1. Prepared by: Sharon O’Hara, M.S. for Community Prevention Institute (CPI) 771 Oak Avenue Parkway, Suite 3 Folsom, CA 95630 Prepared for: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 1700 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 October 21, 2004 State Incentive Grant (SIG) County Grant Program Year 1 County Profiles: 2004-2005

2. SIG Grantee Counties Alameda Humboldt Marin Mendocino Mono Orange Sacramento San Diego Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Sonoma Stanislaus Ventura sd oc vta mono scruz SB ala marin sonoma mendocino humboldt stan sacto Marin Sonoma Mono San Diego Orange Santa Barbara Ventura Santa Cruz Mendocino Humboldt Stanislaus Alameda Sacramento

3. 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

4. 1 KEY POINTS Populations Served  5 counties identified risk group numbers  7 did not specify  1 will determine the number during Phase I. Numbers

5. 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.

6.  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.  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

8.  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

9. 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

10. 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

11.  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 INSTRUMENTS

12.  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

13.  All grantees indicated they plan to use environmental approaches.  7 grantees (54%) named specific types of environmental strategies they will use. Environmental Strategies

14. EXAMPLES  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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. GOAL ONE: Promote a cultural shift in understanding & 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

23. GOAL ONE: Promote a cultural shift in understanding & 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

24. MODUE 1 GOAL TWO: Encourage & establish collaboration across systems. Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives Number of Grantees by Goal Two Objectives

25. GOAL TWO: Encourage & establish collaboration 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

26. GOAL THREE: Reduce availability of alcohol to underage youth. Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives Number of Grantees by Goal Three Objectives

27. 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

28. GOAL FOUR: Increase perception among adolescents & young adults that binge drinking is harmful & acceptable. Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives Number of Grantees by Goal Four Objectives

29. 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

30. GOAL FIVE: Identify & promote evidence- based practices in addressing binge drinking. Alignment with GPAC Goals & Objectives Number of Grantees by Goal Five Objectives

31. 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

32. YOUTH CORE MEASURES Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures Number of Grantees by Youth Core Measures

33. 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

34. YOUTH OPTIONAL MEASURES: Community Domain Number of Grantees by Youth Optional Measures Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures

35. 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

36. YOUTH OPTIONAL MEASURES: Environmental Domain Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures Number of Grantees by Youth Optional Measures

37. YOUTH OPTIONAL MEASURES: Environmental 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

38. YOUNG ADULT MEASURES Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) Measures Number of Grantees by Young Adult Measures

39. 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

40. EXAMPLES  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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46.  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) 983-5738 www.ca-cpi.org A Standard of Excellence