prepared by: sharon o’hara, m.s. for community prevention institute (cpi) 771 oak avenue parkway,...
TRANSCRIPT
Prepared by:Sharon O’Hara, M.S. forCommunity Prevention Institute
(CPI)771 Oak Avenue Parkway, Suite 3
Folsom, CA 95630
Prepared for: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs1700 K StreetSacramento, CA 95814
October 21, 2004
State Incentive Grant (SIG) County Grant Program
Year 1 County Profiles: 2004-2005
SIG Grantee CountiesAlamedaHumboldtMarinMendocinoMonoOrangeSacramentoSan DiegoSanta BarbaraSanta CruzSonomaStanislausVentura
sd
oc
vta
mono
scruz
SB
ala
marin
sonoma
mendocino
humboldt
stan
sactoMarin
Sonoma
Mono
San Diego
Orange
Santa Barbara
Ventura
Santa Cruz
Mendocino
Humboldt
StanislausAlameda
Sacramento
1
KEY POINTS
Populations Served
7 grantees, or 54%, will focus on those aged 12 – 25
2 grantees on ages 15 - 25
2 on ages 18 - 25
2 did not specify
Age Range
1
KEY POINTS
Populations Served
5 counties identified risk group numbers
7 did not specify
1 will determine the number during Phase I.
Numbers
1
KEY POINTS
Geographic Scope
Approximately 54 percent or 7 grantees identified specific geographic areas of focus
Each of the 6 remaining grantees identified the “entire county” as the focus area.
All but one of the grantees gave some source of evidence of community norms
Sources included: newspaper articles, anecdotal evidence, surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings
Community Norms About Binge Drinking
KEY POINTS
7 counties identified Community Partnerships (CPs) that have worked together for 1.5 – 11 years
6 counties will form new CPs for the purpose of the SIG grant
4 of these 6 grantees will form new CPs which will include organizations & individuals who have previously worked in collaboration, but not all together
9 grantees plan to recruit specific groups / individuals to expand the CP
Partnership History
KEY POINTS
County Alcohol & Drug Programs Other County Agencies Universities & Community Colleges Local School Districts & County
Offices of Education Law Enforcement Agencies Non-profit organizations Private Industry Councils / Workforce
Investment Boards Faith Communities
Partnership Members
KEY POINTS
Partnership Functions
EXAMPLES
Strategic planning Needs / resource assessments Providing/leveraging resources Community mobilization Service coordination Media / awareness campaigns School-based services Community prevention education Youth-led philanthropy projects
Partnership Communication
KEY POINTS
62% (8) of grantees identified specific ways for CP members to communicate:
6 will have monthly meetings 1 will have bi-monthly meetings 2 will have quarterly meetings (1 for
“advisory board”, in addition to the CP monthly meeting, 1 for the CP)
2 will post CP information on county websites
CA Healthy Kids Survey (most widely used)
CORE Alcohol Survey CA DHS Binge Drinking Surveillance
Project CA DHS “Preventing Binge Drinking in
California Communities” CA Safer Schools Survey CA Health Interview Survey DUI Program Participants Police Data Local Survey Data
Rates of Binge Drinking
DATA INSTRUMEN
TS
All grantees reported numerous individual, family and community problems related to binge drinking
Some grantees gave specific data sources & information about binge drinking-related problems in their communities
Problems Related to Binge Drinking
KEY POINTS
KEY POINTS
All grantees indicated they plan to use environmental approaches.
7 grantees (54%) named specific types of environmental strategies they will use.
