Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à DFC Evaluation 2012-03-22
Similaire à DFC Evaluation 2012-03-22 (20)
DFC Evaluation 2012-03-22
- 1. CONNECTING COMMUNITIES FOR SPRING BRANCH YOUTH The Spring Branch Coalition of The Coalition of Behavioral Health Services Drug Free Communities Grant Project Director: Dr. Sandy Olson, Ph.D Evaluation Firm: Knowledge Informatics and Research Services Lead Evaluator: J. Valdez
- 2. EVALUATION RELATIONSHIP TO DFC GOAL
- 3. EVALUATION PROCESS DIAGRAM • Where • Who • What Define • Setting • Resources • Progress Assess • Collecting Data • Information Sharing • Activity Actions Plan • Findings • Status • Next Steps Report
- 4. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 5. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
- 6. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
- 7. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE Source: COMET Reporting System Logic
- 8. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE Source: COMET Reporting System Logic The 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.
- 9. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE CDFSB – (N=11) Locally Developed Community Stakeholder Survey
- 10. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 - DEFINE SpringBranch
- 11. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 - DEFINE SpringBranch
- 12. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 - DEFINE SpringBranch
- 13. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Measure Past 30-Day Use Substance Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) Alcohol 16.9 22.4 29.4 34.2 38.0 45.2 Marijuana 4.0 5.7 9.8 12.7 14.2 15.3 Tobacco 4.8 6.4 10.7 15.6 19.0 24.0 16.9 4.0 4.8 22.4 5.7 6.4 29.4 9.8 10.7 34.2 12.7 15.6 38.0 14.2 19.0 45.2 15.3 24.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Alcohol Marijuana Tobacco Past30-Day Use Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) Past 30-Day Use Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana % of People Who Used 34.0% 14.4% 13.8% Sample Size 647690 275434 260714
- 14. Measure Age of Onset (yrs old) Substance Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) Alcohol 10.6 11.2 11.9 12.6 13.3 13.9 Marijuana 11.6 12.2 12.9 13.5 14.4 14.8 Tobacco 11.5 12.2 12.9 13.6 14.5 12.9 10.6 11.6 11.511.2 12.2 12.211.9 12.9 12.912.6 13.5 13.613.3 14.4 14.5 13.9 14.8 12.9 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 Alcohol Marijuana Tobacco Age of Onset (yrs old) Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Age of Onset Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Average Age of Onset 12.6 12.9 13.6 % of People Who Used 20.6% 28.3% 22.0% Sample Size 951901 588185 444706
- 15. Measure Perception of Parental Disapproval Substance Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) Alcohol 88.8 84.1 76.8 71.0 67.6 65.0 Marijuana 86.5 87.6 87.6 86.1 86.2 85.4 Tobacco 87.2 87.0 85.1 83.6 80.9 75.6 88.8 86.5 87.284.1 87.6 87.0 76.8 87.6 85.1 71.0 86.1 83.6 67.6 86.2 80.9 65.0 85.4 75.6 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Alcohol Marijuana Tobacco Perceptionof ParentalDisapproval Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Perception of Parental Disapproval Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana % of People Who Used 78.23% 83.57% 86.50% Sample Size 1371000 1468000 1514812
- 16. Measure Perception of Risk Substance Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) Alcohol 80.9 75.3 74.1 75.4 76.2 77.8 Marijuana 88.8 84.1 76.8 71.0 67.6 65.0 Tobacco 88.4 83.1 77.8 73.1 70.1 66.9 80.9 88.8 88.4 75.3 84.1 83.1 74.1 76.8 77.875.4 71.0 73.176.2 67.6 70.177.8 65.0 66.9 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Alcohol Marijuana Tobacco Perceptionof Risk Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12) EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Perception of Risk Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana % of People Who Used 76.5% 77.0% 75.9% Sample Size 1276000 1299000 1222000
- 17. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: 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 ¾ 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.
