B



AAPS Annual Coalition Report

Thomas County Interagency Coalition (TCIC)

Regional Prevention Center of Northwest Kansas – Colby

April 2005

I. Orienting Information

A. Vision and Mission

1. What is the coalition’s vision and mission?

Vision: A county where all people make lifelong, safe, and healthy choices and provide a strong environment for learning, work, and leisure.

Mission: To collaboratively strengthen and unite individuals, families, and the community. To include: strengthening early childhood education and reduction of substance abuse, youth with problem behaviors, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, violence, school drop-outs, child abuse and neglect.

2. What was the process for developing a vision and mission for the coalition? Who was involved in the process?

• On an annual basis the Coalition reviews the vision and mission, CTC data and the strategic plan; revisions are proposed and adopted. The Coalition’s strategic planning task force met twice in February and March, revisited the vision and mission statements and proposed a few minor changes to the previous statements. On March 10, 2005 the Coalition adopted the revised vision and mission statements.

• Key community stakeholders representing all sectors are involved in the yearly review process. For this year’s review process stakeholders included members from the following sectors: religious, parent, youth, schools, state, healthcare, civic, youth-serving, and business.

3. Have the vision and mission of the organization changed at all over time?

Yes, but not substantially. Previous vision and mission statements included the following:

1997 Vision: A community that promotes healthy choices about alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.

1997 Mission: Decrease use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by promoting healthy, responsible, and legal choices in order to strengthen individuals, families, and our community.

2001 Vision: A community where empowered citizens make lifelong, safe, and healthy choices and provide a strong environment for learning, work, and leisure.

2001 Mission: To collaboratively strengthen and unite individuals, families, and the community.

B. Conceptual Framework

1. Does the coalition have a framework or logic model to guide the effort?

Yes, the most recent version of the Coalition’s logic model is included as Appendix D: Logic Model for Thomas County Interagency Coalition.

C. Purpose of Present Study

1. Why was this coalition selected for this case study report?

The Thomas County Interagency Coalition (TCIC) was selected because it met the two Case-Study Report criteria – CTC Survey data with greater than 60% participation rates, and ODSS data since 1997.

II. Coalition Overview

A. Community Context and Setting

1. What community is the coalition located? What is the historical context of the community?

The coalition is located in Thomas County, Kansas. Thomas County was founded in 1885 and currently has a population of 8,180. The county seat is Colby with a population of 5, 450.

2. What are the demographic characteristics of the community?

The Thomas County Interagency Coalition serves the rural community of Colby. The community’s population of 5,450 is 96.7% White and 1.9% Hispanic or Latino. Colby’s three pre-schools have 112 students; Head Start has 19; and 31 licensed family child care providers care for approximately 300 infants, toddlers and young children. There is a public school, a parochial school and a private Christian school in the community with a total K-12 population of 1,238 students. The two-year community college brings 18-20 year-old students to Colby from other communities in northwest Kansas, southwest Nebraska and eastern Colorado. Most live in off-campus housing where frequent parties involving alcohol, drugs and high-school youth are a concern for parents, law enforcement, school officials, landlords and neighbors.

3. What were the major problems, concerns, and community needs that occasioned the development of the coalition?

Colby’s rural location does not isolate the community from drugs; in fact, it contributes to the availability of drugs in the community. Colby is located on Interstate 70, a major drug trafficking route, evidenced by an increasingly large number of drug busts by the Thomas County Sheriff’s Department and the Kansas Highway Patrol on that thoroughfare. From 2001 until the end of 2004 there were 139 “drug incidents” in Thomas County, netting 9,396 lbs. of marijuana, 589 lbs. of cocaine, 55.5 lbs. of methamphetamine and 1.3 lbs. of heroin, as well as $722,630 in U.S. currency.

Northwest Kansas continues to be an ideal place to make the illegal, highly addictive stimulant methamphetamine because anhydrous ammonia, a key meth ingredient, is readily available in this farming community. The remote rural areas of the County also give meth cooks privacy and are less likely to be patrolled by law enforcement personnel. According to figures from the Colby Police Department in the city limits during the past four years, there have been 12 arrests for possession of methamphetamine, 3 verified dump sites, and 6 busts of clandestine labs; and an infant and two elementary-age children were present in two of these labs.

Alcohol and tobacco were identified in the initial needs assessment in 1996-97 as the drugs about which TCIC members were most concerned. An updated assessment in 2003 identified alcohol, marijuana and methamphetamine as the drugs of most concern; and these three continue be top priority for Coalition prevention interventions in 2005. Data from last year’s Kansas Communities That Care Student Survey indicate that 30-day use rates have decreased from the 2003 baseline of 35.6% to 23.9% for alcohol and from the 2003 baseline of 9.7% to 5.7% for marijuana. TCIC members are “guardedly optimistic” about the rate declines, but express that use levels are still “unacceptably high” for the community because 1 in 4 students still use alcohol at least monthly, and 1 student in 20 uses marijuana monthly. When Coalition members examined meth use rates, there was alarm that students tried meth even once considering its highly addictive nature. Members decided to monitor lifetime use rates of meth by grade and were particularly concerned over the 2003 rates of 12th graders – 8.5%, and the 2004 rates of 10th graders – 6%.

On an annual basis needs are reassessed using KCTC and Parent Survey data, local data, the Thomas County Report Card on the health and well-being of children, and evaluation results from the Drug-Free Communities Thomas County Prevention Project. The Coalition’s plan is updated and revised each year to reflect the results of the environmental scans, needs/resources assessments and the strategic planning process.

4. What features or aspects of the community have affected the development of the coalition?

The social climate in the community accepts underage drinking and partying as a rite of passage for area youth. Colby parents often express the opinion that they don’t think it’s a big crime for youth to “party,” because it has been going on for generations, and besides “most kids do it anyway.” Some parents tend to become angry at law enforcement and school authorities for enforcing the laws and school policies, and it has not been uncommon for parents to assist their children in avoiding the consequences for their actions. The recent alcohol-related drinking and driving death of an 18-year-old young man caused concern among TCIC members. Each year for the last five, members recalled alcohol/drug-related crashes that took the lives of 6 of the community’s young people. This prompted the decision to add a drinking and driving component to community-wide, five-year Social Norm Project, a major program of TCIC.

