NOE Instrument Table

Attachment B. NOE Data Collection Instrument Table

National Outcomes Evaluation Data Collection Activities
Instrument	Domains	Data Elements	State/Tribal	Campus	Method
PSI State/Tribal Campus	Program implementation Budget	Different strategies implemented and products distributed Populations of focus for each strategy Total amount of GLS funds Percent funds allocated by activity type	October 2006 – continuing Program evaluation staff All grantees	October 2006 – continuing Program evaluation staff All grantees	Web survey
TASP State/Tribal Campus	Suicide prevention training Trainee and training characteristics	Trainee role/setting Aggregate count of number of trainings Number and roles of training participants Evidence-based programs (curriculum type) Training setting (online/in-person), & ZIP Length of training Booster training, Training of Training Behavioral rehearsal/role play Resources/materials provided	October 2006 – continuing Program staff/evaluator from all grantees	October 2006 – continuing Program staff/evaluator from all grantees	Web survey
TUP-S 3 and 6 Month State/Tribal	Trainee characteristics Training application Identification and referral of youths Self-efficacy to identify and refer youths	Trainee demographics Self-efficacy to identify/refer at-risk youth Awareness/knowledge of risk factors Perceptions of training Intended and applied use of training Identifications/referrals since training Type/source of referral Primary setting to identify youths Use of phone and or online tools/apps—resources/materials provided at training Behavioral rehearsal/role-play Did not refer, provided services directly Previous suicide prevention training Participation in booster training Quality of relationships with youths Prior contact with someone suicidal Sharing information	October 2010 – continuing Random sample of trainees from all States/Tribes Annually 2,000 trainees at 3 months & 600 trainees at 6 months		Phone survey
TUP-S Campus 3 Month Campus	Trainee characteristics Identification and referral of youths Self-efficacy to identify and refer youths	Trainee demographics Self-efficacy to identify/refer at-risk youth Awareness/knowledge of risk factors Perceptions of training Intended and applied use of training Identifications/referrals since training Type/source of referral		January 2014 – OMB Year 1 Random sample of 500 trainees from Cohort 7 and 8 Campus grantees	Phone survey
TUP-S RCT Baseline & 12 Month State/Tribal	Trainee characteristics Training application Identification and referral of youths Self-efficacy to identify and refer youths	Trainee demographics Self-efficacy to identify and refer at-risk populations Awareness/knowledge of risk factors Perceptions of training Intended and applied use of training Identifications and referrals of at-risk populations since training Type/source of referral Primary setting to identify youths Use of phone and or online tools/apps—resources/materials provided at training Behavioral rehearsal/role-play inclusion Previous suicide prevention training Participation in booster training Quality of relationships with youths Prior contact with someone suicidal	Proposed new; expected launch FY2016 Q1 Sample of 10 State/Tribal (cohort 9 and 10) grantees Total of 1,332 participants		Phone survey
EIRF-I State/Tribal	Suicide risk (ideation, attempt) Service referral Service receipt	Individual-level data on youth at risk Demographic of youth Date and setting of identification Confirmation of risk Type of referral	October 2006 – continuing All State/Tribal grantees (for youth identified through GKT or screenings) Program staff/evaluator		Web survey; existing data abstraction
EIRF-S State/Tribal	Characteristics of screening activities Suicide risk (number identified)	Aggregate-level data on number of screenings by grant program Consent information (number distributed, returned, permitted screening) Screening tool used Unduplicated count of youth initially screened positive Number of youth confirmed positive	October 2006 – continuing All State/Tribal grantees State/Tribal grantee staff Mental health providers for referred youth Existing data source abstraction		Web survey
SBHF Data Abstraction Campus	Service utilization Suicide risk	Student use of behavioral health services (including counts of specific services) Campus use of standardized screenings (and screening tool) Linkages to community providers Follow-up support Student suicide attempts & completions		October 2006 – continuing All grantees; one response from each program annually in Spring	Web survey
RNS State/Tribal	Network collaboration and development Continuity of Care	Agency/organization type Services provided Training exposure Assessment of network collaboration Linkages to other agencies Barriers and facilitators to collaboration	October 2006 – OMB Year 1 Grant year 2 for Cohort 8 grantees One respondent per agency		Web survey using snowball sampling
BHPS State/Tribal	Utilization of electronic health records (EHRs) Follow-up practices Provider training Goal 8 and 9 implementation	Agency/organization/respondent type Type of clients served Use of EHRs Suicide prevention and care Gatekeeper training of staff Trainings of evidence-based treatment with providers Assessment of staff self-efficacy and training adherence Screening and assessment practices Follow-up care and referral practices Collaboration with GLS Suicide Prevention Program grantee Annual data on screenings, assessments, care provision, and monitoring of at-risk patients	Annually upon OMB approval All Cohort 9 and 10 State/Tribal grantees Administrators and supervisors from GLS-partnering behavioral health provider agencies One to 10 respondents from each GLS-partnering behavioral health provider agency		Web survey
SMSS Campus	Exposure to prevention activities Suicide risk	Exposure to campus prevention activities Suicidal ideation history Suicide attempt history		April 2014 – OMB Year 1 Cohort 7 year 3 of grant; 100 respondents per grantee	Text message survey

1