- 18. SpringBranchISD 394 14.12 180 45.69 211 53.55 0.00 67 17.01 63 15.99 73 18.53 65 16.50 59 14.97 58 14.72 993 35.56 455 45.82 535 53.88 0.00 172 17.32 162 16.31 187 18.83 166 16.72 150 15.11 148 14.90 502 18.04 229 45.62 270 53.78 0.00 86 17.13 81 16.14 93 18.53 83 16.53 75 14.94 74 14.74 EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLANTobacco Use All Genders M F Grades G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 Alcohol Use All Genders M F Grades G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 Marijuana Use All Genders M F Grades G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 RegionVI 275434 14.41 19123 6.94 20567 7.47 0.00 13221 4.80 17628 6.40 29471 10.70 42968 15.60 52332 19.00 66104 24.00 647690 34.03 106193 16.40 114216 17.63 0.00 109460 16.90 145083 22.40 190421 29.40 221510 34.20 246122 38.00 292756 45.20 260714 13.83 17372 6.66 18685 7.17 0.00 10429 4.00 14861 5.70 25550 9.80 33111 12.70 37021 14.20 39889 15.30 LocalSurvey 12 18.85 5 41.67 7 58.33 1 8.33 1 8.33 3 25.00 2 16.67 1 8.33 3 25.00 0 0.00 17 27.87 5 29.41 12 70.59 2 11.76 1 5.88 4 23.53 4 23.53 2 11.76 4 23.53 0 0.00 8 12.70 2 25.00 6 75.00 1 12.50 0 0.00 1 12.50 2 25.00 2 25.00 2 25.00 0 0.00 Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 19. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLAN Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 Use Genders Grades Use Genders Grades Use Genders Grades Tobacco Alcohol Marijuana Spring Branch ISD Region VI Local Survey
- 20. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLAN 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 Use Genders Grades Use Genders Grades Use Genders Grades Tobacco Alcohol Marijuana Spring Branch ISD Region VI Local Survey Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 21. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLAN 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 All M F G06G07G08G09G10G11G12 All M F G06G07G08G09G10G11G12 All M F G06G07G08G09G10G11G12 UseGenders Grades UseGenders Grades UseGenders Grades Tobacco Alcohol Marijuana Spring Branch ISD Region VI Local Survey Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 22. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLAN 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All M F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 Use Genders Grades Use Genders Grades Use Genders Grades Tobacco Alcohol Marijuana Spring Branch ISD Region VI Local Survey Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 23. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLAN Use All 18.85 Local Survey 76.95 Region VI 83.57 Region VI 63.00 Spring Branch ISD M 45.69 Spring Branch ISD 45.80 Spring Branch ISD 45.52 Spring Branch ISD 45.04 Spring Branch ISD F 58.33 Local Survey 53.92 Spring Branch ISD 57.14 Local Survey 61.11 Local Survey G06 8.33 Local Survey 29.63 Local Survey 23.81 Local Survey 22.22 Local Survey G07 17.01 Spring Branch ISD 88.40 Region VI 87.20 Region VI 16.39 Spring Branch ISD G08 25.00 Local Survey 83.10 Region VI 87.00 Region VI 19.90 Region VI G09 18.53 Spring Branch ISD 77.80 Region VI 85.10 Region VI 26.60 Region VI G10 16.50 Spring Branch ISD 73.10 Region VI 83.60 Region VI 33.10 Region VI G11 25.00 Local Survey 70.10 Region VI 80.90 Region VI 36.60 Region VI G12 24.00 Region VI 66.90 Region VI 