Download pptx - Enhanced Strategic Planning. Alcohol Risk Factors Protective Factors Workgroup Input Develop Action Plan What? (Prevalen ce) Why? Root Causes (Weighted

2 + 2 = ?

Two Plus Two Might Not Always Equal Four

Enhanced Strategic Planning

Logic Model

Alcohol

Risk Factors

Protective Factors

WorkgroupInput

Develop

Action Plan

What? (Prevale

nce)

Why? Root

Causes(Weighted factors)

Why Here?Local factors

Implementation

Evaluation

Evaluation

Logic Model

Alcohol

What? (Prevalence

)

“What?” The problem

Just like Chicken Little -

Problems often seem to fall from the sky.

or

in the case of

prevention planning..

from the survey.

“What?” The ProblemWhat we measure is

often determined by what we

are concerned

about

or (in some cases),

someone else’s

pre-determined concerns or priorities.

Groups are then formed because of

that issue/proble

m.

Logic Model

AlcoholRisk Factors

Protective Factors

What? (Prevalen

ce)

Why? Root

Causes(Weighted

factors)

Logic Model: Why? Quantitative (data-driven) MeasuresInterventions are usually planned based only on prevalence of risk and protective factors.

Unfortunately…

this is where most planning stops.

Strategic Planning Enhancement

The determination of the problem and its intervention is based on quantitative measurement of not only:

Prevalence Prediction

of risk and of problem

protective behavior

factors but also

For Example……

Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use

Anystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:

N=320


Anystate, USA


N=32012.8% of students surveyed scored at

the risk level

87.2% of students surveyed did not score

at the risk level

Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior


Anystate, USA



the risk level


at the risk level

63% of students who scored at the risk level

reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.



Anystate, USA



the risk level


at the risk level



22.3% of students who did not score at the risk level

reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days



Anystate, USA



the risk level


at the risk level





Therefore…

Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.56 times more likely

(63%/22.3%) to report drinking in the last 30 days


Antisocial Behavior

Anystate, USA


N=3206.8% of students

surveyed scored at the risk level


at the risk level





Therefore…

Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.56

times more likely (64%/24.8%) to report drinking in the last 30 days


Friends Use Drugs

Anystate, USA



the risk level


at the risk level





Therefore…

Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.48 times more likely (57%/23%) to report drinking in the last 30 days


Lack Perceived Risks of Drug Use

Anystate, USA



the risk level


at the risk level





Therefore…

Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.24

times more likely (50%/22.3%) to report drinking in the last 30 days


Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use

Anystate, USA



the risk level


at the risk level

52.3% of students who scored at the risk level




Therefore…

Students who perceive their parents have attitudes that favor drug use

were 2.2 times more likely (52.3%/23.6%) to report drinking in

the last 30 days


Lack of rewards for Pro-social Involvement in the Community

Anystate, USA



the risk level


at the risk level

27.8% of students who scored at the risk level




Therefore…

Students who lack rewards for pro-social involvement in their community were less likely

(27.8%/26.9%) to report drinking in the last 30 days


Logic Model

Alcohol

Risk Factors

Protective

Factors

WorkgroupInput

What? (Prevale

nce)

Why? Root

Causes(Weighte

d factors)


Logic Model: Why Here? Why Now?Combining Quantitative and Qualitative measures

Use the measurement of “why” (statistical relationship of the prevalence of the risk and protective factors and their prediction of the problem behavior)

What level of each factor predicts what level of each problem

Focused discussion of factors and why these factors are happening here : “Why here” and “Why now”

Anytown USA

Rating

High School Students - 2011 N=320

(1-10)

Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain) Antisocial Behavior (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain) Friend Use Drugs (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain)

Lack Perceived Risks of Drug Use (Protective Factor– Peer/Individual Domain) Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use (Risk Factor – Family Domain) Perceived Availability of Drugs (Risk Factor – Community Domain) Sensation Seeking (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain)

Business Parent Civic/Volunteer Religious/Fraternal Healthcare School Law Enforcement State/Local/Tribal Government Media Youth Other Substance Abuse Youth-Serving Organization

Anytown USAStrategic Planning

Factor Rankings –I (Importance Scale)

Give each of the following factors a score from 1 to 10 to represent how significant or important

it is as a problem in your community. A score of 1 represents little or no significance and a score of 10 means it is a very significant

problem for your sector. Rate each factor separately. More than one factor can have the same rating or

score.

Date of Rating _______________________________________________Rater name __________________________________________________Rater sector (Check all that apply)

Other ___________________________________________________________

Activity: “What We Need” or “What We Should Do?”

1. Break up into groups based on your “sector”.

2. In your group answer the following question:

“How does this factor manifest itself in your work and how important is it to

you as you do your job?”

3. Fill out the Factor Rating 1 form

Do’s: You can speculate as to why young people have this factor.

Don’ts: You cannot discuss how to address the factor…yet.

(no solutions)

Community Readiness

Aware of the issue.

Concerned about the issue.

Informed about the issue.

Motivated to act.

Informed about strategies.

Committed to action.

Informed of results.