B. Coalition Development, History, and Organizational Structure

1. When did the coalition form? Under what conditions or circumstances was the coalition developed? (Please give a brief history of the coalition.)

The Coalition was an outcome of the Thomas County Community Health Assessment Process (CHAP) that began in April of 1995. A county-wide Community Opinion Survey distributed to 3800 residents in September of 1995 established substance abuse as a priority problem for our area. In June of 1996, members developed a written plan for reducing substance abuse problems in the community. Over the next two years, four task forces were organized under the umbrella of Community Awareness Team (CAT): the Alcohol Task Force, Tobacco Task Force, Colby Community College Task Force and the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Task Force. The KU Work Group (KUWG) provided support for evaluation and strategic planning in October-November 1997. Youth involvement was deemed to be the number one strength of CAT, and 1998, the Coalition won a national award for this authentic youth involvement at the Second Annual Communities That Care Forum sponsored by the Developmental Research Program of Seattle, Washington. For three years beginning in 1998, CAT was funded through the State Incentive Cooperative Agreement (SICA) and had 122 members, 75 of whom were high school or college age youth. During this time, CAT had a 6-member Board of Directors and a part-time paid program director. In 2001, CAT adopted the Connect Kansas framework and incorporated it into planning. CAT continued to operate as a coalition with a strong youth development and substance abuse focus until March of 2005.

In 2000, High Plains Mental Health Center (HPMHC) received a grant to implement the “Family-Centered System of Care,” which had the purpose of “identifying ways of supporting children and families of Thomas County.” HPMHC brought together agencies and organizations in order to integrate SED children and their families into community services. This group, the Thomas County Interagency/Community Mobilization Team (TCI/CM), became the umbrella coalition for the community and meetings were used to network and cooperate on activities and projects. CAT remained a separate entity under TCI/CM and focused on substance abuse and youth development.

In the spring of 1998, the newly-formed state agency, Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority, brought together an “Informal Community Planning Team” for the purpose of community-based planning for prevention of juvenile delinquency. This group provided input into the 5-year Strategic Plan for the Judicial Region of the 15th, 17th & 23rd judicial districts. In July of 2000 this group “joined efforts” with the Thomas County Interagency/Community Mobilization Team. For four years, TCIC received mini-grants from Northwest Kansas Juvenile Services for Coalition planned and implemented prevention activities.

In the spring of 2000, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Thomas County began their mentoring program and became an important partner of TCI/CM. A year later in 2001, the Smart Start Northwest Kansas Project received funding from the Master Tobacco Settlement through the Kansas Children’s Cabinet and Trust Fund and brought the early childhood system into the Coalition. In November of 2002, the Kansas National Guard joined the Coalition; and in 2003 the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Project became a member. Each of these new partners brought additional resources and professional expertise.

2. What is the organizational structure of the coalition? Who are the organizational leaders and what are their roles and functions?

The coalition is structured around representatives from 12 sectors that include: youth, parents, business, media, schools, youth-serving organizations, civic, law enforcement, health, religious, state and other. The leader of the coalition is a representative of the healthcare sector. The sector representatives who participated in the most recent strategic planning process are as follows:

Diana McAdams-SADD President

Toni McAdams-Parent Teacher Student Association

Mary Ann Downing-Executive Director of the

Colby/Thomas County Chamber of Commerce

Mike Fell-KXXX/KQLS station manager

Diana Wieland-USD #315 Curriculum Director

Joe Leibbrandt-Thomas County Extension

Gary Shull-Colby Police Department

Carol Rahn-First Presbyterian Church

Kathy Wright-Thomas County EMS

Ron Redick-High Plains Mental Health

Kelly Dewey-NW KS Juvenile Services

Roxy Cabral-Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect

There are additional representatives from each of the 12 sectors and a list of TCIC members is included in Appendix E: TCIC List of Members.

III. Community Partners

A. Key Partners

1. Who are key partners of the coalition? How did the key partnerships develop? What are the main role/functions of the key partners?

• The key partners and their main role/functions are listed in Appendix E. The 12 sector model for coalition membership outlined in the Drug-Free Communities Support grant has helped TCIC to analyze its membership and recruit new members who have not been involved.

• TCIC has a 9 ½ -year history as a successful community coalition. Twenty-five percent of the current members, representing 6 of the 12 sectors, were founding members of the Coalition. Since the beginning, three other sectors have been represented by varied personnel from the same agencies or organizations. TCIC currently has 67 members representing all 12 sectors—7 of the 12 sectors have participating members (defined as attending more than 50% of meetings and participating in at least one Coalition activity during the year), 4 sectors have supporting members (defined as attending less than 50% of the meetings and participating in at least one Coalition activity), and 1 sector, media, has not had a representative at the meetings but has participated in Coalition activities. Efforts to encourage attendance have been successful, with the average attendance at the Coalition’s monthly meeting increasing from 7 in FY03 to 13 since October 2004.

2. How involved are other members of the community (e.g., individuals, agencies, sectors) with the coalition? Is the pool of key stakeholders in your target communities increasing, decreasing, or staying the same as a result of the coalition’s efforts? Why? Provide evidence from the ODSS to demonstrate.

• All sectors are represented on TCIC’s membership list. Some sectors are heavily represented and some improvement is needed on representation from other sectors.

• The pool of key stakeholders in our target community is increasing as a result of the Coalition’s efforts. The Coalition has analyzed sectors that have weak representation at meetings and has invited members from those sectors to attend. Until recently, gaining consistent commitment of media and business has been a challenge. However, the publisher of the local newspaper became actively involved with the Coalition’s NO WAY campaign last fall and has continued support through in-kind donation of advertising space in the daily newspaper. In January, the Executive Director of the Colby/Thomas County Chamber of Commerce joined the Coalition and has been part of the strategic planning process. (See Appendix B: Listing of Community Changes, highlighted entries.) Identifying a representative from civic and volunteer groups who is able to attend meetings regularly continues to be a challenge. Those currently representing that sector participate in activities, but are unable to attend regularly. All of the active Coalition members have been asked to sign Letters of Commitment regarding regular attendance and participation in Coalition activities.

