The field of substance abuse prevention currently needs an overarching conceptual framework and set of shared terminologies to establish the accountability and performance outcome measures of substance abuse prevention services. The three-dimensional framework presented in this paper was developed to facilitate the evaluation of community-based substance abuse prevention programs funded by the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) through the Division of Health of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. The conceptual framework allowed the evaluators to assess services and outcomes of individual programs, to compare programs according to agreed upon operationally defined characteristics, and report to the funder the global achievements of the funded programs collectively. Three operational characteristics form the dimensions of the framework: service strategy, target population, and service intensity (dosage). Service strategy encompasses information dissemination, prevention education, alternative drug-free activities, problem identification and referral, community-based interventions, and environmental programs. Target populations, the second dimension of the model, include peers, families, schools, and communities. The third dimension of the model, service intensity, refers to the amount of exposure each program service provides to a target population. The evaluation team categorized each of the community-based prevention program services on each of the three dimensions. By applying this evaluation model, it is possible to report programmatic, comparative, and collective findings. Individual programmatic findings give service providers evidence to support the effectiveness of their programs or suggest needed areas for program revision and refinement. The evaluator may also analyze the data collected from each program based upon predetermined core process and outcome indicators. This collective analysis may be used to show the degree to which program service areas are meeting their performance outcomes, thus allowing funding agencies to make informed decisions about their funding allocations. 4 figures and 14 references