75.60 Region VI 43.40 Region VI Use All 35.56 Spring Branch ISD 76.50 Region VI 78.23 Region VI 86.59 Spring Branch ISD M 45.82 Spring Branch ISD 45.90 Spring Branch ISD 45.71 Spring Branch ISD 45.54 Spring Branch ISD F 70.59 Local Survey 55.26 Local Survey 57.14 Local Survey 56.67 Local Survey G06 11.76 Local Survey 21.05 Local Survey 22.86 Local Survey 23.33 Local Survey G07 17.32 Spring Branch ISD 80.90 Region VI 83.20 Region VI 16.99 Spring Branch ISD G08 23.53 Local Survey 75.30 Region VI 81.70 Region VI 26.67 Local Survey G09 29.40 Region VI 74.10 Region VI 78.50 Region VI 19.30 Region VI G10 34.20 Region VI 75.40 Region VI 76.60 Region VI 24.10 Region VI G11 38.00 Region VI 76.20 Region VI 75.00 Region VI 27.90 Region VI G12 45.20 Region VI 77.80 Region VI 73.10 Region VI 34.00 Region VI Use All 18.04 Spring Branch ISD 75.93 Region VI 86.50 Region VI 99.99 Spring Branch ISD M 45.62 Spring Branch ISD 47.50 Local Survey 45.56 Spring Branch ISD 47.06 Local Survey F 75.00 Local Survey 54.00 Spring Branch ISD 66.67 Local Survey 53.50 Spring Branch ISD G06 12.50 Local Survey 25.00 Local Survey 16.67 Local Survey 17.65 Local Survey G07 17.13 Spring Branch ISD 88.80 Region VI 87.60 Region VI 16.78 Spring Branch ISD G08 16.14 Spring Branch ISD 84.10 Region VI 87.60 Region VI 23.53 Local Survey G09 25.00 Local Survey 76.80 Region VI 86.10 Region VI 18.36 Spring Branch ISD G10 25.00 Local Survey 71.00 Region VI 86.20 Region VI 16.12 Spring Branch ISD G11 25.00 Local Survey 67.60 Region VI 85.40 Region VI 35.29 Local Survey G12 15.30 Region VI 65.00 Region VI 85.80 Region VI 14.53 Spring Branch ISD UsePast30-days TobaccoAlcoholMarijuana ProblemLevel Genders Grades Genders Grades Genders Grades PerceptionofRisk ProblemLevel PerceptionofParentalDisapproval ProblemLevel AgeofOnset ProblemLevel Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 24. EVALUATIONPROCESSSTEP3–PLAN Source:RegionVI-2008TexasSchoolSurveyofSubstanceUse: Grade7-121 SpringBranchISD-2008TexasSchoolSurveyofSubstanceUse: Ranking for Geographical Priority Targeting Variable (All) Row Labels Local Survey Region VI Spring Branch ISD Alcohol Genders F 2.00 M 2.00 Grades G06 5.00 G07 10.00 2.00 G08 3.00 11.00 G09 13.00 G10 15.00 G11 16.00 G12 14.00 Marijuana Genders F 1.00 1.00 M 4.00 4.00 Grades G06 3.00 G07 1.00 3.00 G08 4.00 2.00 6.00 G09 3.00 5.00 2.00 G10 3.00 4.00 7.00 G11 1.00 7.00 G12 6.00 8.00 Tobacco Genders F 3.00 2.00 M 3.00 Grades G06 2.00 G07 2.00 4.00 G08 3.00 3.00 G09 8.00 1.00 G10 9.00 5.00 G11 3.00 12.00 G12 17.00
- 25. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLANLocalSurvey LocalSurvey LocalSurvey LocalSurvey RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI RegionVI SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD SpringBranchISD 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 F M G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 F M G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 F M G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 Genders Grades Genders Grades Genders Grades Alcohol Marijuana Tobacco Local Survey Region VI Spring Branch ISD Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 26. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 – PLAN 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: 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.
