PowerPoint Presentation

2 + 2 = ?

Two Plus Two Might Not Always Equal Four

Enhanced Strategic PlanningLogic ModelAlcoholRisk FactorsProtective Factors

WorkgroupInputDevelop Action PlanWhat? (Prevalence)Why? Root Causes(Weighted factors)Why Here?Local factorsImplementationEvaluationEvaluationLogic ModelAlcoholWhat? (Prevalence)What? The problemJust like Chicken Little -

Problems often seem to fall from the sky.or in the case of prevention planning..

from the survey.

4What? The ProblemWhat we measure is often determined by what we are concerned aboutor (in some cases), someone elses pre-determined concerns or priorities.

Groups are then formed because of that issue/problem.

Logic ModelAlcoholRisk FactorsProtective Factors

What? (Prevalence)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 EnhancementThe determination of the problem and its intervention is based on quantitative measurement of not only:

Prevalence Predictionof risk and of problemprotective behaviorfactors but also For ExampleFavorable Attitudes Toward Drug UseAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=320Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug UseAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32012.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk levelPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorFavorable Attitudes Toward Drug UseAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32012.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level63% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.PrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorFavorable Attitudes Toward Drug UseAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32012.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level63% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.22.3% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 daysPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorFavorable Attitudes Toward Drug UseAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32012.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level63% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.22.3% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 daysThereforeStudents who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.56 times more likely (63%/22.3%) to report drinking in the last 30 daysPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorAntisocial BehaviorAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=3206.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level93.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level64% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.24.8% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 daysThereforeStudents who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.56 times more likely (64%/24.8%) to report drinking in the last 30 daysPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorFriends Use DrugsAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32013.1% of students surveyed scored at the risk level86.9% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level57% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.23.0% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 daysThereforeStudents who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.48 times more likely (57%/23%) to report drinking in the last 30 daysPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorLack Perceived Risks of Drug UseAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32018.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level81.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level50% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.22.3% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 daysThereforeStudents who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.24 times more likely (50%/22.3%) to report drinking in the last 30 daysPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorParental Attitudes Favorable to Drug UseAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32013.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level86.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level52.3% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.23.6% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 daysThereforeStudents 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 daysPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorLack of rewards for Pro-social Involvement in the CommunityAnystate, USA

Total number of Students surveyed:N=32032.5% of students surveyed scored at the risk level64.5% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level27.8% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.26.9% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 daysThereforeStudents who lack rewards for pro-social involvement in their community were less likely (27.8%/26.9%) to report drinking in the last 30 daysPrevalencePrediction of Problem BehaviorLogic ModelAlcoholRisk FactorsProtective Factors

WorkgroupInputWhat? (Prevalence)Why? Root Causes(Weighted factors)Why Here?Local factorsLogic Model: Why Here? Why Now?Combining Quantitative and Qualitative measuresAnytown USA RatingHigh 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)BusinessParentCivic/VolunteerReligious/FraternalHealthcareSchoolLaw EnforcementState/Local/Tribal GovernmentMediaYouthOther Substance AbuseYouth-Serving OrganizationAnytown USAStrategic PlanningFactor 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?Break up into groups based on your sector.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 Dos: You can speculate as to why young people have this factor.Donts: You cannot discuss how to address the factoryet. (no solutions)

Community ReadinessAware 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 RatingHigh 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)BusinessParentCivic/VolunteerReligious/FraternalHealthcareSchoolLaw EnforcementState/Local/Tribal GovernmentMediaYouthOther Substance AbuseYouth-Serving OrganizationAnytown USAStrategic PlanningFactor 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 IIIn 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 Dos: You may talk about how you see you or your organizations readiness to address this factorDonts: You may not discuss the limitations (lack of resources) you or your organization may have to address that factor.

Logic ModelAlcoholRisk FactorsProtective Factors

WorkgroupInputDevelop Action PlanWhat? (Prevalence)Why? Root Causes(Weighted factors)Why Here?Local factorsImplementationSelection of the Priority Factors: Calculate weighted scoresStep 1: Combine the rankingsStep 2: Combine with prediction Step 3: Combine with prevalence Weighted Score SpreadsheetAnytown USAPrevAlcoholWeightedHigh School Students - 2010FactorRankRankRate IRate IIScoreSensation Seeking (R22-PI)32.2%173125.75Lack Perceived Risks of Drug Use (P8-PI)18.8%541236.00Friend Use Drugs (R21-PI)13.1%143466.75Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use (R19-PI)12.8%151847.00Lack Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement (P1-C)21.9%2191149.00Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Beh (R18-PI)16.6%91614912.00Lack of Supervision and Rules (R6-F)20.0%32451812.50Antisocial Behavior (R17-PI)6.9%24291612.75Perceived Availability of Drugs (R5-C)12.8%16662312.75Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use (R10-F)13.8%125132112.75Logic Model: Development PlanIdentify evidence-based prevention programs and strategies selected for each factorThere 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 ChallengesSome sites provide evidence-based programs that link directly to risk and protective factors.For example Problem behavior: underage drinkingFavorable attitudes toward drug useLife Skills Training ProgramReduction in favorable attitudes drug useResults in reduced in reduced alcohol useLogic Model: Development Plan ChallengesNot 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: violenceAnti-social behaviorOlweus Bullying Prevention ProgramOBBP leads to a reduction in bullyingResults in reduced ant-social behaviorReduced bullying leads to reduced violenceLogic Model: Development Plan ChallengesNot 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 ModelAlcoholRisk FactorsProtective Factors

WorkgroupInputDevelop Action PlanWhat? (Prevalence)Why? Root Causes(Weighted factors)Why Here?Local factorsImplementationEvaluationEvaluationEvaluationAnswers the question What happenedcompared to what would have happened?EvaluationProcessWhat did you doOutputsOutcomesWhat changedCompared to?Why?EvaluationRe-measure what was measured in needs assessment.Add new measures as needed.Strategy-specific protocols.Process measures are critical.If you didnt do what you said you would doyou cant 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 PlanningYou can complete the planning process in a limited number of sessions (six).The planning is focused.The planning is efficient.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 processFor Questions Rob LillisEvalumetrics Researchrlillis@rochester.rr.comLynne GochenaurMarcus Whitman School Districtlgochenaur@mwcsd.org