that a strategy could be selected through the SPF process, but the community has identified a way to supplant or supplement SPF funding for the strategy with external funds. This strategy would be included in the CLI.



Items 79a - l

QUESTION
For CLI question 79a-l, there is an option for "Not applicable. This type of policy was in place prior to receipt of SPF SIG funding." We wondered what to do in the situation where the policy was in place prior to receipt of SPF SIG funding, but would not have been selected for SPF SIG because it wasn't applicable to the community's priorities and goals. Would the community select "No" or "Not applicable—policy already in place?"

ANSWER
In this instance, the Community Partner should select ?Not applicable. This type of policy was in place prior to receipt of SPF SIG funding."



Items 130, 132, 134, and 137

QUESTION
Questions 130, 132, and 134 ask about the number of television, radio, and print ads that were aired or published as part of a social marketing campaign. Should Community Partners report the number of different ads or the number of times an ad aired or was published? For example if they aired 5 different ad messages, would the total number be 5 or would it be the total number of times the ad appeared on the radio or in the newspaper?

Question 137 asks about the number of promotional items (e.g., brochures, posters, DVD‘s) distributed as part of the campaign. Should Community Partners report the number of different types of items distributed (brochure, posters, DVD with total being 3) or the total number of items actually distributed? For example if they created and distributed a brochure, a poster, and a DVD, would the total number be 3 or would it be 500 brochures plus 50 posters plus 100 DVD's for a total of 650 items distributed?

ANSWER
For each of the 4 items you ask about, the cross-site evaluation is retaining the intent carried over from Cohorts 1 and 2. For questions 130, 132, and 134, the intent is to capture the number of different ads rather than the number of times aired. In the example provided, the appropriate response would be 5.

On the other hand, for question 137, the intent is to report the number handed out rather than the number of different types of items. In the example provided, the appropriate response would be 650 rather than 3.



Item 163: Capacity Building v Community-Based Process

QUESTION
We are confused about when an activity should be listed as an intervention under the strategy type ?Community-Based Processes? and when it should be just an activity described in the Capacity Building section (Section 5B, questions 59–69). Can you please help us better understand the distinction between what counts as a capacity building activity (and should be put under the capacity section) and what counts as a prevention strategy (and listed for question 163 and a CLI Part II subform)?

ANSWER
The intended distinction is between activities that exclusively build capacity (such as awareness-raising, recruitment, providing information about services) and those that are intended to train individuals to influence substance abuse or to change the ways in which services and programs are provided, change the way the substance abuse prevention system/processes work, etc.

Let's use the example of a community making presentations to PTA meetings. If, for example, the community's strategic plan includes PTA presentations as a method of providing participants with substance abuse prevention skills, then that community may consider this an intervention. On the other hand, if the community group was invited to make the presentations in order to provide information about youth activities occurring through the project, then this would be more of a capacity building activity than an intervention. In other words, it may depend on the project's strategic plan and on the purpose of the activities.



QUESTION
Many of our Community Partners who are targeting prescription drug morbidity and mortality have implemented prescription drug take-back events in their communities. Some of these areas have considered the take-backs as a SPF strategy, which means they had to do a logic model and have a needs assessment that was approved and supported the strategy, etc. Other Community Partners did take-backs but considered them only capacity building activities rather than strategies. Will this matter that some of our areas list take-back events as a strategy and others do not even though they did take-backs as part of SPF capacity building?

ANSWER
It‘s good to know about these differing approaches to similar activities, and we have seen examples like this before. From the cross-site perspective, it is fine if the grantee has approved Community Partners incorporating these activities into their plans (and their CLI‘s) in differing ways.



Item 163: Cultural Competency Trainings

QUESTION
One of our Community Partners conducted a cultural competency training. I‘m assuming that the training is not considered a strategy captured in question 163?

ANSWER
A training on cultural competency itself would not be considered an intervention or strategy unless the focus was on preventing or lowering substance use or substance use-related problems. If the training was conducted to enhance your organization‘s capacity, the Community Partner would indicate this in the Capacity Building section of the CLI (questions 60 & 61).



Item 163: Media Advertising for Strategies

QUESTION
If establishing pill drop-off boxes is the strategy, and they do a media campaign advertising the drop off boxes, is the media campaign considered part of the strategy, or its own strategy?

ANSWER
Media efforts intended to promote or recruit participants for a strategy should be considered part of that strategy rather than a separate strategy.



Item 163: Multiple v Single Strategy Interventions

QUESTION
I know our Community Partner s should only enter data for interventions and strategies that have occurred during this reporting period. Suppose a Community Partner has a multiple-strategy intervention consisting of 2 strategies but has only begun implementing one of the 2 strategies. Should they enter the intervention as a multiple-strategy intervention even though they only currently have one strategy to enter, and then add the other strategy next reporting period? Or should they enter the 2 strategies under this multiple strategy intervention and list the strategy that has not yet been implemented as =complete‘ or =discontinued‘ so that the CLI Part II would not be generated for the one strategy?