- 27. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 28. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 29. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 30. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 31. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 32. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 33. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 34. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 35. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT SB Focus Group – (N=13) Interview Survey 2 Focus Group Questions Question Responses Attendence= 13 Dataset N=12* YES NO ABSTAINED Watches more U-Tube than TV? 2 9 1 How many people use Facebook more than U-Tube? 5 5 2 How many people made their Facebook page with an adult? 0 12 0 How many people think its a good idea to talk about drugs on Facebook? 4 7 1 Has anyone ever had a friend that did post something on Facebook about drugs? 6 5 1 Have you posted something on Facebook about drugs? 1 10 1 *Note: By the time questioning was started an attendee had left
- 36. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Factor ID Segmentation Factors Variable Effect Level Label R1 Community Availability of Substance that can be used RF_Com_PAD_bin3 Community Perceived Availability of Drugs R2 Community Cultural Norms RF_Peer_FUD_bin3 Peer Friends Use of Drugs R3 Community Perceived Acceptability (or disapproval) of Substance Abuse RF_Peer_FATDU_bin3 Peer Favorable Attitudes Towards Drug Use R4 Community Poor Family Management RF_Fam_PFM_bin3 Community Poor Family Management R5 Community Transition and Mobility RF_Com_TM_bin3 Community Transition and Mobility R6 Family Family History of Anti-Social Behavior RF_Fam_FHAB_bin3 Family Family History of Antisocial Behavior R7 Family Parental Attitudes Favoring Anti-Social Behavior RF_Fam_PAFAB_bin3 Family Parental Attitudes Favoring Anti Social Behavior R8 Family Parental Attitudes Favoring Drug Use RF_Fam_PAFDR_bin3 Family Parental Attitudes Favoring Drug Use P1 Community Advertising and other promotion of ATOD RF_Peer_IU_bin3 Peer Intention to Use Drugs P2 Community Community attachment RF_Com_LNA_bin3 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment P3 Community Enforcement of laws and regulations RF_Com_LNFDU_bin3 Community Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use P4 Community Laws and policies RF_Com_CD_bin3 Community Community Disorganization P5 Family Opportunities for pro-social community involvement PF_Com_OPPI_bin3 Community Opportunities for Pro-Social Community Involvement P6 Family Opportunities for pro-social family involvement PF_Fam_OPPI_bin3 Family Opportunities for Pro-Social Family Involvement P7 Family Parental monitoring and supervision RF_Fam_Attach_bin3 Family Family Attachment to Youth and Activities P8 Family Rewards for pro-social community involvement PF_Com_RPI_bin3 Community Rewards for pro-social community involvement P9 Family Rewards for pro-social family involvement PF_Fam_RPI_bin3 Family Rewards for pro-social family involvement COMET Report Local Youth Dataset
- 37. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=6158) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use % DiffofVar ID Goal DirectionIs Last Reported Current YearoverYear 1Low 2High 3Very High P1 Towards Less StayingTheSame Worse 2009to2010 -20.00% 50.00% 72.97% P2 Towards Less StayingTheSame Better 2009to2010 68.97% 30.43% 28.57% P3 Towards Less StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 23.08% 28.57% 60.00% P4 Towards Less StayingTheSame Better 2009to2010 0.00% 90.00% 40.63% P5 Towards More StayingTheSame Better 2009to2010 88.89% 5.88% -45.45% P6 Towards More StayingTheSame Worse 2009to2010 48.00% 50.00% 70.59% P7 Towards More StayingTheSame Worse 2009to2010 27.78% 39.13% 75.00% P8 Towards More StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 29.41% 81.25% 50.00% P9 Towards More StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 38.10% 115.38% 32.00% Trend VariableCategories
