1 / 38

You’ve Been Caught!

You’ve Been Caught!. How a Coalition has Joined Forces with Multiple Law Enforcement Agencies to Address Alcohol and Marijuana Use by Youth. Presenters. Patti Warmington, MA, CPC Director of Wellness and Prevention--Life Guidance Services Chair – Kent County Prevention Coalition

mason
Download Presentation

You’ve Been Caught!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. You’ve Been Caught! How a Coalition has Joined Forces with Multiple Law Enforcement Agencies to Address Alcohol and Marijuana Use by Youth

  2. Presenters • Patti Warmington, MA, CPC • Director of Wellness and Prevention--Life Guidance Services • Chair – Kent County Prevention Coalition • Josh Hansen, M.Div • Community Organizer—Wedgwood Christian Services

  3. Learning Objectives • Understand the process by which the Kent County Prevention Coalition (KCPC) is building a partnership with multiple law enforcement agencies. • Align this process to the Strategic Prevention Framework • Receive a model for that process in the form of our MIP brochure

  4. Agenda 1. Introduce the Project 2. MIP Project Process 3. The Tools 4. Questions and Comments

  5. A Little Reminder of Focus

  6. The Kent County Prevention Coalition • A formalized, multi-sector coalition with representation from various communities in Kent County • Responsible for promoting a common vision, increased awareness and collaboration to advance substance abuse prevention efforts in Kent County. • Focused on building and mobilizing capacity to impact population level change. • Comprised of a wide variety of stakeholders from around the county with nearly 30 active voting members.

  7. The Law Enforcement Gap 2009: The Kent County Prevention Coalition identified that youth, with MIP infractions, were provided inconsistent information by law enforcement agencies.

  8. Additional Factors • Over 12 separate law enforcement agencies in the county • Perceived differences in prevention and enforcement • Poor economic conditions • Enforcement priorities

  9. At the Same Time… • In April 2009, KCPC membership, law enforcement officers and court officials attended a webinar: “Partnership Power: Anti-Drug Groups and Law Enforcement” • Discussion resulted in the KCPC forming the MIP Ad Hoc Committee.

  10. A SPF Overview

  11. Assessment • Total enforcement of MIP citations • Equal enforcement? • Violation process • Brief intervention • Who got them? Any how chosen? • Social justice concerns • Unequal enforcement across race and income? • Social Norm • Level of parental concern?

  12. Capacity: The MIP Ad Hoc Team • Representatives agreed to participate from: • Prevention service providers • A youth serving agency • SUD Coordinating Agency • Several youth representatives • Members had prior relationships with: • One police chief • Family Court

  13. Planning: Goals • Kent County Strategic Plan Behavioral Goals Addressed: • Reduce Youth Alcohol Use and Binge Drinking • Reduce Use of Marijuana by Teens • Coalition’s Capacity Goal • Increase Law Enforcement Participation in Prevention Efforts

  14. Planning: Vision • MIP Ad Hoc Vision • Every effort should be made for enforcement of all underage alcohol violations. • Every effort should be made for enforcement of all underage marijuana violations • Timely requirement for screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) in ALL cases.

  15. SBIRT- What Is It? • The SBIRT Initiative targets those with nondependent substance use and provides effective strategies for intervention prior to the need for more extensive or specialized treatment. • Brief intervention is generally restricted to four or fewer sessions, each session lasting from a few minutes to 1 hour, and is designed to be conducted by health professionals who do not specialize in addictions treatment. • http://sbirt.samhsa.gov/about.htm

  16. Planning: Purpose • We care about the health and safety of all youth. • We recognize that they are uniquely at risk because of their developing brains. • Partnerships between law enforcement and prevention create opportunities for change. • We envision community norms that discourage underage use. • We seek to create uniformity and parity within the intervention systems in Kent County.

