Drug Free Osage County 2011 progress report

1. Drug Free Osage County2011 progress report Kansas SPF-SIG

2. Kansas Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant • Received 2008 • Address underage drinking • One of fourteen grantees • Grant runs through June, 2012 • Strategic plan

3. Community Assessment • Two targeted outcomes: • Past 30-day use • Binge drinking • Most data obtained from Kansas Communities That Care Survey

4. Community Assessment • Formed data workgroup • Look at data indicators • 10 risk and protective factors • Magnitude of the problem • Trend line • Relative ration (compared to peers across Kansas) • How youth obtain alcohol • Where youth drank alcohol • Demographics • Barriers and Assets

5. Community Assessment • Chose 11 influencing and contributing factors • Key areas • Family involvement and functioning • Academic achievement • Pro-social involvement and functioning • Social access • Social norms • Enforcement

6. Community Assessment • Family involvement and functioning • Lack of clear expectations and use of inconsistent or inappropriate consequences • Lack of opportunities for meaningful participation in family activities • Promotion of alcohol at community events

7. Community Assessment • Academic achievement • Youth believe that they are failing or getting bad grades

8. Community Assessment • Pro-social involvement and functioning • Youth report lack of opportunities for positive community participation

9. Community Assessment • Social access • Ease of availability of alcohol • Availability by way of social sources (adult providing)

10. Community Assessment • Social norms • Parents don’t think that it’s wrong if their kids drink regularly • Youth don’t perceive that they risk harming themselves if they drink regularly

11. Community Assessment • Enforcement • Youth don’t believe that they will get caught by police if they drink • Low number of MIP’s are given by police, in proportion to the reported number of youth drinkers

12. Community Readiness Survey • Surveyed individuals • Scored surveys • Scoring indicated readiness rating of “denial and resistance” • Weighted factors • Community willingness to acknowledge and work on solutions • “Buy-in” of key leaders

13. Developed Logic Model • Address influencing and contributing factors

14. Logic Model to Address Influencing Factors • Social access • Adults providing • Access to alcohol at home

15. ObjectiveSocial Access • Decrease, by 8 percentage points, the proportion of youth in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 who reported drinking alcohol and said they obtained it from an adult, from a baseline of 21.6% of those reporting in 2008 to 13.6% by December 31, 2011.

16. Logic Model to Address Influencing Factors • Social norms • Social hosting • Rite of passage mentality • No perception of risk of harm • Parents did not think it was wrong

17. ObjectiveSocial Norms • Decrease the proportion of youth in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 who responded that their parents would not think it would not be wrong at all if the youth drank beer, wine or hard liquor regularly (at least once or twice a month) by 2 percentage points from a baseline of 4.6% of those reporting in 2008 to 2.6% by December 31, 2011.

18. ObjectiveSocial Norms • Decrease by 5% the number of youth in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 who responded “no risk” when asked if they think that people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly everyday, from a baseline of 13.1% to 8.1% by December 31, 2011.

19. Logic Model to Address Influencing Factors • Enforcement • Kids didn’t think they’d get caught • Lack of consequences—in multiple domains—home, school, community • Lax judicial system • Few MIP’s given compared to reported drinking

20. Objective:Enforcement • Increase the proportion of youth in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 who responded “yes” when asked that if a kid drank some beer, wine or liquor in their neighborhood, or in the area around which they live, that he or she would be caught by the police, by 7% from a baseline of 29.5% in 2008, to 36.5% by December 31, 2011.

21. ObjectiveEnforcement • By December 30, 2011 Osage County will increase the number of citations given for Minor in Possession of alcohol (MIP) measured by the KBI data from a baseline of 1 citation in 2007 to 11 citations.

22. Strategy Selection • Project ALERT • Prevention curriculum for middle school students • Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol (CMCA) • Reduce youth alcohol use by changing community policies and practices

23. Evidence-Based Strategies

24. SPF SIGTargeted Outcomes

25. 30 Day Use

26. 30 Day Prevalence • On how many occasions (if any) have you had beer, wine or hard liquor during the past 30 days?

27. Binge Use

28. Binge Drinking • Think back over the last two weeks. How many times have you had five or more alcoholic drinks in a row?

29. Considerations:

30. Extent of Saturation

31. Considerations • More thorough reporting, especially higher grades • CTC Participation

32. CTC Participation Rates

33. Considerations • More thorough reporting, especially higher grades • CTC Participation • Need more saturation

34. Considerations • More thorough reporting, especially higher grades • CTC Participation • Need more saturation • Need more impact

35. Supplemental Strategy Plan • Developed supplemental plan • Evaluation on Continuum of Impact Grid • Examined existing strategies • Examined new strategies

36. Continuum of Impact

37. Continuum of Impact

38. Continuum of Impact

39. Continuum of Impact

40. More Considerations • Sectors Most Involved • Schools • Law enforcement • Faith communities

41. More Considerations • Sectors Most Underutilized & Needing to be Engaged in Next 10 Months • Parents • Law Enforcement • Business • Youth

42. Tactics to Engage Sectors • Parents • Parents University • Safe Homes • Faith communities • School newsletters • Safe Prom • Community festivals • Educate on Social Hosting laws • Educate on brain research

43. Tactics to Engage Sectors • Law Enforcement • Safe Prom • Crimestoppers • Meetings • Community festivals • One-on-one visits • Speaking engagements • Educate on brain research

44. Tactics to Engage Sectors • Business • Safe Prom • CrimeStoppers • Community festivals • One-on-one relationships • Sticker shock

45. Tactics to Engage Sectors • Youth • Positive Action in all schools • Project ALERT in all schools • Continued involvement in Youth Coalitions • Already established groups (faith, service)

46. Positive Considerations • Community readiness and/or awareness changes to note: • Greater receptivity among schools • Greater receptivity among faith communities • Greater receptivity among law enforcement

47. Positive Considerations • What key leader support looks like currently: • School leaders • Pastors • Police Chiefs • Sheriff • County Attorney is prevention-friendly • Exploring ways to involve municipal courts

48. Next Steps • What will make data move: • An act of God/Divine intervention • More saturation and impact • Move communities toward readiness—from denial and resistance • Sustaining programs (Project ALERT/Positive Action) • Promoting, enhancing & enforcing of policies • Teaching and promotion of prevention science

49. Next Steps • What things help impede movement of data? • Out-commuting of residents • Community disorganization • No central hub of Osage County • Lack of police officers on duty • Social norm of “rite of passage” • Lack of resources to fund SRO’s • Difficulty to secure instructors for Project ALERT • Economic: loss of teachers, budget cuts in schools • Parents’ reluctance to take charge in parenting • Parents’ lack of training in prevention skills • Municipal court system

50. Steps Toward Progress • Implement Positive Action • Continually look for new partnerships • Develop parent training opportunities • Churches • School newsletters • Other community publications • Safe Prom • Safe Homes • Target municipal judges to build alliances • Build alliance with media outlets