- 38. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE CDFSB – (N=158 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 39. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=158 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use % DiffofVar ID GoalDirectionIs Last Reported Current YearoverYear 1Low 2High 3Very High R1 Towards Less StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 54.55% 48.39% 38.10% R2 Towards Less StayingTheSame Worse 2009to2010 15.38% 30.00% 64.10% R3 Towards Less StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 42.86% 11.11% 54.35% R4 Towards Less StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 93.10% -12.00% 71.43% R5 Towards Less StayingTheSame Better 2009to2010 88.89% 5.88% -45.45% R6 Towards Less StayingTheSame Better 2009to2010 80.00% 21.74% 25.00% R7 Towards Less StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 33.33% 11.11% 58.14% R8 Towards Less StayingTheSame StayingTheSame 2009to2010 45.45% 22.22% 53.66% Trend VariableCategories
- 40. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE CDFSB – (N=158 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 41. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=158) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Factor ID ListNbr Segmentation Factors Variable EffectLevel Label A1 18 Alcohol Past30dayuse-Alcohol CM_A30DU_bin4 Core Past30dayuseconsumption A2 19 Alcohol Perceivedparentaldisapproval-Alcohol CM_APPDU_bin4 Core Perceivedparentaldisapproval-Alcohol A3 20 Alcohol Perceivedriskofdruguse-Alcohol CM_APRDU_bin4 Core Perceivedriskofdruguse-Alcohol A4 21 Alcohol AgeofOnset-Alcohol CM_AOADU_bin4 Core AgeofOnset-Alcohol T1 22 Tobacco Past30dayuse-Tobacco CM_T30DU_bin4 Core Past30dayuseconsumption T2 23 Tobacco Perceivedparentaldisapproval-Tobacco CM_TPPDU_bin4 Core Perceivedparentaldisapproval-Tobacco T3 24 Tobacco Perceivedriskofdruguse-Tobacco CM_TPRDU_bin4 Core Perceivedriskofdruguse-Tobacco T4 25 Tobacco AgeofOnset-Tobacco CM_AOTDU_bin4 Core AgeofOnset-Tobacco M1 26 Marijuana Past30dayuse-Marijuana CM_M30DU_bin4 Core Past30dayuseconsumption M2 27 Marijuana Perceivedparentaldisapproval-Marijuana CM_MPPDU_bin4 Core Perceivedparentaldisapproval-Marijuana M3 28 Marijuana Perceivedriskofdruguse-Marijuana CM_MPRDU_bin4 Core Perceivedriskofdruguse-Marijuana M4 29 Marijuana AgeofOnset- Marijuana CM_AOMDU_bin4 Core AgeofOnset- Marijuana COMETReport LocalYouthDataset
- 42. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=255) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use
- 43. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE CDFSB – (N=255) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Screen clipping taken: 3/22/2012 12:36 AM
- 44. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS 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. Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 45. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=185) Locally Collected Record of Drug 49.21 103.07 121.3 276 70.14 204.02 81 124.82 155 -1 y = -2137ln(x) + 22797 R² = 0.0244 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 OMC Prescription Drug Disposal In Pounds (Total= 904.74 lbs , Avg per Event= 129.25 lbs) CollectedWeights Log. (CollectedWeights)
- 46. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=175) Locally Created Survey for OMC Events)4 38.86% 30.13% 15.28% 15.72% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Keep Throw in trash Flush down toilet Other Alternative to disposal event: (in Response %)
