Assessing state substance abuse prevention infrastructure through the lens of CSAP's Strategic Prevention Framework

Although the organizational structures and operating procedures of state substance abuse prevention systems vary substantially across states, there is scant empirical research regarding approaches for rigorous assessment of system attributes and which attributes are most conducive to overall effectiveness. As one component of the national cross-site evaluation of the SPF State Incentive Grant Program (SPF SIG), an instrument was developed to assess state substance abuse prevention system infrastructure in order to measure infrastructure change and examine the role of state infrastructure in achieving prevention-related outcomes. In this paper we describe the development of this instrument and summarize findings from its baseline administration. As expected, states and territories were found to vary substantially with respect seven key characteristics, or domains, of state prevention infrastructure. Across the six domains that were assessed using numeric ratings, states scored highest on data systems and lowest on strategic planning. Positive intercorrelations were observed among these domains, indicating that states with high capacity on one domain generally have relatively high capacity on other domains as well. The findings also suggest that state prevention infrastructure development is linked to both funding from state government and the presence of a state interagency coordinating body with decision-making authority. The methodology and baseline findings presented will be used to inform the ongoing national cross-site evaluation of the SPF SIG and may provide useful information to guide further research on state substance abuse prevention infrastructure.     

Strength in Diversity? Group Heterogeneity in the Mobilization of Grassroots Organizations

Grassroots groups often find that they need to manage issues of diversity along racial/ethnic, class, gender, religious, and/or citizenship lines, among several other axes of difference. There are strong reasons to expect that diversity is a benefit to such groups, especially in terms of coalition breadth and the widely held expectation that internal heterogeneity helps organizations to resolve collective action dilemmas. Nonetheless, a long tradition within sociological research sets out the expectation that group heterogeneity thwarts the formation of collective identities and group solidarity, and therefore limits the potential for effective organizing. With a particular emphasis on groups active in local community‐based organizing since the 1970s, we review studies on a variety of features of group diversity and their effects on mobilizing processes. We find that although researchers remain somewhat divided on these critical issues, the preponderance of evidence suggests that managing diversity poses significant challenges for grassroots organizing efforts. While these challenges may not easily be overcome, we point to a variety of cases in which group differences offered a significant asset to social change efforts.     

Bidirectional Relations Between Authoritative Parenting and Adolescents’ Prosocial Behaviors

This study examined the bidirectional relations between authoritative parenting and adolescents’ prosocial behavior over a 1‐year time period. Data were taken from Time 2 and 3 of the Flourishing Families Project, and included reports from 319 two‐parent families with an adolescent child (M age of child at Time 2 = 12.34, SD = 1.06, 52% girls). Cross‐lag analyses supported bidirectional relations between parenting and prosocial behavior with particular emphasis on the role of the adolescents’ prosocial behavior on subsequent parenting. Results also varied as a function of the reporter. Discussion focuses on the implications for understanding the multifaceted nature of prosocial development in adolescence.     

Improving Expatriation Success: The Roles of Regulatory Focus and Burnout

The study empirically and theoretically contributes to the human resource management discipline by developing and testing a cohesive model drawing on the pertinent literature from expatriate management, burnout and regulatory focus theory. Drawing on data from 233 expatriate managers, the study aims to examine the relationships between expatriate adjustment and the outcomes of job satisfaction and withdrawal cognitions via expatriate burnout. Specifically, the findings reveal that (a) higher levels of both work adjustment and interaction adjustment lead to reduced expatriate burnout, with the former having a greater effect on burnout than the latter; (b) burnout serves as a full mediator between work adjustment and withdrawal cognitions, and a partial mediator between work adjustment and job satisfaction; and (c) regulatory focus serves to moderate expatriate adjustment–outcome consequences, i.e. promotion‐focused (as opposed to prevention‐focused) expatriates demonstrate a stronger burnout–job satisfaction relationship. Several implications are extracted from the study for regulatory theory, burnout and expatriation management practices as well as suggested avenues for future research.     

Adolescent Conflict Appraisals Moderate the Link Between Marital Conflict and Physiological Stress Reactivity

The goal of this study was to advance understanding of how adolescent conflict appraisals contribute uniquely, and in combination with interparental conflict behavior, to individual differences in adolescent physiological reactivity. Saliva samples were collected from 153 adolescents (52% female; ages 10–17 years) before and after the Trier Social Stress Test. Saliva was assayed for cortisol and alpha‐amylase. Results revealed interactive effects between marital conflict and conflict appraisals. For youth who appraised parental conflict negatively (particularly as threatening), negative marital conflict predicted dampened reactivity; for youth who appraised parental conflict less negatively, negative marital conflict predicted heightened reactivity. These findings support the notion that the family context and youth appraisals of family relationships are linked with individual differences in biological sensitivity to context.