ANSWER
The Community Partner should enter the intervention as a multiple-strategy intervention, add the strategy that has begun implementation, and hold off until the next reporting period to add any additional strategies that are implemented later.



Item 163: Strategy Type

QUESTION
What strategy type would you select for a strategy that aims to change the climate or environment within schools? For example, a strategy focused on staff trainings to enhance the interpersonal skills of school personnel (principals to janitors) in hopes of improving the school environment and facilitating student/family bonding to the institution.

ANSWER
From what you have described, the closest match for the strategy would be Environmental Strategy. The strategy does not fit perfectly into any of the strategy types since the intent is to prevent problem behaviors through changing the school environment (standards, codes, and attitudes) and not the broader community environment, but Environmental Strategy is the closest fit. Similarly, efforts to change the school environment through changes in school policy would also fall under Environmental
Strategy.



QUESTION
What strategy type would you select for a strategy to provide training for physicians on prescription narcotic misuse and abuse, doctor shopping, appropriate narcotic prescribing etc., with an aim of reducing prescription drug misuse/abuse?

ANSWER
The closest match for this strategy would be Environmental Strategy. There appears to be a category of strategies that can be considered ?educational training sessions for professionals? in which trainings target those in a position to affect the substance use-related behaviors of individuals in the community. This includes beverage server trainings, law enforcement trainings, and healthcare professional trainings. Similar to beverage servers, physicians are in a position to control access to a substance and enforce policy around its misuse.



Item 163: “Status” Field

QUESTION
In the online instrument, under Q163: Manage Implemented Intervention Strategies, a Community Partner was entering their Underage Drinking Education program, an activity that recurs every year. They were wondering about the --Status options, which are Active, Complete and Discontinued. There‘s no match in the CLI hard copy or QXQ, so I wanted to be sure I was giving theCommunity Partner the right info. I believe since it is recurring, even though completed for the year, it should be considered active. Is this correct?

ANSWER
The strategy --status options serve an important function within the online system: Designation of a strategy as --Active lets the system know that the Community Partner needs to enter CLI Part II data for this strategy during that reporting period. So if the Community Partner has CLI Part II data to enter, they will need to report the status as --Active in order for the system to allow them to enter CLI II data. If, however, in a future reporting period, the Community Partner has no CLI II data to report for that strategy because the strategy was not implemented during that period, then they will need to change the designation to --Complete (or --Discontinued if the strategy has been discarded). In this hypothetical future period, if the status is not changed to --Complete or --Discontinued the system will not allow the Community Partner to submit the CLI Part II, as it will expect them to complete a subform for that strategy. If, in a subsequent reporting period, the Community Partner has new CLI II data to report, he/she will then need to change the status back to --Active again.



Item 163: Deleting Incorrect Interventions/Strategies

QUESTION
When we began reviewing the CLI‘s submitted to us by our Community Partners, we found that a Community Partner misunderstood what should be entered in Q163 for interventions and strategies. Instead of entering their overall interventions, they entered every single activity they conducted— every meeting, presentation, event, etc.—as a separate intervention. Because they added strategies for each ?intervention they now can‘t delete these incorrect entries from the system in order to start over. What should they do?

ANSWER
This misunderstanding does occasionally occur when Community Partners begin entering CLI data; for this reason we have found it advisable for grantee evaluators to work closely with Community Partners to identify their interventions/strategies and strategy types before they begin data entry. Interventions/strategies should, of course, be consistent with the Community Partner‘s strategic plan and logic model.

If the Community Partner has entered only CLI Part I data, they must first delete any strategies connected to the intervention and then they will be able to delete the intervention. If the Community Partner has already entered CLI Part II data for the strategy, they must first go to the CLI Part II, delete any demographic records for the strategy, and then delete the subform for the strategy. Now they can return to CLI Part I, delete any strategies connected to the intervention, and then delete the intervention.



Item 177

QUESTION
Would the response option --Participant Recruitment include recruitment of coalition members or only recruitment for interventions?

ANSWER
The intent of this response option is recruitment of participants for strategies/interventions. Technical assistance in recruitment of coalition members should be placed under --Other.



QUESTION
We are a tribal grantee and have at times invited community-level staff to participate in trainings provided to us by CAPT. Should this be included as technical assistance provided to the community in question 177 of the CLI Part I?

ANSWER
Only training or technical assistance paid for through grantee SPF SIG funds should be included in item 177 of the CLI. Training or technical assistance provided by external funds (e.g., CAPT, NACE) are not included in the CLI.