- 47. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 – REPORT CDFSB – (N=175Locally Created Survey for OMC Events)4 8.98% 13.88% 18.37% 58.78% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% Children less than 5 yrs old Children 5 to 12 yrs old Teenagers 13 to 19 yrs old Adults Household has age groups (Response %)
- 48. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS 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. Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 49. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS CDFSB – (N=503) Email Communication Network Label Vertex 1 Vertex 2 Width Opacity Label Edge Weight cbhshouston@yahoo.com becky_vance@drugfree.org 7.2 60 ONDCP 756 cbhshouston@yahoo.com valdezj1975@yahoo.com 5.2 60 Evaluator 515 cbhshouston@yahoo.com benoit.dagadu@samhsa.hhs.gov 1.1 60 Project Officer 9 cbhshouston@yahoo.com donald_camp@hcjpd.co.harris.tx.us 3.0 60 HCJPD 249 cbhshouston@yahoo.com linda.buchman@springbranchisd.com 1.8 60 SBISD 102 cbhshouston@yahoo.com ray.andrews@cityofhouston.net 4.2 60 COH 399 cbhshouston@yahoo.com r.cruz@tabc.state.tx.us 3.0 60 TABC 246 cbhshouston@yahoo.com jessica.farrar@house.state.tx.us 1.4 60 StateGov 52
- 50. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS CDFSB – (N=503) Email Communication Network
- 51. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS CDFSB – (N=503) Email Communication Network
- 52. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS 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. Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use:
- 53. HoustonHouston PearlandPearland PasadenaPasadena Missouri CityMissouri City AldineAldine Sugar LandSugar Land StaffordStafford BellaireBellaire Galena ParkGalena Park AtascocitaAtascocita CloverleafCloverleaf South HoustonSouth Houston FriendswoodFriendswood Jacinto CityJacinto City West University PlaceWest University Place §¨¦610 §¨¦45 §¨¦10 £¤90 £¤290 £¤59 £¤90 UV8 UV521 UV288 UV548 UV249 UV225 UV6 UV3 UV35 UV261 UV527 UV8 UV225 c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ HoustonHouston Spring ValleySpring Valley Hedwig VillageHedwig Village Hunters Creek VillageHunters Creek Village Hilshire VillageHilshire Village §¨¦10 §¨¦610 £¤290 Katy 43rd Clay Hammerly Bingle Hempstead 18th Gessner Old Katy Silber 34th Dacoma Mangum 11th PostOak Memorial Long Point Blalock TC Je ster Watonga Campbell Rosslyn Wirt BunkerHill Antoine Voss Old KatyKaty Long Point T C Je ster Bin gle Gessner Wirt Antoine c0c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0 HoustonHouston Spring ValleySpring Valley Hedwig VillageHedwig Village Hunters Creek VillageHunters Creek Village Bunker Hill VillageBunker Hill Village Hilshire VillageHilshire Village Piney Point VillagePiney Point Village §¨¦10 §¨¦610 £¤290 UV8 Katy Clay 43rd Old Katy Hammerly Bingle Hempstead 18th Ella Gessner Brittmoore Silber AddicksDam 11th Memorial 34th Dacoma PostOak Mangum Eldridge TC Jester Voss Long Point Watonga Blalock Campbell Wilcrest Wirt Rosslyn Kirkwood W ash ington DairyAshford BunkerHill Memor ial Loop Antoine Chim ney RockAntoine Gessner Wirt Katy T C Jeste r Ella Old Katy Memorial 34th Clay Bingle Long Point Geographical Analysis of Target Area Crime and TABC Sites O Sheet No. 1 Drawn By: James Valdez Project Name: Drug Free Coalition Date: 05/11/2009 Credits DFC0 TABC Licensed Sites Shown Census Tracts by within Super-Neighborhood Substance Related Crimes 0 2.5 5 7.51.25 Miles 0 740 1,480 2,220 2,960370 Meters 0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400550 Meters c0 TABC Sites c/ Substance Crime Narcotics Crime Heatmap 1 - 1.8 1.9 - 2.6 2.7 - 3.4 3.5 - 4.2 4.3 - 5 77080 Narcotic Crime Rate 0.002% - 0.399% 0.4% - 1.073% 1.074% - 2.072% 2.073% - 3.928% 3.929% - 7.908% 77055 EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 - DEFINE SpringBranch