Environmental Strategies
EXAMPLE
S
Enactment & enforcement of ordinances Limiting access & availability to youth Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) Retailer compliance checks Limiting number of alcohol outlets Social host training Campus policies Lease & rental housing policies Alcohol-free parks & beaches Alcohol-free event planning & promotion
Environmental Strategies
EXAMPLES
Denial about the binge drinking problem
Belief that binge drinking is an individual problem or a rite of passage
Community norms Lack of understanding about nexus
between EP and reducing individual negative outcomes
Engaging & sustaining participation Multi-jurisdictions Broad geographic area Resistance from alcohol industry
Challenges to Using Environmental Strategies
CONT’D
Lack of buy-in Changing policies / laws Individual “rights” vs “prohibition” Lack of training and/or experience Community economic concerns Limited resources Competing policy issues Long term commitment Building sustainability
Challenges to Using Environmental Strategies
KEY POINTS
5 grantees indicated specific research-based programs they plan to implement
Specific programs mentioned were: Border Project Challenging College Alcohol Abuse Communities Mobilizing for Change on
Alcohol Community Trials Project
Evidence-Based Approaches
KEY AREAS
Establish or expand community partnership
Hire staff and consultants
Improve or increase capacity of AOD prevention system
Establish an evaluation/data collection system
Assess community needs, resources, readiness
Select evidence based prevention strategies
Phase I Goal & Activities
KEY AREAS
(cont’d)
Select goals/develop action plan/sustainability plan
Reduce binge drinking of targeted groups
Reduce availability and harmful affects
Conduct media campaign/raise public awareness / inform policy makers / change attitudes
Expand existing prevention initiatives & develop new programs (e.g., RBS)
Develop & submit Phase II implementation plan
Phase I Goal & Activities
Strategic Plan to Reduce
Underage & Binge Drinking
Governor’s Prevention Advisory Council (GPAC) Strategic Plan Goals
1. Promote a cultural shift in understanding & acceptance of binge drinking so that public acceptance is reduced.
2. Encourage & establish collaboration among systems.
3. Reduce availability of alcohol to underage youth.
4. Increase adolescent & young adult perceptions that binge drinking is harmful.
5. Identify & promote evidence-based practices in addressing binge drinking.
KEY POINTS
3 grantees said their work will address all five of the GPAC goals & related
objectives.
The remaining 10 identified specific goals and objectives addressed by
their projects.
Alignment With GPAC Goals & Objectives
GOAL ONE:
Promote a cultural shift
in understandin
g & acceptance
of binge drinking so that public
acceptance of binge
drinking is reduced.
Number of Grantees by Goal One Objectives
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
awareness skills policy/practice none
GOAL ONE:
Promote a cultural shift
in understandin
g & acceptance
of binge drinking so that public
acceptance of binge
drinking is reduced.
8 grantees: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3
1 grantee: 1.1, 1.2
1 grantee: 1.1, 1.3
3 grantees: none of the goal 1 objectives
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
Number of Grantees by Goal One Objectives
MODUE 1
GOAL TWO:
Encourage & establish collaboratio
n across systems.
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
infrastructure policies none0
2
4
6
8
10
12
opportunities knowledge planning
Number of Grantees by Goal Two Objectives
GOAL TWO:
Encourage & establish collaboratio
n across systems.
5 grantees: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5
2 grantees : 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
2 grantees : 2.1, 2.2, 2.5
1 grantees : 2.2, 2.4, 2.5
1 grantees : 2.2, 2.3, 2.5
1 grantee : 2.4, 2.5
1 grantee : none of the goal 2 objectives
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
GOAL THREE:Reduce
availability of alcohol
to underage
youth.
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
knowledge/skills public/privateinitiatives
strenghtenedenforcement
none
Number of Grantees by Goal Three Objectives
GOAL THREE:Reduce
availability of alcohol
to underage
youth.
6 grantees: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
1 grantees : 3.1, 3.3
1 grantees : 3.2, 3.3
1 grantees : 3.3
4 grantees : none of the goal 3 objectives
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
Number of Grantees by Goal Three Objectives
GOAL FOUR:Increase
perception among
adolescents & young
adults that binge
drinking is harmful &
acceptable.
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
peer-led programs
none
0123456789
10
knowledge ofconsequences
awareness/education
Number of Grantees by Goal Four Objectives
GOAL FOUR:Increase
perception among
adolescents & young
adults that binge
drinking is harmful &
acceptable.
Number of Grantees by Goal Four Objectives
6 grantees : 4.1, 4.2, 4.3
1 grantees : 4.1, 4.2
1 grantees : 4.1, 4.3
2 grantees : 4.1
3 grantees : none of the goal 4 objectives
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
GOAL FIVE:
Identify & promote
evidence-based
practices in addressing
binge drinking.