B. Support Organization

1. Does the coalition have any supportive agencies that help the coalition (e.g., RPC, T.A. providers)?

TCIC’s supportive agencies are RPC, PCAN (Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect), Smart Start, and High Plains Mental Health Center.

2. What are the roles and functions of the organizations or individuals that provide support?

TCIC’s supportive agencies are there to provide technical assistance to all members of the coalition.

3. What type of technical assistance is provided by supportive agencies (e.g., RPC)

• The RPC provides logistical support through agendas, minutes and reminder e-mails, phone calls and postcards. For the past 2½ years, the RPC has served as the fiscal agent for the DFCSP grant to TCIC and is legally responsible for satisfying grant requirements. Responsibility for implementing chosen policies, programs and practices is diffused among coalition members and their agencies; staff paid with DFCSP funds play a coordinating and supportive role for TCIC, rather than directly implementing strategies themselves. The RPC also administers the JJA prevention funds that are used by TCIC partners to implement the Community Action Plan. For example, the RPC provides JJA funding to Colby Elementary School to implement LifeSkills Training curriculum and does the program evaluation for LST.

• PCAN staff provides technical assistance and mini grants to the Coalition for the prevention of child abuse and neglect projects and activities. Most recently, PCAN provided the blue ribbons and information distributed by TCIC members for Child Abuse & Neglect Awareness month.

• Smart Start also provides technical assistance and mini grants to the Coalition for projects and activities associated with early childhood care and education. Smart Start, together with PCAN, CCC R&R and NKESC, will be coordinating a new project, Partnering With Parents, to educate family child care providers to work with parents of children in their care.

• High Plains Mental Health provides leadership for TCIC meetings.

C. Resources

1. How is the coalition funded and supported?

αThe primary source of funding for TCIC is a five-year Drug-Free Communities Support Program (DFCSP) grant from SAMHSA/CSAP. The current level of funding for FY04 is $41,230; and a renewal application for funding was recently submitted for $99,400 for FY05. (These are federal fiscal years from October 1 through September 30.)

αOther current sources of funding include a $1,000 grant from Kansas Action for Children for the Thomas County Report Card on the health and well-being of children, Northwest Kansas Juvenile Services prevention funding, two mini-grants from Smart Start Northwest Kansas and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Project, and Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project.

αAdditionally, partners in TCIC receive funding that is used to implement the Coalition’s Community Action Plan – Colby Public Schools receives funding from Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Big Brothers Big Sisters receives funding from other grants and local fundraising.

2. What key resources and supports (e.g., people, financial resources, political influences, etc…) were particularly helpful to the development and ongoing maintenance of the coalition?

αInitially, support for strategic planning from KDH&E’s Community Health Assessment Process (CHAP) and Kansas Health Foundation’s Integrated Community Health Development Process (ICHD) were important to the development of the Coalition. Primary and public healthcare professionals were involved, as were youth. The original members and RPC personnel believe that the active participation of the youth attracted other adults to become involved and to work alongside and support the efforts of the “youth task forces” as they were called in the early years. In 1997, the KU Work Group introduced the idea of planning for community changes and documenting the results. TCIC has been entering data on the online documentation system since that time.

αFor three years beginning in October of 1998, State Incentive Cooperative Agreement (SICA) funds were the next major source of funding – $60,100 in FY98, $49,851 in FY99 and $56,487 in FY00. In the 90s, a primary focus of prevention efforts by the Coalition was tobacco and an additional small grant of $2,500 from KDH&E supported specific tobacco prevention activities in 1999-2000.

αIn July 2000, JJA prevention funding in the form of yearly mini-grants expanded the funding base and the program focus of the Coalition. Through the RPC the Coalition began offering the 8-hour AOD educational program, Prime for Life: Under 21, for youth with first-time alcohol or other drug offenses. In fiscal years 01, 02, 03 and 04, mini grants of $1,672, $1,525, $2,456 and $4,632 funded Coalition programs and activities. Law enforcement partners became more involved with the Coalition at this point.

αThe problems associated with meth use and manufacturing were the impetus for funding from the Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project (KMPP). Concern over local children found in clandestine methamphetamine laboratories prompted the Coalition to secure a mini-grant to fund the Drug Endangered Children (DEC) Task Force and to receive significant in-kind contributions for future services to drug-exposed children. The professional time of first responders, the community’s pediatrician and attorney serving as the court-appointed guardian ad litem for children are important in-kind resources given to the Coalition’s DEC Task Force.

αMini-grants from Smart Start, $600 in 2004 and $600 in 2005, and mini-grants from the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Project, $750 to TCIC/DEC in 2004 and $1,500 in 2005, brought additional resources and partners to TCIC. Childcare providers, Colby Community College Resource & Referral and social services personnel became active TCIC members.

αThe most recent source of funding is the DFCSP grant that was initially awarded October 1, 2003 for $30,808. A grant requirement is that representatives from 12 sectors must be active in the coalition. This has brought religious, media and business representatives into the Coalition. Because of the various funding sources over the last 9½ years, new partners have become involved; this has helped TCIC evolve into a more comprehensive community coalition that is focused on collaboration to prevent a variety of problems that effect community children, youth and their families.

3. Is the distribution of resources generated what you expected to see? Why or why not?

Yes. Of the 714 entries, the Smart Start grant accounts for the 60% of the resources for the early childhood and education sector; the other sector has been used for grants to the Coalition and accounts for the largest dollar amount of $285,876 to TCIC. This chart would look significantly different if the in-kind resource data for CAT, BBBS and TCIC would have been entered after 2001.

4. What sectors does the coalition need to more actively involve in leveraging resources?

All sectors could be more actively involved in leveraging resources.