- 54. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 - ASSESS SpringBranch HoustonHouston PearlandPearland PasadenaPasadena Missouri CityMissouri City AldineAldine Sugar LandSugar Land StaffordStafford BellaireBellaire Galena ParkGalena Park AtascocitaAtascocita CloverleafCloverleaf FriendswoodFriendswood South HoustonSouth Houston Jacinto CityJacinto City West University PlaceWest University Place §¨¦610 §¨¦45 §¨¦10 §¨¦45 £¤90 £¤290 £¤59 £¤90 UV8 UV521 UV288 UV6 UV548 UV249 UV225 UV3 UV35 UV261 UV8 UV225 c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ HoustonHouston Spring ValleySpring Valley Hedwig VillageHedwig Village Hunters Creek VillageHunters Creek Village Hilshire VillageHilshire Village §¨¦10 §¨¦610 £¤290 Katy 43rd Clay Bingle Hammerly Hempstead Gessner 18th Old Katy Silber 34th Dacoma Mangum PostOak Memorial Long Point Blalock Watonga Campbell TC Je ster Rosslyn 11th Wirt BunkerHill Antoine Voss Old KatyKaty Long Point T C Je ster Bingle Gessner Wirt Antoine c0c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 HoustonHouston Spring ValleySpring Valley Hedwig VillageHedwig Village Hunters Creek VillageHunters Creek Village Bunker Hill VillageBunker Hill Village Hilshire VillageHilshire Village Piney Point VillagePiney Point Village §¨¦10 §¨¦610 £¤290 UV8 Katy Clay 43rd Old Katy Hammerly Bingle Hempstead 18th Ella Gessner Brittmoore Silber AddicksDam Memorial 11th 34th Dacoma PostOak Mangum TC Jester Voss Long Point Watonga Blalock Eldridge Campbell Wilcrest Wirt Rosslyn Kirkwood DairyAshford BunkerHill Memor ial Loop Wash ington Antoine Chim ney Rock Memorial Long Point Katy Antoine T C Jeste r Old Katy Gessner Clay Bingle Wirt TABC Licensed Sites Shown Census Tracts by within Super-Neighborhood Substance Related Crimes (2005 - 2009) Heatmap0 710 1,420 2,130 2,840355 Meters 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Meters Geo-Analysis of DFC Target Area - Spring Branch Crime and TABC Sites O Sheet No. 1 Drawn By: James Valdez Project Name: Drug Free Coalition Date: 05/11/2009 Credits DFC0 0 2.5 5 7.51.25 Miles c0 TABC Sites c/ Substance Crime Narcotics Crime Intensity 1 - 1.8 1.9 - 2.6 2.7 - 3.4 3.5 - 4.2 4.3 - 5 77080 Narcotic Crime Rate 0.002% - 0.399% 0.4% - 1.073% 1.074% - 2.072% 2.073% - 3.928% 3.929% - 7.908% 77055 c0c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0c0 c0c0c0c0c0c0c0 c0 c0c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 c0 HoustonHouston Spring ValleySpring Valley Hedwig VillageHedwig Village Hunters Creek VillageHunters Creek Village Bunker Hill VillageBunker Hill Village Piney Point VillagePiney Point Village Hilshire VillageHilshire Village §¨¦10 §¨¦610 £¤290 UV8 Katy Clay 43rd Hammerly Bingle Old Katy Hempstead Gessner Brittmoore Silber 34th Memorial AddicksDam PostOak 18th Mangum Voss Dacoma T C Jester Watonga Long Point Blalock Wilcrest Campbell Wirt BunkerHill Ch im ney R ock Antoine Katy Memorial Gessner Mem orial Long Point Bingle Old Katy Wirt Antoine c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/ c/c/ c/ c/c/ c/c/ c/ HoustonHouston Spring ValleySpring Valley Hedwig VillageHedwig Village Hunters Creek VillageHunters Creek Village Hilshire VillageHilshire Village §¨¦10 §¨¦610 £¤290 Katy 43rd Clay Bingle Hammerly Hempstead Gessner Old Katy Silber 18th 34th Dacoma Mangum PostOak Memorial Long Point Blalock Watonga Campbell Rosslyn Wirt TCJester BunkerHill Antoine Voss 11th Old KatyKaty Long Point Wirt Gessner T C Jeste r Antoine
