dfc evaluation 2012-03-22

Evaluation Relationship To DFC Goal

Connecting Communities for Spring Branch YouthThe Spring Branch Coalition of The Coalition of Behavioral Health ServicesDrug Free Communities GrantProject Director: Dr. Sandy Olson, Ph.DEvaluation Firm: Knowledge Informatics and Research ServicesLead Evaluator: J. Valdez

1

Evaluation Relationship To DFC GoalGoal: To report measurably reduced substance use/abuse risks for a targeted population within a specific targeted geographical area though coalition activities using environmental strategies

2

Evaluation Process Diagram

3

Evaluation Process Step 1 DefineWhere is the problemSource: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

4

Evaluation Process Step 1 DefineWhere is the problem

5

Evaluation Process Step 1 Define

Who is providing help: (federal)

6

Evaluation Process Step 1 Define

Source: COMET Reporting System Logic ModelWho is providing the help (local)

7

Evaluation Process Step 1 DefineSource: COMET Reporting System Logic ModelWho needs the helpThe Spring Branch Community, specifically the north of I-10 side.

Adolescents, specifically those ages 12-17 and in Grades 6 through 12.

Hispanics and those of low socioeconomic status.

8

Evaluation Process Step 1 DefineWhat is the problemCDFSB (N=11) Locally Developed Community Stakeholder Survey

9

Evaluation Process Step 1 - DefineSpring BranchWhere:are the parents we need to contact

10

Evaluation Process Step 1 - DefineSpring BranchWhere:are the parents we need in 77080

Map side line should say 9th, 10th and 11th graders.([Grad_Year] = '2012' OR '2013' OR '2014') AND ([ZIP] = '77055')

11

Evaluation Process Step 1 - DefineSpring BranchWhere:are the parents we need in 77055

Map side line should say 9th, 10th and 11th graders.([Grad_Year] = '2012' OR '2013' OR '2014') AND ([ZIP] = '77055')12

Evaluation Process Step 2 ASSESSSource: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12

Core Measure: Past 30-Day Use

13

Evaluation Process Step 2 ASSESSCore Measure: Age of OnsetSource: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12

14

Evaluation Process Step 2 ASSESSCore Measure: Perception of Parental DisapprovalSource: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12

15

Evaluation Process Step 2 ASSESSCore Measure: Perception of RiskSource: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12

16

Evaluation Process Step 2 AssessSource: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12What do the Core Measures for Region 6 Tell Us?Remember this speaks of Region 6 Schools and without a power analysis it, we can not say much statistically. But we can use this as a baseline expectation.

We should expect alcohol to be the most used substance for kids as young as 10 yrs old and very likely about a 1/3 of kids 15 or older will likely be using alcohol.

Parents are delivering the message of their disapproval, but are becoming complacent or burning-out on stating their disapproval as children grow older, concerning alcohol.

The substance use is harmful message is out there to about of kids grades 7-12, but parental fatigue for stating their disapproval, risk taking is being sought by younger children, and counter message experience is causing the harm message to wane in terms of impact.

Justifies efforts that go beyond the conventional deliver the message of harm approach, and should also be augmented by efforts derived by strategies that can impact the environment.

17

Spring Branch ISD39414.1218045.6921153.550.006717.016315.997318.536516.505914.975814.7299335.5645545.8253553.880.0017217.3216216.3118718.8316616.7215015.1114814.9050218.0422945.6227053.780.008617.138116.149318.538316.537514.947414.74

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANCore Measure: Past 30-Day UseTobaccoUseAllGendersMFGradesG06G07G08G09G10G11G12AlcoholUseAllGendersMFGradesG06G07G08G09G10G11G12MarijuanaUseAllGendersMFGradesG06G07G08G09G10G11G12

Region VI27543414.41191236.94205677.470.00132214.80176286.402947110.704296815.605233219.006610424.0064769034.0310619316.4011421617.630.0010946016.9014508322.4019042129.4022151034.2024612238.0029275645.2026071413.83173726.66186857.170.00104294.00148615.70255509.803311112.703702114.203988915.30

Local Survey1218.85541.67758.3318.3318.33325.00216.6718.33325.0000.001727.87529.411270.59211.7615.88423.53423.53211.76423.5300.00812.70225.00675.00112.5000.00112.50225.00225.00225.0000.00

Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

18

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANSource: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

Core Measure: Past 30-Day Use

19

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANCore Measure: Age of OnsetSource: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

20

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANCore Measure: Perception of Parental DisapprovalSource: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

21

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANCore Measure: Perception of RiskSource: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

22

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANCore Measure Geo- contextual Strategies Recommendation

Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

23

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANSource: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