5. What additional support, if available, would have further contributed to success?

There is a local community foundation that provides funding, and over the years has issued an RFP for “substance abuse prevention.” The funding priorities of the Thomas County Foundation are tangibles such as videos, pamphlets, curriculum materials, etc. Transportation, advertising, staff support, consumables or any line item considered to be “overhead” is not allowed. The Coalition does not need tangibles to carry out the Community Action Plan and consequently has not responded to the RFPs. A change in the funding philosophy of the Foundation would benefit TCIC in implementing the Community Action Plan as well as demonstrate local “buy in” from the Foundation Board and grant-making committee.

Graph 1: Resources Generated by Sector 1997-2005

[pic]

IV. Coalition Goals and Outcomes

A. Community Change Goals

1. What are the targeted goals and objectives of the coalition? What is the prioritization of the targeted goals?

Prevention Priorities 2003-2008:

Targeted drugs are alcohol, methamphetamine and marijuana. Of particular concern to Coalition members was the increase from 8.7% in 2003 to 10.3% in 2004 in the percent of students who responded “no risk” to the KCTC Survey question about regular marijuana use.

Goal 1: Substance abuse among youth and, eventually, adults in Thomas County will be reduced.

Goal 2: Substance abuse prevention efforts with high-risk children, youth and their families in Thomas County will be enhanced and increased.

Goal 3: Collaboration among coalition members, the agencies they represent and the new partners recruited to become involved in prevention initiatives in Thomas County will be strengthened.

B. Risk and Protective Factors

1. What are the key risk and protective factors targeted by the coalition?

The key risk and protective factors in the TCIC Community Action Plan reflect the concerns raised by data from the Kansas Communities That Care Student Survey as well as parent reports about alcohol and other drug use to school principals, counselors and Coalition members. In the community the elevated levels of the risk factor of Community Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use in the community domain and two risk factors in the peer domain—Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use, Peer Drug Use—have been cause for concern over the years. Protective factors of Opportunity for Positive Involvement, Community Rewards for Conventional Involvement, and Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards are targeted by the Coalition.

C. Outcomes

1. What are the population level outcomes the coalition aims to affect?

The four outcomes are increase the age of onset, reduce drug use, increase perception of risk or harm of AOD use, and increase perception of disapproval of AOD use by peers and adults. These behavioral outcomes are measurable with data from the annually-administered Kansas Communities That Care Student Survey, and the Coalition believes that the levels of change projected in 2003 are realistic and can be achieved. Outcomes 2003-2008 for TCIC are as follows:

1-Age of onset

By 2008 increase Colby youth’s average age of initiation of first use of alcohol from 13.06 years to 13.7 years and marijuana from14.42 years to15.0 years as measured by the KCTC Student Survey. (Baseline 03KCTC Survey data: 13.06 years for alcohol; 14.42 years for marijuana)

2-30-day use rates of alcohol and marijuana

By 2008 reduce by 7% and 1% respectively each of the reported 30-day use rates for alcohol and marijuana for Colby youth as measured by the KCTC Student Survey. (Baseline 03KCTC Survey data: 35.6% for alcohol; 9.7% for marijuana)

2-Lifetime use rates of methamphetamine

By 2008 reduce reported lifetime use rates of Colby 8th graders by 1%, 10th graders by 1.5%, 12th graders by 6% and maintain 6th grade use at 0%. (Baseline 03KCTC Survey data: 1.3% for 8th; 3% for 10th; 8.5% for 12th; 0% for 6th)

3-Perception of risk or harm

By 2008 reduce by 4.5% and 2% respectively the rates of Colby youth who report “no risk” in response to the KCTC Student Survey questions: “How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they take one or two drinks of an alcohol beverage (beer, wine, liquor) nearly every day?” and “How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they smoke marijuana regularly?” (Baseline 03KCTC Survey data: 17.9% responding, “no risk” on daily alcohol use; 8.7% responding, “no risk” on regular marijuana use)

4-Perception of disapproval of use by peers and adults

By 2008 reduce by 3% and 1.5% respectively the rates of Colby youth who respond “not wrong at all” to the KCTC Student Survey questions: How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example vodka, whiskey or gin) regularly?” and “How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to smoke marijuana?” (Baseline 03KCTC Survey data: 12.7% responding, “not wrong at all” for regular alcohol use; 7.3% responding, “not wrong at all” for smoking marijuana)

D. Strategies

1. What are the general strategies (implementation components) that the coalition uses to achieve state goals and objectives?

TCIC uses 7 strategies—community-based processes, prevention education, environmental approaches, information dissemination, drug-free alternatives, problem identification & referral (intervention), and coalition capacity-building. The first 6 strategies have been part of the Coalition’s written strategic plans since the beginning and the coalition capacity-building strategy has been added in the last three years.

Table 2: Strategies 2005

|Broad Strategies (based from ODSS) |Coalition Specific Strategies Component (currently being planned, |

| |implemented or modified by TCIC) |

|1) Community-based Process |8Mobilization of agencies/organizations around children’s health & |

| |safety issues through the Thomas County Report Card project; |

| |mobilization of early childhood professionals through the Colby |

| |Childcare Association |

| |8CSAP Promising Faith-Based Prevention Model Program |

| |8Smart Start mini-grant project |

| |8PCAN mini grant project |

|2) Prevention Education |8Second Step & Talk About Touching curricula (preschool) |

| |8 LifeSkills Training curriculum (3rd, 4th & 5th grades) |

| |8Teen Issues (Colby High School) |

| |8 Student Success Seminars at Colby Community College |

| |8 Prime For Life: Under 21 for first-time AOD offenders &Prime For |

| |Life: What Parents Need To Know (PFL) for their parents |

| |8Stolen Moments Seminar (SMS) for first-time offenders for shoplifting|

| |& their parents |

| |8Substance abuse education with BBBS volunteers and parents (Guiding |

| |Good Choices) |

| |8Partnering with Parents Project (Smart Start & PCAN) |

| |8Voluntary Random Student Drug Testing workshop April 2005 |

|3) Environmental Changes |8Social marketing: Social Norms Project with the “It’s OK To Say No |

| |Way” campaign, Red Ribbon Week and Recovery Month |

| |8Kansas Retailer Meth Watch Program; Retailer Education Program about |

| |selling tobacco and alcohol to underage buyers |

|3) Environmental Changes cont’d. | |

|4) Drug-Free Alternatives |8After-school program using Too Good for Drugs and Violence curriculum|