- 55. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 - PLAN SpringBranch PermitNbr ExpiresOn LicenseType SiteName SiteLoc 575258 04/28/09 BEER ANTOINE CITGO MINI MART 2099 ANTOINE 427727 03/04/09 BEER PACO'S GAMES 3106 BLALOCK 685147 02/25/09 BEER AMIGO'S GROCERY #2 1925 CAMPBELL ROAD 686933 03/16/09 BEER LUCKY 7 3231 CAMPBELL ROAD 446328 02/14/09 BEER CITGO HANDI PLUS #62 9505 CLAY ROAD 555890 04/13/09 BEER AMIGOS SEAFOOD BUFFET 2557 GESSNER DRIVE 512590 04/16/09 BEER TELOLOAPAN MEAT MARKET #4 8514 HAMMERLY 487921 02/08/09 BEER BILLARES SALAMANCA 7810 HAMMERLY 'C' 465748 01/27/09 BEER STOP THEN BUY 8606 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD 575254 03/09/09 BEER DISCOUNT BEER AND TOBACCO 9476 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD 466970 02/15/09 BEER M & R MARKET 8788 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD 'A' 574646 03/20/09 LIQUOR EL FIESTA NITE CLUB 11410 HEMPSTEAD HWY 657866 04/22/09 BEER CINDY'S NIGHT CLUB 11204 HEMPSTEAD ROAD 304409 01/17/09 BEER T & T FOOD MART 4005 HOLLISTER 292614 03/31/09 BEER ADREST INC. 63801 8155 KATY FREEWAY 688955 04/02/09 BEER KEMPWOOD FOOD MART 9492 KEMPWOOD DRIVE 685726 03/03/09 BEER TAQUERIA LATINO EL JUNIOR 7523 LONG POINT ROAD SUITE 400 555944 04/15/09 LIQUOR THE EVENTS COMPANY 7310 OLD KATY ROAD 622036 03/12/09 BEER H & H ICEHOUSE 1109 SILBER ROAD 685683 03/02/09 BEER ROZ FOOD MART #21 1406 WIRT ROAD
- 56. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT • Web based system designed to help your Coalition use SAMHSA's Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) • 5 SPF steps o Assessment o Capacity o Planning o Implementation o Evaluation • Required progress reports submitted through COMET • Manages your Coalition more effectively
- 57. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT • Target Risk Factors • Community • Factors in the community that fosters drug use • Family • Factors in the home that fosters drug use • School • Factors in school that fosters drug use • Peer- Individual • Factors dealing with friends and peers of the child • Target Risk Factors • Community • Factors in the community that fosters drug use • Family • Factors in the home that fosters drug use • School • Factors in school that fosters drug use • Peer- Individual • Factors dealing with friends and peers of the child
- 58. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT • Coalition Activities o Needs Assessment Needs of the grant o Community Assessment Overall look at the community o Community Events and Meetings Any event that helps solve the problem o Coalition Meetings This meeting today, discussion of grant o Coalition Evaluation Meetings Evaluation of efforts in community o Collection of Baseline Data Collection of data in community for evaluation o Legislative Issues Issues brought to State House floor for next season
- 59. EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT • Risk and protective factors o Keeping in line with coalition factors and those in the narrative o Combining factors that overlap • Assessment activities o Knowing what activities that have been done by the coalition and what activities are planned for the future o Also which activities are improving the community and which are not working or negatively impacting the community
Notes de l'éditeur
- Map side line should say 9th, 10th and 11th graders. ([Grad_Year] = '2012' OR '2013' OR '2014') AND ([ZIP] = '77055')
- Map side line should say 9th, 10th and 11th graders. ([Grad_Year] = '2012' OR '2013' OR '2014') AND ([ZIP] = '77055')
- ^4 : Survey Question Were Multiple Response and thus grater than the total number of surveys
- ^4 : Survey Question Were Multiple Response and thus grater than the total number of surveys
- 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.