Core Measure Strategies Recommendation using Geographical Contextual Problem Analysis Ranking for Geographical Priority TargetingVariable(All)Row LabelsLocal SurveyRegion VISpring Branch ISDAlcoholGendersF2.00M2.00GradesG065.00G0710.002.00G083.0011.00G0913.00G1015.00G1116.00G1214.00MarijuanaGendersF1.001.00M4.004.00GradesG063.00G071.003.00G084.002.006.00G093.005.002.00G103.004.007.00G111.007.00G126.008.00TobaccoGendersF3.002.00M3.00GradesG062.00G072.004.00G083.003.00G098.001.00G109.005.00G113.0012.00G1217.00

24

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANCore Measure Geo- contextual Strategies RecommendationSource: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

25

Evaluation Process Step 3 PLANWhat do the Core Measures Tell Us?Remember this analysis assumes establishment of problem issues at Region 6, SBISD Schools, and Community Area Surveyed and without a power analysis it, we can not say much statistically. But we can use this as a baseline expectation.

Coalition Policy (Regional Level) efforts should try targeting efforts to pass policy preventing adolescents of post driving age and alcohol issues.

Augments efforts that utilize limited resources through the efficient implementation of strategies that can most impact the environment in which the highest concentration of problem issue is contained.

Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12CDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey

Coalition Partner Network (SBISD level) efforts should try assisting or promoting activity and time targeting risk and protective factors for Males use of Alcohol and Marijuana, specifically those in the Seventh and Ninth grades.Coalition (Local level) efforts should try prevention activities that target Eleventh Grade Females use of Marijuana, Seventh Grade females use of Tobacco and Alcohol, followed by female of all grade use of all three substance.

26

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTPopulation groups in Year CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

27

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTPopulation groups in ZIP code CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

28

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTCounts of ZIP code CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

29

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTPopulation groups in Site by Year CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

30

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTPopulation groups in Grade CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

31

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTPopulation groups in Family Dinner CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

32

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTPopulation groups in Any Overall Use Outcome CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

33

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTPopulation groups in Response Honesty CategoriesCDFSB (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

34

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTFocus groups responsesSB Focus Group (N=13) Interview Survey 2

Focus Group QuestionsQuestion ResponsesAttendence= 13 Dataset N=12*YESNOABSTAINEDWatches more U-Tube than TV?291How many people use Facebook more than U-Tube?552How many people made their Facebook page with an adult?0120How many people think its a good idea to talk about drugs on Facebook?471Has anyone ever had a friend that did post something on Facebook about drugs?651Have you posted something on Facebook about drugs?1101*Note: By the time questioning was started an attendee had left

35

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTRisk/Protective Factors Program to Local Index KeyCDFSB (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

36

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTProtective Factors TrendsCDFSB (N=6158) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

37

Evaluation Process Step 1 DefineRisk Factors from Local SurveyCDFSB (N=158 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

38

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTRisk Factors TrendCDFSB (N=158 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

39

Evaluation Process Step 1 DefineProtective Factors from Local SurveyCDFSB (N=158 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

40

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTCOMET Core Program Measures to Local Index KeyCDFSB (N=158) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

41

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTChange Structure from Local SurveyCDFSB (N=255) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

42

Evaluation Process Step 1 DefineRisk Factors from Local SurveyCDFSB (N=255) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2

Screen clipping taken: 3/22/2012 12:36 AM

43

Evaluation Process Step 2 AssessWhat do the Study Factors Tell Us?Remember this analysis assumes establishment of problem issues at Region 6, SBISD Schools, and Community Area Surveyed and without a power analysis it, we can not say much statistically. But as we continue to collect data we can begin to see movement in Core and Factor Measures.


44

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTOMC & Prescription DrugsCDFSB (N=185) Locally Collected Record of Drug Disposal)

45

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTOutcome Alternative to Prescription Drug DisposalCDFSB (N=175) Locally Created Survey for OMC Events)4

^4 : Survey Question Were Multiple Response and thus grater than the total number of surveys46

Evaluation Process Step 4 REPORTAge Group Access Reduced to Prescription Drugs By Disposal EventCDFSB (N=175Locally Created Survey for OMC Events)4

^4 : Survey Question Were Multiple Response and thus grater than the total number of surveys47

Evaluation Process Step 2 AssessWhat do the OMC Data Tell Us?Remember this analysis assumes establishment of problem issues at Region 6, SBISD Schools, and Community Area Surveyed and without a power analysis it, we can not say much statistically. But as we continue to collect data we can begin to see movement in Core and Factor Measures.


48

Evaluation Process Step 2 AssessHow are we communicating with others?

CDFSB (N=503) Email Communication Network

49

Evaluation Process Step 2 AssessHow are we communicating with others?


50

Evaluation Process Step 2 AssessCommunication Network Representation of....?


51

Evaluation Process Step 2 AssessWhat do the Email Communication Analysis Tell Us?Remember this analysis assumes establishment of problem issues at Region 6, SBISD Schools, and Community Area Surveyed and without a power analysis it, we can not say much statistically. But as we continue to collect data we can begin to see movement in Core and Factor Measures.