| |8Mentoring for high-risk youth through |

| |BBBS |

| |8SADD at Colby High School and SADD at Colby Middle School |

|5) Information Dissemination |8Educational booth at health fairs and community events |

| |8Distribution of informational resources, data |

|6) Problem Identification & Referral |8Drug-Endangered Children Task Force (DEC) |

| |8“Cause and Consequence: Understanding the Drug-Exposed Child” |

| |Training in October 2005 |

| |8S.O.S., Supporting Our Students, Colby High School peer-listening |

| |group |

| |8Referrals |

|7) Coalition Capacity-building |8Strategic planning and dissemination of the results |

| |8Town hall meetings |

| |8Thomas County Youth Advisory Board (YAB) |

| |8Prevention training for TCIC members |

V. Results

A. Coalition as Catalyst for Change

1. To what extent has the coalition served as catalyst for community change? What new or modified program, policies, and practices have been facilitated by the RPC?

• For the 7 ½ years that the Coalition has been documenting community changes on the Online Documentation and Support System, 207 new or modified programs, policies or practices can be attributed to the work of the Coalition. This is an average of 2 changes per month, 28 per year. TCIC has been an important catalyst for change in Colby.

• The RPC facilitated 41%of the community changes; Smart Start facilitated 35% of the community changes; various other Coalition partners facilitated 21% of the community changes. BBBS and PCAN account for 3% of the community changes; however, not all the community change data attributable to BBBS and PCAN have been entered into the ODSS.

2. What are illustrative examples of community change facilitated by the coalition?

ω13% of the community changes were new collaborations. Some of the significant ones were highlighted in previous sections.

ω66% of the community changes were new programs and include 3 tested-effective school-based programs (Second Step, Talk About Touching, LifeSkills Training curriculum), 2 tested-effective community-based programs (Guiding Good Choices, Prime For Life: Under 21), environmental change programs (retailer education programs for tobacco and alcohol, KS Meth Watch, and the Social Norm Project) and the 10 new programs implemented in the community’s early care and education system through the Smart Start Project..

ω9% of the community changes were modified programs – for example, adding a program evaluation component to the LifeSkills Training program.

ω11% of the community changes were new practices. The most notable have been to change the practice of giving away beer promotional items at the community’s welcome for new Colby Community College students and the decision of the Thomas County Fair Board not to allow free samples of spit tobacco to be given away at the fair.

ω1% of the community changes were new policies and involved the City and USD prohibiting smoking in front of their buildings during sporting events being held in the facilities.

3. Which of these changes are worthy of special note (i.e., are they innovative, low-cost—high impact, important for particular partner, great community benefits)? Can you identify particular community champions or heroes?

• New program community changes are relatively easy to achieve in comparison to policy and practice changes. The 156 new or modified programs documented by the Coalition are also more covered by the media and have more appeal for funders, stakeholders and key leaders. One program about which TCIC is particularly enthused is the Social Norms Project that includes the social marketing campaign, “It’s OK To Say NO WAY!” Also Kids Port Group Child Care Center and Training Program has been generously supported by the community and benefits many children and families with high quality care and early education. The new pilot after-school program is an innovative collaboration between five TCIC partners who each are taking a week to provide programming to the 15 children who are participating.

• There is not one hero or champion that can be singled out. Partners from each of the 12 sectors are important advocates and “cheerleaders” for the work of TCIC.

B. Factors Associated with Rates of Change

1. Is the rate of community change increasing, decreasing, or staying about the same? If there are marked changes in the rates of change, please explain why. What happened that led to those discontinuities? (Include discontinuity explanations in critical event graph.) Is the coalition surprised by the rate of change?

• The rate of community change is steadily is increasing.

• The funding streams – first SICA, then Smart Start and JJA, and most recently DFCSP – contributed to the steady upward rate. The points where the rate seemed to flatten correspond to the end of grant funding that paid for a part-time staff person employed by the RPC. With current DFCSP funding there is the equivalent of a .75 FTE working with TCIC and it will increase to the equivalent of a 1.05 FTE with the third year of DFCPS funding that begins in October of 2005. The Coalition was introduced to KUWG’s 6 elements of coalition effectiveness and has always agreed with the hypothesis of the KUWG that a paid director for coalition work is crucial to achieving substantial change and meeting the coalition’s planned community change goals. TCIC has had a written plan from the beginning and this too has contributed to the steady rate of changes in the community.

• The Coalition is pleased by the rate of change.

2. What have been critical or key events for the coalition? What have been the consequences of these key events?

• A critical event noted by the Coalition as a CR in the ODSS data occurred in January of 2000 when the Colby Board of Education changed the district’s alcohol policy in response to pressure from parents and the community. The new policy was much less stringent because “guilt by association” was deleted, the means of substantiating violations were redefined, and consequences for violating the policy were revised and reduced. The rate of 30-day alcohol use increased from 34.74% in 2000 to 40.2% in 2002 and the percent of students responding “not wrong at all” to the KCTC survey question about perception of disapproval for using alcohol went from 9.96% in 2000 to 16.09% in 2001 to 14.1% in 2002.

• A second critical event occurred at the beginning of this year when the 6th community youth in 5 years was killed in an alcohol-related drinking and driving crash. As a consequence TCIC will be including a drinking and driving component in the NO WAY campaign.

C. Coalition’s Contribution to Community Improvement

1. Goal Areas

In what goal areas are the community changes occurring?

Are the distributions of community changes by goal area what you expected to see? What is surprising about the distribution of community change by goal area?

• Almost one third of the community changes are occurring in the Connect Kansas goal area of Children enter school ready to learn. This is the stated goal of Smart Start Kansas and is always the goal of any community change facilitated by TCIC member, Smart Start. Youth choose healthy behaviors was really the only goal area that seemed to fit most community changes until the RPC goals were added as options approximately two years ago. This expansion of goal choices provides a more realistic way to categorize changes by goal area and to clarify the intent of the new program, policy or practice.

