Partnership for Change Drug Free Communities Evaluation€¦ · PFC Evaluation Questions 1. To what...

Preview:

Citation preview

Partnership for Change Drug Free Communities

Year Two Evaluation February 14, 2017

Presented by: Linda M. Bosma, PhD Bosma Consulting, LLC

Drug Free Communities (DFC) grant

• Federal grant

• Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)

• Requires environmental prevention efforts

• Achieve community level change—change is focused on populations, not individuals

• Emphasis on policy

• Grounded in prevention science—strategies must be evidence based

DFC Goals

1. Establish and maintain a strong coalition of diverse stakeholders from the community that leads efforts

2. Reduce rates of youth substance use in the community

Require Evaluation

• All DFC grantees are required to collect and report data on the core measures and evaluate their progress

• They are also required to do extensive reporting on their activity

• Do additional evaluation within their communities to assess the development of their coalition and achievement of goals that will contribute to reducing rates of substance use in their communities.

DFC: Core Measures

• Required for Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs:

– Use in the past 30 days (current)

– Perception of risk/harm from use

– Perception of parental disapproval of use

– Perception of peer disapproval of use

PFC Evaluation Questions

1. To what extent are rates of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and prescription drug use by youth being reduced?

2. To what extent does PFC have the capacity to address alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and prescription drug use by youth in the communities it serves?

3. To what extent is PFC addressing the access and availability of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and prescription drugs to underage persons in the communities it serves?

4. To what extent is the community aware of the problem of youth alcohol use and the efforts of PFC to address those problems?

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 10.2% 6.9% 9.2% 7.9%

9th 14.1% 9.2% 14.7% 11.2%

11th 25.1% 18.4% 27.7% 24.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

PFC Past 30 Day Use-Alcohol

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 3.2% 2.7% 4.0% 3.7%

9th 6.1% 2.9% 7.0% 5.8%

11th 9.6% 7.5% 12.0% 12.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

PFC Past 30 Day Use-Tobacco

Past 30 Day Use: E-cigs 2016

PFC MN

8th 8th grade 5.4% 3.0%

9th 9th grade 9.8% 4.0%

11th 11th grade 16.9% 8.0%

E-Cigarettes Past 30 Day Use

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 8.4% 5.5% 5.2% 4.6%

9th 11.4% 6.5% 9.4% 6.8%

11th 18.7% 15.8% 16.6% 15.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

PFC Past 30 Day Use-Marijuana

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 4.6% 4.9% 3.7% 4.0%

9th 7.3% 4.3% 5.6% 4.4%

11th 7.4% 6.2% 7.0% 6.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

PFC Past 30 Day Use-Rx Drugs

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 77.6% 66.3% 72.1% 70.4%

9th 79.8% 72.0% 75.5% 72.8%

11th 79.4% 78.0% 74.7% 72.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceived Risk of Harm-Alcohol

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 78.3% 72.0% 79.0% 77.6%

9th 82.9% 76.8% 83.0% 78.6%

11th 85.4% 81.0% 85.0% 80.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceived Risk of Harm-Tobacco

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 67.3% 57.1% 70.9% 65.1%

9th 63.6% 55.1% 66.8% 59.8%

11th 53.3% 46.7% 55.6% 46.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceived Risk of Harm-Marijuana

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 82.1% 70.8% 82.0% 78.4%

9th 83.6% 75.8% 84.4% 79.6%

11th 86.4% 78.5% 85.4% 81.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceived Risk of Harm-Rx Drugs

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 92.3% 87.5% 93.2% 91.2%

9th 93.2% 90.4% 91.6% 91.2%

11th 90.8% 88.0% 88.6% 87.2%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

Perceived Parent Disapproval-Alcohol

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 94.1% 89.0% 95.0% 93.2%

9th 94.7% 92.8% 93.0% 93.6%

11th 93.8% 92.0% 92.0% 91.4%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

Perceived Parent Disapproval-Tobacco

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 92.9% 86.7% 94.3% 91.1%

9th 92.1% 88.9% 92.0% 90.2%

11th 91.1% 85.7% 89.5% 95.6%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

Perceived Parent Disapproval-Marijuana

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 94.0% 88.6% 95.3% 93.4%

9th 95.0% 92.1% 94.9% 94.2%

11th 94.8% 92.3% 95.0% 93.6%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

Perceived Parent Disapproval-Rx Drugs

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 80.0% 81.5% 84.1% 85.4%

9th 73.4% 79.6% 75.2% 79.9%

11th 64.1% 70.4% 63.3% 67.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceive Peer Disapproval-Alcohol

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 83.9% 83.3% 87.0% 87.1%

9th 78.6% 84.7% 79.0% 84.1%

11th 72.8% 79.4% 69.0% 75.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceive Peer Disapproval-Tobacco

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 76.9% 75.6% 83.7% 82.7%

9th 64.0% 69.7% 70.4% 74.9%

11th 53.0% 52.0% 57.6% 56.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceive Peer Disapproval-Marijuana

2013 2016 2013 2016

PFC - Minnesota

8th 85.7% 84.0% 89.0% 88.9%

9th 81.3% 83.1% 84.8% 86.8%

11th 78.8% 77.4% 78.9% 80.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Perceive Peer Disapproval-Rx Drugs

