1 / 42

2 + 2 = ? Two Plus Two Might Not Always Equal Four

2 + 2 = ? Two Plus Two Might Not Always Equal Four. Enhanced Strategic Planning. Rob Lillis Evalumetrics Research and Lynne Gochenaur Marcus Whitman Schools. Logic Model. Why? Root Causes (Weighted factors ). What? (Prevalence). Why Here? Local factors. Implementation. Evaluation.

plato
Download Presentation

2 + 2 = ? Two Plus Two Might Not Always Equal Four

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. 2 + 2 = ? Two Plus Two Might Not Always Equal Four Enhanced Strategic Planning

  2. Rob LillisEvalumetrics ResearchandLynne GochenaurMarcus Whitman Schools

  3. Logic Model Why? Root Causes (Weighted factors) What? (Prevalence) Why Here? Local factors Implementation Evaluation Alcohol Risk Factors Protective Factors Workgroup Input Develop Action Plan Evaluation

  4. Logic Model What? (Prevalence) Alcohol

  5. “What?” The problem Just like Chicken Little - Problems often seem to fall from the sky. or in the case of prevention planning.. from the survey.

  6. “What?” The Problem What we measure is often determined by what we are concerned about or (in some cases), someone else’s pre-determined concerns or priorities. Groups are then formed because of that issue/problem.

  7. Logic Model Why? Root Causes (Weighted factors) What? (Prevalence) Risk Factors Protective Factors Alcohol

  8. Logic Model: Why? Quantitative (data-driven) Measures Interventions are usually planned based only on prevalence of risk and protective factors. Unfortunately… this is where most planning stops.

  9. Strategic Planning Enhancement The determination of the problem and its intervention is based on quantitative measurement of not only: Prevalence Prediction of risk and of problem protective behavior factorsbut also

  10. For Example……

  11. Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320

  12. Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 12.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level

  13. Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 12.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 63% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.

  14. Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 12.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 22.3% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days 63% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.

  15. Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 87.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 12.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 22.3% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days 63% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Therefore… Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.56 times more likely (63%/22.3%) to report drinking in the last 30 days

  16. Antisocial Behavior Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 93.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 6.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 24.8% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days 64% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Therefore… Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.56 times more likely (64%/24.8%) to report drinking in the last 30 days

  17. Friends Use Drugs Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 86.9% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 13.1% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 23.0% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days 57% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Therefore… Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.48 times more likely (57%/23%) to report drinking in the last 30 days

  18. Lack Perceived Risks of Drug Use Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 81.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 18.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 22.3% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days 50% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Therefore… Students who have favorable attitudes toward drugs were 2.24 times more likely (50%/22.3%) to report drinking in the last 30 days

  19. Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 86.2% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 13.8% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 23.6% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days 52.3% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Therefore… Students who perceive their parents have attitudes that favor drug use were 2.2 times more likely (52.3%/23.6%) to report drinking in the last 30 days

  20. Lack of rewards for Pro-social Involvement in the Community Anystate, USA Total number of Students surveyed: N=320 Prevalence Prediction of Problem Behavior 64.5% of students surveyed did not score at the risk level 32.5% of students surveyed scored at the risk level 26.9% of students who did not score at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days 27.8% of students who scored at the risk level reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. Therefore… Students who lack rewards for pro-social involvement in their community were less likely (27.8%/26.9%) to report drinking in the last 30 days

  21. Logic Model Why Here? Local factors Why? Root Causes (Weighted factors) Workgroup Input What? (Prevalence) Alcohol Risk Factors Protective Factors

  22. Logic Model: Why Here? Why Now?Combining Quantitative and Qualitative measures

  23. Anytown USA Strategic Planning Factor Rankings –I (Importance Scale) Give each of the following factors a score from 1 to 10 to represent how significant or important it is as a problem in your community. A score of 1 represents little or no significance and a score of 10 means it is a very significant problem for your sector. Rate each factor separately. More than one factor can have the same rating or score. Date of Rating _______________________________________________ Rater name __________________________________________________ Rater sector (Check all that apply) Other ___________________________________________________________

  24. Activity: “What We Need” or “What We Should Do?” • Break up into groups based on your “sector”. • In your group answer the following question: “How does this factor manifest itself in your work and how important is it to you as you do your job?” 3. Fill out the Factor Rating 1 form Do’s:You can speculate as to why young people have this factor. Don’ts:You cannot discuss how to address the factor…yet. (no solutions)

  25. Community Readiness • Aware of the issue. • Concerned about the issue. • Informed about the issue. • Motivated to act. • Informed about strategies. • Committed to action. • Informed of results.

