Lynn Videka
University at Albany-State University of New York
135 Western Ave.
SSW-RI 202
Albany NY 12222
USA
Phone: 518-442-5351
FAX: 518-442-5380
Email: lvideka@albany.edu
Lucy Newman
University at Albany-State University of New York
135 Western Ave.
Albany NY 12222
USA
Phone: 518-442-5759
FAX: 518-442-5380
Email: LucyN@pdp.albany.edu
Matthew Corrigan
University at Albany-State University of New York
135 Western Ave.
Albany NY 12222
USA
Phone: 518-442-5759
FAX: 518-442-5380
EMail: mc3101@albany.edu
Student Assistance Programs: Statewide Implementation
Lucy Newman, Barry Loneck
Penetration of Evidence-Based Substance Abuse Prevention Services
in One State: How Policy Affects Practice
Matthew Corrigan
Record Review of Student Assistance Programs: Who is Served
and What are the Benefits?
Lynn Videka, Lucy Newman
There is substantial scientific evidence supporting classroom-based
prevention for substance abuse among youth. These programs are best
suited for elementary and middle school students, before rates of substance
use increase during adolescence. Although there is a less evidence
supporting substance abuse prevention during the high school years, especially
for nondelinquent youth, the Student Assistance Program (SAP) (Morehouse
and Tobler, 2001; Morehouse and Tobler, 2002; SAMHSA, 2003), based on the
adult employee assistance approach, has been cited by the Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention as a scientifically based approach with evidence of effectiveness.
Recent foci in prevention science have emphasized the importance of
the translation of scientific evidence into practice and the study of implementation
of scientifically based programs (Bridging Science and Service, 2001; Orwin,
2000). Three posters present findings from a descriptive study of
Student Assistance Programs across one northeastern state.
The posters present findings from a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology that assesses the state of practice of Student Assistance Programs across one state. A survey of the 258 programs describes the range of prevention activities in each school district and the place of Student Assistance Programs in them. A second poster presents survey findings regarding the staffing, practices and students served in student assistance programs augmented by interview and focus groups with multiple stakeholders in 14 sites. This poster describes the Student Assistance Programs in depth and provides the basis for conclusions regarding the implementation of the SAP model. A third poster is based on a secondary analysis of case records and provides a profile of students served and outcomes that are targeted by the program. Each includes a discussion of implications for policy makers and practitioners for improving implementation of scientifically based practice approaches.
Methods: Best practices and program effectiveness were identified through a review of the literature that included searches on eight scholarly databases and reviews of the tables of contents of fifteen relevant journals. Program characteristics were identified through a statewide survey of SAPs (response rate= 53%; n=137). In depth descriptions of programs were obtained through focus groups and informant interviews of program administrators, prevention counselors, and school personnel in fourteen site visits across New York State.
Results: The literature review identified two primary SAP models. The Core Team Model uses school personnel to identify and refer at-risk students. The Counselor Model uses MSWs to provide counseling to students. Research better supports the Counselor Model, but studies of the Core Team approach are limited. Survey results indicated that 77% of the programs employ full time counselors, with either a bachelors (40%) or masters (37%) degree. Programs focused on critical risk (e.g., low school commitment) and protective (e.g., social skills) factors. Site visits indicated an emphasis on counselor-client relationships, rather than the specific SAP evidence-based model. Programs are successful in engaging at-risk youth and are highly valued in schools.
Implications: SAPs could benefit by better fidelity in implementation although research has demonstrated the importance of a strong working alliance in other venues. Methodological rigor and attention to fidelity in future research is warranted.
Methods: A survey was mailed to a statewide, saturated sample of 258 substance abuse prevention providers. 137 completed surveys were returned, for a response rate of 53%. Descriptive analyses of the range of prevention activities, the number of students served, and the use of evidence versus non-evidence based approaches were conducted.
Results: All respondents reported use of the risk and protective factors model. Staff provided classroom presentations (23%), counseling (18%) and discussion groups (9%), and 11 other activities. Most classroom-based programs are presented at the elementary and middle school/junior high levels. Sixty-six percent of programs provided Student Assistance Program (SAP) services.
Implications for Practice: Prevention providers in this state regularly use evidence based epidemiological thinking in terms of the risk and protective factor framework. Most programs provide SAP services. It is typical to provide SAP services along with evidence-based classroom prevention curricula. There is good penetration of the logic of evidence-based prevention in this state. Most programs are multi-modal, employing several services to reach distinct student populations. Findings suggest that clear state policies promoting evidence-based programs positively affect their use in practice.
Methods: Researchers collected prospective, counselor-recorded data from 407 case records in 12 high schools in urban and rural areas across the state from the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 academic years. Data elements were systematic and available across sites because the funding agency required structured, systematic records. Descriptive and cluster analysis techniques created typologies of students served and outcomes achieved.
Results: Students reported a mean age of 15.5 years. Of students in the sample, 64% were female and 19% were ethnic minorities, an under-representation of minority students in the state. Students were typically school (45%) or self (37%) referred. Sixty percent were referred for mental health, substance experimentation or school behavioral problems, 22% for family problems and 18% for school failure or nonattendance. Only 51% received the full amount of recommended services (group or individual counseling). Targeted outcomes included substance use, behavior, school attendance, and family problems. Most improvement was reported in behavior change and reduced substance use. School attendance and family problems were least improved.
Implications for Practice: SAP counselors focus on early drug use and behavioral problems including depression and aggression, but do not provide family counseling. This results in differential effectiveness. Systematic measurement of SAP outcomes is achievable in the field setting. However, program fidelity should be improved before effectiveness studies are undertaken. Several innovative program ideas such as modified motivational interviewing and family-based interventions should be developed to improve program retention and family outcomes.