Coalition Functioning Survey

• 23 Respondents (65% identify as “member”)

• Healthy mix of new and long-term members:

– 26% new,

– 22% 1-2 years,

– 22% 2-5 years,

– 30% 5+ years

• 74%--part of job; 26% as community member

• 52% say attend most meetings

Sector Percent Number

Health Care 35% 8

Other organization (non-governmental) that works on substance use/abuse issues

22% 5

Parent 22% 5

Schools/Education 17% 4

Law Enforcement/Judiciary 13% 3

Youth serving organization/agency 9% 2

Youth (you are a youth) 9% 2

Governmental agency that works on substance use/abuse issues

4% 1

Elected official/Government 4% 1

Other 4% 1

Faith based organization 0% 0

Media 0% 0

Business Community 0% 0

Civic Organization 0% 0

Findings

• Feel meetings are productive

• Participation is strong

• Confident that PFC can make a difference

• Knowledgeable and supportive of environmental prevention strategies

• Strong support for PFC initiatives—very important to address

Areas of Improvement

• Few identified

• Some concern PFC membership needs greater diversity/representation of communities it serves—both race/ethnicity and sectors

Law Enforcement Efforts

• Compliance checks • Furnishing alcohol to a minor arrests • Underage consumption citations • Driving Under the Influence (DUI) • Not-A-Drop DUI enforcement • Social Host Ordinance • Place of Last Drink (POLD) • Retail Alcohol Vendor Education and Enforcement

(RAVE) • Responsible Beverage Server Training (RBS)

BrooklynCenter

BrooklynPark

CrystalGoldenValley

MapleGrove

New Hope Osseo PlymouthRobbins-

daleTotal

On-Sale 100% 96% 75% 83% 86% 100% 94% 93%

Off-Sale 100% 94% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95%

Combined Rate 100% 96% 77% 88% 87% 100% 95% 93%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%P

erc

en

t o

f C

he

cks

Pas

sed

Alcohol Compliance Checks Pass Rate by City (Jan to Dec, 2015)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20132014- Mar

152015 (all)

Total 84.0% 89.9% 92.7% 87.2% 94.7% 93.3% 94.0% 93.0%

78.0%

80.0%

82.0%

84.0%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

Alcohol Compliance Check Pass Rate, PFC Region, 2008-2015

BrooklynCenter

BrooklynPark

CrystalGoldenValley

MapleGrove

NewHope

Osseo PlymouthRobbins-

daleTotal

Compliance 100% 97% 100% 100% 88% 90% 83% 96%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Tobacco Compliance Rate, 2015

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014- Mar 15 2015 (all)

Total 49 32 74 36 21 24 18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80N

um

be

r o

f A

rre

sts

Furnishing of Alcohol to a Minor Arrests, PFC Region, 2009-2015

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014-15 2015 (all)

Total 0 0 1 3 1 11 6 13

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14N

um

be

r o

f C

itat

ion

s

Social Host Ordinance Citations 2008 to 2015

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014- Mar 15 2015 (all)

Total 762 498 623 547 305 365 219

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900N

um

be

r o

f C

itat

ion

s

Underage Consumption Citations, PFC Region, 2009-2015

2009 2010 2011 2012 20132014- Mar

152015 (all)

Age 18-20 45 48 38 57 50 51 29

Age 21-25 210 208 199 336 220 257 275

Age 26-40 456 370 430 681 545 572 576

Age 40 plus 264 226 293 449 325 316 337

Total 1333 1217 1384 1526 1148 1196 1217

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800N

um

be

r o

f A

rre

sts

Arrests for Driving Under the Influence, PFC Region, 2009-2015, by age

2009 2010 2011 2012 20132014- Mar

152015 (all)

Total 75 45 55 48 24 15 24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Nu

mb

er

of

Cit

atio

ns

Citations for Underage Drink & Drive (Not-A-Drop), PFC Region, 2009-2015

Total Arrests by City January to December 2015

City

Brooklyn Center

Brooklyn Park

Crystal Golden Valley

Maple Grove

New Hope

Osseo Ply-mouth

Robbins-dale

Total

Drug Abuse Violations 149 414 205 93 196 155 4 212 110 1538

DUI (A & OD) 57 194 441 178 261 140 19 125 154 1569

Liquor Law Violations 10 21 23 1 45 6 0 78 3 187

Total Arrests/Dept (any) 1717 3153 678 263 1331 581 na 1345 964 10032

RBS Training Provided in 2015

City

Brooklyn Center

Brooklyn Park

Crystal Golden Valley

Maple Grove

New Hope

Osseo Plymouth Robbins-dale

Total

Mandatory? YES 1

# of sessions 12 DK 2 14

# RBST staff 1 1 DK 2

# attendees 1081 11 21 1113

Summary

• Reductions in past 30 day use

• Lower perceived harm & perception of parent or peer disapproval

• Marijuana least likely to be seen as harmful, or that parents or peers would disapprove

• Strong law enforcement efforts and partnerships continue to prioritize substance use prevention/intervention

• Coalition is capable and engaged

Next Steps

• Update POLD date

• One-on-ones are in progress

• Potentially some individual reports by school

• Report Card

• Exploring other data needs to support sustainability planning

Thank you!

Questions?

Contact: linda@bosmaconsulting.com

Recommended