• Yes, the distribution is expected. 79% of the community changes met Connect Kansas goals; 21% fall into the RPC goal areas. Again this distribution is explained by the recent addition of the RPC goals to the goal pull down menu. Two of the Connect Kansas goals ( 3 & 4 ) do not apply to the community changes planned by TCIC in the current Community Action Plan. Four of the 10 RPC goals ( 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 ) also do not apply to new programs, policies and practices that TCIC has implemented or planned.

• TCIC members were pleased to see that RPC Goal 4: Promote Use of Evidence-Based Prevention Programs had the most community changes of the 6 RPC goal areas.

2. Sector

In what sectors are the community changes distributed? Why?

Are the distributions of community changes by sector what you expected to see? What is surprising about the distribution of community change by sector?

What other sectors is it important to more actively involve?

• The community changes are distributed in 9 of the 12 sectors. Two of the sectors are applicable only to another coalition in another county; to date there are no changes in the Religious sector; and the Health sector has less than 1% of the changes. New programs, policies and practices facilitated by Smart Start account for the Early Care and Education sector distribution of 36%. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the community changes were in the School sector; 12.5% in the community/social service sector and the changes in the Business, Youth Organizations, Law Enforcement, and CCC (Colby Community College) sectors were relatively evenly distributed. The Other sector (7%) was used to account for changes that involve multiple coalition partners from multiple sectors.

• Yes, the distributions of changes by sector are expected and the results were not surprising.

• Involving the Religious and Health sectors in future community changes is important. During the recent strategic planning process, TCIC recognized the need to more actively engage the faith community of Colby. In the revised plan there is a new faith-based initiative designed to mobilize churches to become involved in TCIC prevention strategies and programs.

Graph 3: Community Change by Goal Area 1997-2005

[pic]

Graph 4: Community Change by Sector 1997-2005

[pic]

3. Strategy

a. Are the distributions of community change by strategy what you expected to see? What is surprising about this distribution? What would you like to see differently in the distribution of strategies?

• RPC staff was pleased to see that the information dissemination and drug-free alternative strategies were only 7% each and that 86% of TCIC prevention efforts fall into the prevention education (41%), community-based processes (25%) and environmental changes (20%) strategy areas.

• An ideal distribution would have most of the community changes in the environmental change strategy, followed by the community-based processes strategy, and then prevention education.

b. Are the distributions of community changes by strategy consistent with the goals and objectives of the coalition?

• The distributions are consistent with the goals and objectives of TCIC to this point. The Coalition has worked to implement tested-effective school-based programs at pre-school and elementary levels at both the public and parochial schools. Planned prevention education is also implemented at the high school and college levels. Colby Middle School is the only level where the prevention curriculum, Project Alert, is not implemented consistently or with fidelity. It is a goal to change this for the next school year. Community changes related to the NO WAY social marketing campaign are environmental changes and with the new objectives for the campaign there should continue to be a good percentage of changes that fall under this strategy. The community-based process changes generally involve new collaborations and there will be new partnerships and collaborative efforts as TCIC implements the CSAP Promising Faith-Based Prevention Model Program.

Table 6: Community Change by CSAP Core Strategy 1997-2005

[pic]

4. Key Services Provided by the Coalition

a. What services are you providing to support community change?

• The services being provided to support community change include technical assistance, data analysis, strategic planning, program evaluation, training, research, grant writing, grant administration and reporting, and fiscal services.

b. Who are services being provided to?

• The services are provided to TCIC members and the partner agencies.

c. What additional services need to be provided to facilitate coalition outcomes?

• Services around coalition-building and maintenance are vital to the success of TCIC and its prevention projects. Coalition capacity-building services will ensure that TCIC continues to build relationships that support coordination of substance abuse prevention programs and activities and cultivate collaboration between organizations and individuals to achieve the stated Coalition outcomes.

Graph 8: Cumulative Services Provided 1997-2005

[pic]

5. Risk & Protective Factors

a. Are you and your community partners facilitating community and systems changes that are likely to move risk and protective factors, and ultimately, state outcomes data in a positive direction?

TCIC’s prioritized risk factors are the same as those prioritized by the State – Community Laws & Norms, Availability and Favorable Attitudes. (Because USD#315 takes the “short” version of the KCTC Survey, there are no family domain data, which is the reason that there are no prioritized risk factors from the family domain.) Changing TCIC’s prioritized risk factors, as well as increasing protective factors, will ultimately change the 4 outcomes.

b. Are the distributions of community changes by risk and protective factors what you expected to see? What is surprising about the distribution of community change by risk and protective factors?

• The risk factor of Academic Failure is used for the Smart Start community changes and accounts for approximately one third of the community changes. Two thirds of changes facilitated by other TCIC partners are distributed between 10 other risk factors (approximately 41%) and 2 protective factors (approximately 26%). It is not surprising that 17% of community changes were coded for Community Laws and Norms; however, it was surprising that Availability of Drugs accounted for only 4% of community changes.

Table 7: Risk and Protective Factors by Community Changes 1997-2005

[pic]

VI. Contribution to State Outcomes

1. How has the initiative contributed to changing outcomes?

From 1997 to 2001, TCIC focused much effort on tobacco prevention activities, and the outcomes seem to reflect these prevention activities. Cross-age teaching programs using youth members to deliver tobacco education to younger children were implemented. These grade-school children who participated in the trial of “Mr. Burnout,” learned about the lies in tobacco advertising, and attended the “Millennium Smoke-Out Bonfire” are now taking the KCTC survey, which shows that 30-day tobacco use has decreased. TCIC is targeting alcohol and marijuana and hopes for to see similar results in the future.

2. Have the state outcomes in the area/community changed? Why, why not?

(NOTE: The following 4 charts are data from USD #315. At this time, TCIC targets Colby, not the entire County.)

θYes, the ages of initiation of first use of alcohol and tobacco have increased; age of initiation of marijuana use does not show the same trend. The data for marijuana outcomes perhaps reflect the larger context of conflicting messages about “medical marijuana,” parental discomfort over their past use, and the arguments put forth for legalization.