  17. Planning: The Brochure Idea • Prior to the MIP Ad Hoc, one provider, Alert Labs of GVSU, had used an awareness brochure with measurable success. • This began the discussion of whether a county wide brochure could: • Educate youth & parents about MIP’s • Increase use of SBIRT alternatives • Secure law enforcement support

  18. Planning: Theory of Change If law enforcement provides a MIP brochure to the majority of youth cited with a MIP offense,

  19. Theory of Change Then youth and their parent(s) will have increased knowledge of the MIP process and the availability and value of seeking a timely SBIRT program for the youth

  20. Theory of Change Then youth and their parent(s) will seek a timely SBIRT program for the youth

  21. Theory of Change Then more youth will receive an intervention to identify and, if needed, address any SUD concerns

  22. Theory of Change Then there is a reduction in the youth’s AOD use behavior

  23. Theory of Change Then there is a reduction in offenses of alcohol and marijuana use by youth.

  24. Planning: Building a Logic Model

  25. Implementation: Strategies • Enforcement: Build a relationship with law enforcement agencies to encourage the concept that MIP citation to youth IS in the youth’s best interest. • Norms: Promotion of timely SBIRT diversion options increases identification of those needing treatment. • Policy: Youth receiving first MIP offense are referred for SBIRT options (with or without other court recommendations).

  26. Implementation: Activities • 1. Partner with law enforcement: • For their approval of concept (brochure) • Their input into the development • Their willingness to distribute • Their final approval of tool

  27. Implementation: Activities, con’t 2. Meet with family court officials to better understand the MIP process and gain their support and approval of tool. 3. Law enforcement agencies distribute tool to ALL offenders

  28. Implementation: Activities, con’t 4. Review similar products and their effectiveness. 5. Collect local data for potential use in tool.

  29. Implementation: Activities, con’t • Disclaimer – “not legal advice”. • Design • Coalition colors • Catchy cover

  30. Implementation: Activities, con’t • 8. Content • Information • Tested statistics and state laws • Help resources • Information on SBIRT & diversion • Credit statements

  31. Implementation: Activities, con’t • 9. Feedback and input on draft: • Families in brief interventions • Youth in the community • Law enforcement • Judges and probation officers • They were asked: • What do you like or dislike? • Is it relevant? • Would you use it? • Is it helpful? Why?

  32. Implementation: The County Chief’s Meeting • In September of 2009 a preliminary brochure was presented to all of Kent county’s law enforcement chief’s at their monthly meeting. • Departments were asked if they would like to use MIP brochure in their MIP process and to sign up if interested. • 14 of 14 departments signed up. • Funding for the first printing (4,000/ $437) was donated by MADD Michigan.

  33. Evaluation: Our Next Steps • Additional feedback from the brochure has created several next steps: • The necessity of increasing SBIRT awareness • KCPC • Courts & Probation • Translation into Spanish • Expanding demand for distribution • Drivers education • School safety officers • Interest has been expressed in college and a marijuana only focused brochure.

  34. Evaluation: Data Collection Our basic measures: • Number of requests for brief interventions before and after brochure distribution • Network180 Access Center • United Way: 211 • Process: How many distributed and where?

  35. Comments on Success • Police comments • Anecdote • Keys to success • Get law enforcement on board at the beginning: “we want to help you do your job easier”. • Be open to feedback: be prepared to revise many times. • Find out who has access to law enforcement. • Product: easy to use; easy to get.

  36. History of MIP Brochure Partnership Power: Webinar April 2009 July 2009 Kent County MIP Ad Hoc Formed Concept Presented to Judicial and Law Enforcement August 2009 Final Tool Presented to Law Enforcement Sept. 2010 Tool Delivered to Law Enforcement Feb. 2010 Evaluation and Follow up Activities Sept. 2010

  37. Usage and Contact • If you’d like to use the MIP brochure, please recognize our efforts and tell us. • If you’d like more information: • Patti Warmington • pwarmington@lifeguidanceservices.org • 616-464-2946 x184 • Joshua Hansen • jhansen@wedgwood.org • 616-942-2110

  38. Questions and Comments?

More Related