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
funding/ resources
none
0123456789
10
evidence-basedpractices
data analysis
Number of Grantees by Goal Five Objectives
GOAL FIVE:
Identify & promote
evidence-based
practices in addressing
binge drinking.
7 grantees : 5.1, 5.2, 5.3
2 grantees : 5.1, 5.3
1 grantees : 5.3
3 grantees : none of the goal 5 objectives
Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives
Number of Grantees by Goal Five Objectives
YOUTH CORE
MEASURES
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
30 day use
none
attitudes
risk/harm
not specified
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Grantees by Youth Core Measures
YOUTH CORE
MEASURES
7 grantees : 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
1 grantees : 1.2, 1.3
1 grantees : 1.2
3 grantees : none of the core measures
1 grantees : did not specify
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
Number of Grantees by Youth Core Measures
availability
availability comp.
norms
none
not specified
0 2 4 6 8
YOUTH OPTIONAL
MEASURES:
Community Domain
Number of Grantees by Youth Optional Measures
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
YOUTH OPTIONAL
MEASURES:
Community Domain
2 grantees : 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4
1 grantees : 2.1, 2.2
4 grantees : 2.1, 2.3
5 grantees : none of the optional measures in the community domain
1 grantees : did not specify
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
Number of Grantees by Youth Optional Measures
YOUTH OPTIONAL
MEASURES:
Environment
al Domain
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
not specified
none
PUC/caught
PUC/restrictions
norms/harm
norms/attitudes
norms/promotions
social availability
norms/support
0 2 4 6 8
Number of Grantees by Youth Optional Measures
YOUTH OPTIONAL
MEASURES:
Environment
al Domain
2 grantees : 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 1 grantees : 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 1 grantees : 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7 1 grantees : 3.1 1 grantees : 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 6 grantees : none of the optional measures
in the environmental domain 1 grantee : did not specify
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
Number of Grantees by Youth Optional Measures
YOUNG ADULT
MEASURES
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
opportunities
norms
enforcement
economic/racial/ethnic issues
access
resources
laws & policies
none
not specified
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Grantees by Young Adult Measures
YOUNG ADULT
MEASURES
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures
1 grantees : 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9 1 grantees : 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.9 1 grantees : 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.9 1 grantees : 1.1, 1.2, 1.6 1 grantees : 1.1, 1.3, 1.6 6 grantees : none of the young adult measures 2 grantees : not specified
Number of Grantees by Young Adult Measures
EXAMPLE
S
Large geographic area Limited / various levels of experience
in environmental strategies, policy approaches and related skills
Undeveloped relationships with colleges
Limited data on persons aged 18 – 25 Engaging and sustaining participation
from youth & diverse communities Lack of support for environmental /
public policy strategies Time & commitment necessary
Potential Barriers
EXAMPLES
TA and training from state providers & other experts
Presentations from practitioners who have successfully implemented environmental / policy approaches in communities
Communication & media strategies Build on existing relationships Stipends for volunteers Outreach to diverse communities in
the focus region Planning with youth and a diverse
representation of the focus region
Potential Solutions
Needs Identified
by Grantees
Assessment of binge drinking problems
Environmental prevention strategies Public policy approaches Assessment of community readiness Identifying appropriate evidence-
based strategies Engaging & sustaining youth
participation Working with new partners (e.g.,
colleges) Media & other advocacy strategies Data analysis PPG measures Evaluation
Technical Assistance
Process Data
10 grantees identified measures.
7 grantees identified sources.
4 grantees identified procedures.
2 grantees did not identify a process data collection plan.
Evaluation
Outcome Data
4 grantees identified measures.
3 grantees identified sources.
0 grantees identified procedures.
9 grantees did not identify an outcome data collection plan.
Evaluation
3 grantees identified local evaluators for Phase I:
California State University, Fullerton Social Science Research Center (SSRC)
MK Associates
Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation (PIRE)
Evaluation
What will your next step be?
What resources are available?
NEXT STEPS
FREE Technical Assistance is available through:
Community Prevention Institute (CPI)Phone: (916) 983-9506 • Fax: (916)
983-5738www.ca-cpi.org
A Standard of Excellence