Age of Onset |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |2003 |2004 | |TH/Colby Alcohol |12.24 |12.69 |12.7 |12.84 |12.42 |12.93 |13.06 |13.12 | |Kansas Alcohol |12.47 |12.52 |12.57 |12.68 |12.59 |12.71 |12.72 |12.8 | |TH/Colby Marijuana |14.4 |14.29 |12.45 |13.48 |13.16 |13.92 |14.42 |13.39 | |Kansas Marijuana |13.81 |13.83 |13.65 |13.79 |13.59 |13.75 |13.61 |13.67 | |TH/Colby Tobacco |12.05 |12.35 |12.23 |12.83 |12.36 |12.42 |13.12 |12.83 | |Kansas Tobacco |12.2 |12.23 |12.23 |12.33 |12.18 |12.26 |12.21 |12.32 | |

θYes, 30-day use of alcohol has decreased since 1998 and TCIC is hopeful that this downward trend continues. 30-day tobacco use has decreased also and TCIC hopes that this trend continues. The trend of 30-day marijuana use has been up and down, but rates are still lower than state averages.

30-day Use |1997 |1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |2003 |2004 | | TH/Colby Alcohol |23.33 |33.21 |33.34 |34.74 |34.69 |40.2 |35.6 |23.9 | | Kansas Alcohol |35.13 |34.99 |38.58 |36.78 |33.96 |32.9 |32.4 |32.2 | | TH/Colby Marijuana |3.17 |6.07 |2.26 |3.75 |8.05 |7 |9.7 |5.7 | | Kansas Marijuana |11.46 |10.76 |12.06 |9.97 |10.59 |10.1 |10.1 |9.5 | | TH/Colby Tobacco |11 |14.62 |11.54 |10.95 |12.65 |14.5 |12.3 |10.6 | | Kansas Tobacco |21.99 |21.82 |21.29 |18.48 |16.65 |14.8 |13.8 |13.2 | |

θThe data for 2003 and 2004 have caused concern among TCIC members. Not only are the rates not decreasing for all three drugs, but also they are higher than state averages. This will be an agenda item at the Coalition’s Town Hall meeting being planned for August. Possible explanations and plans for changing these perceptions will be discussed.

Perception Risk/Harm

(% responding NO RISK) |

1997 |

1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |2003 |

2004 | |TH/Colby Alcohol |1.74 |15.74 |12.78 |9.96 |12.42 |13.7 |17.9 |17.4 | |Kansas Alcohol |no data |13.69 |13.93 |12.29 |13.17 |13.1 |14.9 |14.2 | |TH/Colby Marijuana |no data |6.34 |3.07 |1.93 |6.62 |3.8 |8.7 |10.3 | |Kansas Marijuana |no data |6.09 |6.82 |5.53 |7.21 |7 |8.5 |7.4 | |TH/Colby Tobacco |1.4 |4.26 |6.01 |2.59 |3.48 |3.3 |6.5 |11.2 | |Kansas Tobacco |2.05 |4.11 |4.75 |3.71 |4.9 |4.6 |6.1 |5.4 | |

θFor the past 4 years the perception of disapproval of alcohol use has decreased; and again the targeted and planned efforts around alcohol use have hopefully contributed to this trend. The disapproval perceptions for tobacco have declined all but one year in the past four, and the same for marijuana. The Social Norms Project is designed to mobilize and involve parents in talking frequently to their children about ATOD use

Perception Disapproval

(% responding NOT WRONG AT ALL) |

1997 |

1998 |1999 |2000 |2001 |2002 |2003 |

2004 | |TH/Colby Alcohol |8.9 |13.51 |11.27 |8.14 |16.09 |14.1 |12.7 |9.4 | |Kansas Alcohol |14.19 |14.51 |14.56 |13.18 |12.9 |12.5 |12.4 |12.6 | |TH/Colby Marijuana |2.86 |3.87 |3.07 |2.96 |6.93 |6.6 |7.3 |3.4 | |Kansas Marijuana |8.03 |7.97 |8.29 |6.68 |7.49 |7.5 |7.4 |7.1 | |TH/Colby Tobacco |7.8 |8.1 |8.14 |5.55 |9.24 |8.7 |10.6 |5.3 | |Kansas Tobacco |15.4 |15.06 |14.51 |12.14 |11.56 |10.7 |9.7 |9.5 | |

3. What targeted measures have you had the greatest impact? Why? Which

have you had the least? Why? Which measures have stayed the same?

See the discussion above on each of the targeted outcomes.

Table 9: Community Change by Community-Level Indicators 1998-2004

NOTE: Data in the following graphs are for Thomas County and begin

in 1998. USD#315 data, not available through the ODSS, reflect the trends

noted above.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

VII. Conclusions

A. Challenges & Strengths

1. What has worked especially well for the coalition? What are strengths of the coalition?

• Since its inception, TCIC has engaged in strategic planning, and most recently has done so on an annual basis using the new CTC data that is available each year. A Community Action Plan is the written result of the process and includes goals, strategies, objectives, outcomes and evaluation. Since many of the Coalition members or their agencies have been part of TCIC since the beginning, they have a good working knowledge of prevention and how to design and implement an effective strategic plan. Having a part-time paid director for the Coalition has been very important and the Coalition feels fortunate to have accessed SICA and DFCSP funding to support paid personnel. Using varied funding to implement a program has worked especially well for the Coalition. It has enabled 7 programs – Second Step, Talk About Touching, LifeSkills Training, Too Good For Drugs & Violence, Project Alert, Guiding Good Choices and Prime For Life: Under 21 – to be afforded and to be collaboratively implemented. The multiple funding sources that have been used for the 7 tested-effective programs are Smart Start, PCAN, JJA, DFCSP and Safe and Drug-Free Schools (SDFS).

• The strengths of the Coalition are representation from the 12 sectors, commitment to using data for planning and evaluation, and collaboration and sharing of resources to implement programs and projects that will impact the outcomes.

