Ann Webb Price, Ph. D.

D RUG F REE C OALITION OF H ALL C OUNTY

Conducted each October, this survey is designed to collect information about a variety of topics including alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; school violence; school climate; and nutrition. Data analysis will concentrate in the Four Core Measures as required by the DFC grant. These include: Age of onset of drug use; Frequency of use in the past 30 days; Perception of risk of harm; and Perception of disapproval of use by adults/parent.

Assessment of Community Substance Abuse Create Pjct GuidelinesCollect DataSet up TemplateComplete Report Create WBS Create Risk Mgt Plan Create Comm Mgt Plan Create Schedule Create Project Plan Follow-up as Necessary Review data Request data Create Follow-Up Format Create Request Format Assign Sources Select Sources Define IndicatorsEvaluate Data Write Assessment Review for Completeness Input Data Create Chart Format Review Other Reports

Problem Statement: There is an underage drinking problem in Hall County. Measure 1: According to the 2007 Georgia Student Health Survey (GSHS II), 30% of 12 th grade students have used alcohol in the last 30 days Measure 2: According to local Youth Focus Groups, alcohol is the most widely used substance Theory of Change: By a comprehensive community effort involving multiple strategies, our community will significantly reduce youth substance use. But why?But why here?CSAP Strategies/ActivitiesOutcomes Short TermIntermediateLong Term Alcohol is easily accessible. Measure 1: According to the 2007 GSHS II: 44% of 6 th 51% of 8 th 69% 10 th 79% of 12 th Somewhat or strongly agreed that alcohol was easy to get Measure 2: According to the 2007 GSHS II: Age of onset was 12.9 As teens mature, they perceive that parents see alcohol as a rite of passage. Measure 1: According to the 2007 GSHS II:  6 th Grade: 76% Strongly Agree and 8% Somewhat Agree that their parents would disapprove if they used alcohol.  8 th grade: 70% Strongly Agree; 17% Somewhat Agree  10 th grade: 64% Strongly Agree; 20% Somewhat Agree  12 th grade: 56% Strongly Agree; 22% Somewhat Agree Measure 2: 2010 Youth and Parent Focus Groups Youth use alcohol at home. Measure 1: According to the 2007 GSHS II: 5% of 6 th, 20% of 8 th, 35% of 10 th, and 46% of 12 th graders use at home Measure 2: 2010 Youth Focus Groups Youth use alcohol at the home of friends. Measure 1: According to the 2007 GSHS II: 4% of 6 th, 22% of 8 th, 48% of 10 th, and 60% of 12 th graders use at home of their friends Measure 2: 2010 Youth Focus Groups Access/Barriers: Increase the number of adults who agree not to provide alcohol and commit to “Face It”, sign online commitment form and access personalized “Face It form”, Posted “Face It” signs in businesses. Change Consequences: Encourage consistent enforcement of adult provider laws Change Physical Design: Distribute/post signs in retail outlets about the laws about adults buying for youth and Hall data about the % of youth who get alcohol in their homes/friends homes Change/Modify Policies: Strengthen existing adult hosting ordinances Number of families who pledge to “Face it” and not provide youth alcohol Measure 1: Number of families who sign online commitment form Measure2: Parent Focus Groups Increased collaboration with law enforcement Measure 1: Law enforcement attendance at coalition meetings Measure 2: Key Informant Interviews Number of signs distributed; stores posting signs Measure 1: Evaluation Process Data Measure 2: Parent surveys at community events (Relay for Life, etc.), Determine current social hosting laws and level of enforcement Measure: Archival Records Increased number of families making Face It commitments Measure 1: Number of families who sign online commitment form Measure2: Parent Focus Groups Increased number of arrests for adult provider violations Measure 1: Gainesville Police arrest data Measure 2: Sheriff’s data Increased number of adults who say they have seen a sign; adults who say they have heard about the media campaign Measure 1: Evaluation Process Data Measure 2: Parent surveys at community events (Relay for Life, etc.), Assess change in social hosting laws and levels of enforcement Measure: Archival data National Core Measures: Decrease in 30 day use Increase in age of first use Increase in students’ perception of harm Increase in students’ perception of parental disapproval Measure 1: GSHS II Measure 2: Youth Focus Groups Georgia Priority Outcomes: Decrease teen alcohol-related arrests Decrease in teen alcohol-related car accidents Measure 1: Sherriff’s Office Measure 2: Hospital Data

Year 1 Accomplishments  Participated in SAMHSA required training  Developed a coalition logic model and alcohol LM  Developed a written evaluation plan  Established parent messaging workgroup  Produced 8 billboards bearing 6 different parent prevention messages  Established a website and developed media relations

 Established an active steering committee  Met consistently, with good membership representation  Recruited members from all 12 required sectors  Established relationships with important local and state-level prevention organizations  Networked with other DFC across Georgia  Partnered with the local county commission to strengthen existing alcohol ordinances

 Completed a strategic planning process  Developed and approved coalition by-laws  Established standing committees  Established relationships with important local and state-level prevention organizations  Attended additional CADCA’s training and Leadership Academy  Helped to coordinate two community forums about prescription drug use  Jointly sponsored the Hidden in Plain Site room

 Selected as partner with Medical Association of Georgia on a Prescription drug prevention effort  Active steering committee and work groups  Coalition Coordinator selected for select leadership training  Officers completed first full year  Dashboard developed

 Connecting prevention efforts to our outcomes  Getting coalition to adhere to a plan, LM, something, anything!  Buy-in for prescription drug effort  Breaking up is hard to do  New leadership/new members

 From AEA President's letter…. “Challenges of values and valuing in evaluation, particularly the plurality of values represented by different evaluation purposes and audiences, key evaluation questions, and quality criteria.”  Which stakeholder interests should be given priority in an evaluation study, and how is this determination made ?

Evaluation Guidelines defined by the Joint Committee on Evaluation Standards in Education:  Usability - ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users  Feasibility- ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic and frugal  Propriety - ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results  Accuracy- ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine worth or merit of the program being evaluated

 We drank the Cool-aid but how do we bring it home? Diffusion of training……  Balancing what the client wants vs. what the funder wants and what partners want  Its about the budget  Let’s assume we have good data. What is our method of analysis for the moving target?

 Four core measures and lots of other data- so what?  What about measuring the coalition leadership, development etc.? The budget again  Coalitions tend to follow the shiny object  Needs (assessment) 1 st

 Learning to speak their language  Is that new idea, opportunity, prevention effort on the map (LM)?  Evaluation on a moving escalator other wise known as developmental evaluation  Personalities again

 From a data perspective: identifying and collecting quality data on perpetually moving targets  From a people perspective: resistance from coalition members  From a field perspective: lack of simple methodology

 It can help them focus their efforts on the real problems in their community rather than the substance du jour  Help draw the lines between what they do and their target outcomes