52

Evaluation Process Step 1 - DefineSpring BranchWhere:within a specific targeted geographical area

53

Evaluation Process Step 2 - AssessSpring BranchWhere:within a specific targeted geographical area

He we have three maps :

Most left and top @(0,0) is a mapping of geocoded narcotic crime (2005-2009) per Census 2000 population density in a light to dark percentage gradient (as show in legend below map) with a darken red boarder highlighting the Spring Branch area zipcodes (77080 and 77055),

2nd on the right we have two maps

the upper map shows a red heat intensity clustering of SA related crimes incident (shown as the yellow torch within a blue exterior circle) by census 2000 census track population density,

the lower map displays a geocoded snapshot (super-neighborhood/census 2000 census tracks/zip code) taken of TABC site licensure data taken in 12/2008 with symbols for TABC licensed geocoded sites having licenses not soon or past an expiration date as a white inner symbol within a dark exterior and those symbols that are displayed in a reverse coloring (dark inner symbol within a white circular exterior) represents those geocoded sites with TABC licenses end dates within target window (0m-06m) for TABC license end dates (a heat intensity clustering of the distribution of all TABC sites per Census 2000 census track population density using same red grades as upper map is also shown on this lower map, but the results of the analysis had too little variation and was too uniform to provide any indication of high concentration in TABC license site distribution)

Parallel SA crime concentration and geocoded TABC licensed site distribution patterns occur when overlayed by eye, but further analysis need to be done.54

Evaluation Process Step 3 - PlanSpring BranchWhere:within a specific targeted geographical area

55

Evaluation Process Step 4 - ReportWeb based system designed to help your Coalition use SAMHSA's Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF)5 SPF stepsAssessmentCapacityPlanningImplementationEvaluationRequired progressreports submitted through COMETManages your Coalition more effectivelyComet Reporting System

56

Evaluation Process Step 4 - ReportTarget Risk FactorsCommunityFactors inthe community that fosters drug useFamilyFactors in the home that fosters drug useSchoolFactors in school that fosters drug usePeer- IndividualFactors dealing with friends and peers of the child

Comet Reporting SystemTarget Risk FactorsCommunityFactors inthe community that fosters drug useFamilyFactors in the home that fosters drug useSchoolFactors in school that fosters drug usePeer- IndividualFactors dealing with friends and peers of the child

57

Evaluation Process Step 4 - ReportCoalition ActivitiesNeeds AssessmentNeeds of the grantCommunity AssessmentOverall look at the communityCommunity Events and MeetingsAny event that helps solve the problemCoalition MeetingsThis meeting today, discussion of grantCoalition Evaluation MeetingsEvaluation of efforts in communityCollection of Baseline DataCollection of data in community for evaluationLegislative IssuesIssues brought to State House floor for next season

Comet Reporting System

58

Evaluation Process Step 4 - ReportRisk and protective factorsKeeping in line with coalition factors and those in the narrativeCombining factors that overlapComet Reporting SystemAssessment activitiesKnowing what activities that have been done by the coalition and what activities are planned for the futureAlso which activities are improving the community and which are not working or negatively impacting the community

59

Sheet1PermitNbrExpiresOnLicenseTypeSiteNameSiteLoc5752584/28/09BEERANTOINE CITGO MINI MART2099 ANTOINE4277273/4/09BEERPACO'S GAMES3106 BLALOCK6851472/25/09BEERAMIGO'S GROCERY #21925 CAMPBELL ROAD6869333/16/09BEERLUCKY 73231 CAMPBELL ROAD4463282/14/09BEERCITGO HANDI PLUS #629505 CLAY ROAD5558904/13/09BEERAMIGOS SEAFOOD BUFFET2557 GESSNER DRIVE5125904/16/09BEERTELOLOAPAN MEAT MARKET #48514 HAMMERLY4879212/8/09BEERBILLARES SALAMANCA7810 HAMMERLY 'C'4657481/27/09BEERSTOP THEN BUY8606 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD5752543/9/09BEERDISCOUNT BEER AND TOBACCO9476 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD4669702/15/09BEERM & R MARKET8788 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD 'A'5746463/20/09LIQUOREL FIESTA NITE CLUB11410 HEMPSTEAD HWY6578664/22/09BEERCINDY'S NIGHT CLUB11204 HEMPSTEAD ROAD3044091/17/09BEERT & T FOOD MART4005 HOLLISTER2926143/31/09BEERADREST INC. 638018155 KATY FREEWAY6889554/2/09BEERKEMPWOOD FOOD MART9492 KEMPWOOD DRIVE6857263/3/09BEERTAQUERIA LATINO EL JUNIOR7523 LONG POINT ROAD SUITE 4005559444/15/09LIQUORTHE EVENTS COMPANY7310 OLD KATY ROAD6220363/12/09BEERH & H ICEHOUSE1109 SILBER ROAD6856833/2/09BEERROZ FOOD MART #211406 WIRT ROAD

dfc evaluation 2012-03-22

Documents