Table 2.
Descriptive statistics on the hypothesized factors by program sustainment status
| Characteristics | Non-sustainers | Sustainers |
|---|---|---|
| (n = 22) | (n = 46) | |
| M (SD)/% | M (SD)/% | |
| Setting | ||
| Organizational focus (% substance use) | 22.73 | 67.39 |
| No. of services offered | 11.91 (3.04) | 12.24 (2.5) |
| Communications | 23.95 (4.47) | 22.95 (7.61) |
| Funding stability | 13.24 (3.67) | 19.12 (6.51) |
| Organizational capacity | 26.37 (6.06) | 24.73 (6.46) |
| Partnerships | 19.88 (6.84) | 21.41 (6.73) |
| Political support | 21.87 (6.06) | 23.63 (5.97) |
| Program adaptation | 28.30 (3.81) | 26.27 (4.95) |
| Program evaluation | 27.61 (4.23) | 26.45 (5.19) |
| Strategic planning | 20.37 (5.03) | 22.03 (6.86) |
| Implementation | ||
| No. of clinicians certified/employed at grant end | 1.36 (1.26) | 2.44 (1.51) |
| No. of supervisors certified/employed at grant end | 0.91 (0.87) | 0.91 (0.72) |
| No. of youth served during grant period | 91.82 (48.28) | 128.8 (100.9) |
| Intervention | ||
| Complexity | 7.77 (2.41) | 5.78 (1.95) |
| Implementation difficulty | 16.27 (3.12) | 14.85 (2.84) |
| Perceived success | 20.83 (3.90) | 20.51 (2.90) |
| Relative advantage | 15.86 (3.65) | 16.33 (1.93) |