2. What has not worked so well for the coalition? What are limitations?

• The Coalition has not been effective in changing policies or practices that have the effect of policy. The Coalition has been instrumental in bringing about policy/practice changes regarding tobacco-free buildings and grounds, but not in policy/practice changes regarding alcohol. A second issue is implementing tested-effective programs with fidelity. Project Alert at the middle school level is an example of a program that is no longer being implemented as designed. Program evaluation is a third issue. One of the solutions is to pay a stipend to teachers for administering the pre- and post-tests to the students. However, for prevention curricula implemented with preschool children, pre- and post-testing is very time-consuming and a stipend cannot buy the time needed to conduct oral pre- and post-tests. Smart Start, PCAN and RPC personnel have become more actively involved in the program evaluations and are rethinking the role of staff to include becoming the actual program evaluators. Securing funding from the Thomas County Community Foundation has also not worked well for the Coalition. Because of the Foundation’s funding philosophy, the Coalition did not respond to the Foundation’s RFP for “alcohol and drug abuse education” that has the stated purpose of “ increasing the awareness and education of Thomas County residents to the dangers of substance abuse.”

• Limitations imply constraints that stifle or stop efforts. The Coalition could not identify any factors that limited their prevention efforts to the point where they couldn’t be overcome.

3. What are the barriers to bringing about more community and systems change by your community partners? Also, consider contextual factors (e.g., environmental arrangements, community history, and organizational challenges).

Changing community norms that accept underage drinking as a rite of passage is always a challenge. The parents of Colby’s young people also seem to be more tolerant of marijuana use and as has been pointed out, this is reflected in the KCTC survey data. Blaming the media, professional sports figures and Hollywood is popular with many who are trying to discover the causes of the problems faced by children and their families. There is merit in addressing promotion of substance use by the popular culture, but it is beyond impossible to muster even a miniscule amount of the resources to wage war against drug legalization groups or alcohol and tobacco advertising and lobbying efforts. TCIC believes in prevention and continues to work to achieve the critical mass or the “100th monkey phenomenon” in this community. TCIC is an optimistic group that seems to take the challenges presented by “barriers” and find workable and effective solutions to accomplish their goals.

4. What additional technical assistance or support do you or they need?

RPC, Smart Start and PCAN staff need training in evaluation of programs, social marketing campaigns and policy/practice changes.

5. Who else is needed to facilitate actions, accomplishments, and services?

TCIC needs more involvement from local media, civic groups and businesses. These three sectors have been engaged in the past with the Coalition’s initiatives, but in the last 3-4 years, their involvement has not been at the levels needed to make significant contributions to implementation of the Community Action Plan.

B. Implications of Coalition Efforts

1. What lessons has the coalition learned from the effort? Who should you share these lessons with?

• The Coalition found that it is important to step back after 9½ years and celebrate the accomplishments of their collaborative efforts. The evolution of TCIC is best demonstrated by the pilot after-school program that 5 Coalition partners are collaborating to provide. The Presbyterian Church paid $100 to rent the room and JJA prevention funding has been used to purchase snacks and materials. But the activities and programs provided by talented, dedicated and enthusiastic adults from the Recreation Department, Thomas County Extension, Pioneer Memorial Library, First Presbyterian Church and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Project are the most valuable. The real benefits of a community coalition have been demonstrated by this collaborative effort.

• These lessons will be shared at the August Town Hall meeting with all TCIC members, key leaders and stakeholders and interested citizens.

2. What has the coalition discovered, or found surprising?

One member summed it up nicely when she said. “We’ve done so much, but there’s still so much we can do!”

3. How has the coalition contributed to improving knowledge around substance abuse prevention?

TCIC has contributed to improving substance abuse prevention knowledge by spending the necessary time to document work on the ODSS and by using outcomes, data-driven planning as the basis for their work. TCIC has accumulated almost a decade of data about how they have implemented collaborative prevention in a rural community and can demonstrate success in actually moving behavioral outcomes in a positive direction.

C. Final Conclusions

1. What is the coalition’s future?

For the next 2½ years the future of the Coalition is tied to the DFCSP grant, JJA prevention priorities and CBFRS funding for child abuse and neglect prevention. At the end of this year Smart Start will have completed its fifth year and will be competing for renewal of their grant. Results from the evaluation of Kansas Smart Start and the Northwest Smart Start Project will help shape the Coalition’s planning for future prevention initiatives in the early care and education system.

2. What has the coalition done that should be continued or enhanced?

The processes that the Coalition uses, strategic planning and evaluation, plus the elements of a successful coalition, paid staff and a written plan, should be continued and improved. The products or strategies and programs that the Coalition is implementing should be continued and evaluated for effectiveness.

3. What are suggested improvements to further the coalition’s work?

Recognition for the Coalition’s work and for individual efforts is vital. This will be done at the local level, however, TCIC is a very

successful community coalition that has produced significant and measurable outcomes; recognition beyond the city limits of Colby would help to further the Coalition’s work. A major benefit that resulted from the recognition CAT received in 1998 for authentic youth involvement was the new partners that wanted to join the Coalition. Success and public recognition for that success attracts new partners and keeps current partners energized, motivated and committed.

4. What are the implications of the coalition’s efforts for future research and practice?

Examining the KUWG’s elements of a successful coalition, using CADCA’s coalition evaluation tools and continuing improvement of data collection and analysis are research projects to which TCIC can contribute.

D. Appendices

1. Appendix A: Listing of coalition members that were involved in the formation of this report and have seen and approved this report

2. Appendix B: Listing of Community Changes

3. Appendix C: Listing of Services Provided

It was necessary for KUWG to create a Reporting Group for TCIC data because entries are made under various partners (TCIC, CAT, Smart Start, Northwest Region RPC, Big Brothers Big Sisters, PCAN). The Reporting Group for community changes provided the correct data; the reporting group for services provided did not and reported all 1300 +data entries. Only 633 entries are TCIC’s services provided, the rest are RPC or Smart Start entries. The only way to provide a listing of services provided was to copy actual ODSS pages from the Reporting Group view menu. This resulted in a very long document.

4. Appendix D: Logic Model for Thomas County Interagency Coalition

5. Appendix E: List of Thomas County Interagency Coalition members as of April 2005

-----------------------

[pic][pic]

Graph 2: Community Change by Critical event 1997-2005

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download