Anytown USA

Rating

High School Students - 2011 N=320

(1-10)

Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain)

Antisocial Behavior (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain)

Friend Use Drugs (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain)

Lack Perceived Risks of Drug Use (Protective Factor– Peer/Individual Domain)

Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use (Risk Factor – Family Domain)

Perceived Availability of Drugs (Risk Factor – Community Domain)

Sensation Seeking (Risk Factor – Peer/Individual Domain)

Business Parent Civic/Volunteer Religious/Fraternal Healthcare School Law Enforcement State/Local/Tribal Government Media Youth Other Substance Abuse Youth-Serving Organization

Anytown USAStrategic Planning

Factor Rankings –II (Viability Scale)Give each of the following factors a score from 1 to 10 to represent the extent to which your

community “ready to influence” the factor if resources were available. A score of 1 represents little or no significance and a score of 10 means it is a very significant problem for your sector. Rate each factor separately. More than one factor can have the same rating or score.

Other ___________________________________________________________

Date of Rating _______________________________________________Rater name __________________________________________________Rater sector (Check all that apply)

Activity: “What We Need or What We Should Do?” Part II1. In your same groups discuss and

respond to the following question:

“Rate the extent to which you or your organization,, are ready to have an impact on the identified factors.”

3. Fill out the Factor Rating II form

Do’s: You may talk about how you see you or your organization’s readiness to address this factor

Don’ts: You may not discuss the limitations (lack of resources) you or your organization may have to address that factor.

Logic Model

Alcohol

Risk Factors

Protective Factors

Workgroup

Input Develop Action Plan

What? (Prevale

nce)

Why? Root

Causes(Weighte

d factors)


Implementation

Selection of the Priority Factors: Calculate weighted scores

Step 1: Combine the rankings

Step 2: Combine with prediction

Step 3: Combine with prevalence

Weighted Score Spreadsheet

Anytown USA Prev Alcohol Weighted

High School Students - 2010 Factor Rank Rank Rate I Rate II Score

Sensation Seeking (R22-PI) 32.2% 1 7 3 12 5.75

Lack Perceived Risks of Drug Use (P8-PI) 18.8% 5 4 12 3 6.00

Friend Use Drugs (R21-PI) 13.1% 14 3 4 6 6.75

Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use (R19-PI) 12.8% 15 1 8 4 7.00

Lack Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement (P1-C) 21.9% 2 19 1 14 9.00

Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Beh (R18-PI) 16.6% 9 16 14 9 12.00

Lack of Supervision and Rules (R6-F) 20.0% 3 24 5 18 12.50

Antisocial Behavior (R17-PI) 6.9% 24 2 9 16 12.75

Perceived Availability of Drugs (R5-C) 12.8% 16 6 6 23 12.75

Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use (R10-F) 13.8% 12 5 13 21 12.75

Logic Model: Development Plan

Identify evidence-based prevention programs and strategies selected for each factor

There should be a logical link between the community need and the selected program or strategies and ultimately the proposed outcomes.

Evidence-based programs can be supplemented with other programs as long as those programs have been evaluated and are based on evidence-based approaches.

Logic Model: Development PlanReference Guide to Evidence-based programs/Principles of Prevention

Blueprints for Violence Prevention http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html OJJDP Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse1-800-638-8736 Prevention Principles for Children and Adolescents http://www.nida.nih.gov/Prevention/Ptrvopen.htmlNIDA NCADI1-800-729-6686 Principles of Effectiveness for Safe and Drug Free Schools Final SDFSCA Principles of Effectivenesshttp://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ announcements/1998-2/060198c.pdf(PDF) Science-Based Practices in Substance Abuse Prevent http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/ practice.html CSAP Posted on ONDCP Web National Registry of Evidenced-based programs and Practices http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov

Logic Model: Development Plan Challenges

Some sites provide evidence-based programs that link directly to risk and protective factors.

For example…

Problem behavior: underage drinking

Favorable attitudes toward drug use

Life Skills Training Program

Reduction in favorable attitudes drug use

Results in reduced in reduced alcohol use


Not all sites link evidence-based programs to risk and protective factors.

There are some factors that have no evidence-based programs.

However, some have indirect effects.

eg: antisocial behavior

Problem behavior: violence

Anti-social behavior

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program

OBBP leads to a reduction in bullying

Results in reduced ant-social behavior

Reduced bullying leads to reduced violence


Not all sites link evidence-based programs to risk and protective factors.

Example some sites like NREPP provide details on the developmental research and effective principles of prevention.

These principles can be used to develop new strategies.

Logic Model

Alcohol

Risk Factors

Protective Factors

WorkgroupInput

Develop Action Plan

What? (Prevalenc

e)

Why? Root

Causes(Weighte

d factors)


Implementation

Evaluation

Evaluation

Evaluation

Answers the question – “What happened…

…compared to what would have happened?”

Evaluation

Process…

What did you do…

Outputs

Outcomes…

What changed…

Compared to?

Why?

Evaluation

Re-measure what was measured in needs assessment.

Add new measures as needed.

Strategy-specific protocols.

Process measures are critical.

If you didn’t do what you said you would do…

you can’t attribute cause to change.

Common PitfallsOrganizations have the tendency to do what other communities are doing to address the same problem

in their community.

The risk and protective factors that predict that problem for your young people may not be the same

as in that community,

the interventions are not successful.

The problem

?

Therefore,

Benefits to Enhanced Strategic Planning

1. You can complete the planning process in a limited number of sessions (six).

2. The planning is focused.

3. The planning is efficient.

4. You get real involvement and buy-in from members/partners.

You move from the “solution of the week” based on the “problem of the day”

to a

Quantitative-based strategic planning process

For Questions

Rob Lillis

Evalumetrics Research

[email protected]

Lynne Gochenaur

Marcus Whitman School District

[email protected]