  26. Anytown USA Strategic Planning Factor Rankings –II (Viability Scale) Give each of the following factors a score from 1 to 10 to represent the extent to which your community “ready to influence” the factor if resources were available. A score of 1 represents little or no significance and a score of 10 means it is a very significant problem for your sector. Rate each factor separately. More than one factor can have the same rating or score. Date of Rating _______________________________________________ Rater name __________________________________________________ Rater sector (Check all that apply) Other ___________________________________________________________

  27. Activity: “What We Need or What We Should Do?” Part II • In your same groups discuss and respond to the following question: “Rate the extent to which you or your organization,, are ready to have an impact on the identified factors.” 3. Fill out the Factor Rating II form Do’s:You may talk about how you see you or your organization’s readiness to address this factor Don’ts:You may not discuss the limitations (lack of resources) you or your organization may have to address that factor.

  28. LogicModel Why? Root Causes (Weighted factors) Implementation What? (Prevalence) Why Here? Local factors Develop Action Plan Alcohol Risk Factors Protective Factors Workgroup Input

  29. Selection of the Priority Factors: Calculate weighted scores Step 1: Combine the rankings Step 2: Combine with prediction Step 3: Combine with prevalence

  30. Weighted Score Spreadsheet

  31. Logic Model: Development Plan • Identify evidence-based prevention programs and strategies selected for each factor • There should be a logical link between the community need and the selected program or strategies and ultimately the proposed outcomes. • Evidence-based programs can be supplemented with other programs as long as those programs have been evaluated and are based on evidence-based approaches.

  32. Logic Model: Development PlanReference Guide to Evidence-based programs/Principles of Prevention • Blueprints for Violence Prevention http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html OJJDP Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse1-800-638-8736 • Prevention Principles for Children and Adolescents http://www.nida.nih.gov/Prevention/Ptrvopen.htmlNIDA NCADI1-800-729-6686 • Principles of Effectiveness for Safe and Drug Free Schools Final SDFSCA Principles of Effectivenesshttp://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/ announcements/1998-2/060198c.pdf(PDF) • Science-Based Practices in Substance Abuse Prevent http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/prevent/ practice.html CSAP   Posted on ONDCP Web • National Registry of Evidenced-based programs and Practices http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov

  33. Logic Model: Development Plan Challenges • Some sites provide evidence-based programs that link directly to risk and protective factors. • For example… Problem behavior: underage drinking Favorable attitudes toward drug use Life Skills Training Program Reduction in favorable attitudes drug use Results in reduced in reduced alcohol use

  34. Logic Model: Development Plan Challenges Anti-social behavior • Not all sites link evidence-based programs to risk and protective factors. • There are some factors that have no evidence-based programs. • However, some have indirect effects. • eg: antisocial behavior Problem behavior: violence Olweus Bullying Prevention Program OBBP leads to a reduction in bullying Reduced bullying leads to reduced violence Results in reduced ant-social behavior

  35. Logic Model: Development Plan Challenges • Not all sites link evidence-based programs to risk and protective factors. • Example some sites like NREPP provide details on the developmental research and effective principles of prevention. • These principles can be used to develop new strategies.

  36. Logic Model Why? Root Causes (Weighted factors) What? (Prevalence) Why Here? Local factors Evaluation Implementation Alcohol Risk Factors Protective Factors Workgroup Input Develop Action Plan Evaluation

  37. Evaluation Answers the question – “What happened… …compared to what would have happened?”

  38. Evaluation • Process… • What did you do… • Outputs • Outcomes… • What changed… • Compared to? • Why?

  39. Evaluation • Re-measure what was measured in needs assessment. • Add new measures as needed. • Strategy-specific protocols. • Process measures are critical. • If you didn’t do what you said you would do… • you can’t attribute cause to change.

  40. Common Pitfalls Organizations have the tendency to do what other communities are doing to address the same problem in their community. The risk and protective factors that predict that problem for your young people may not be the same as in that community, the interventions are not successful. The problem? Therefore,

  41. Benefits to Enhanced Strategic Planning • You can complete the planning process in a limited number of sessions (six). • The planning is focused. • The planning is efficient. • You get real involvement and buy-in from members/partners. You move from the “solution of the week” based on the “problem of the day” to a Quantitative-based strategic planning process

  42. For Questions Rob Lillis Evalumetrics Research rlillis@rochester.rr.com • Lynne Gochenaur • Marcus Whitman School District • lgochenaur@mwcsd.org

More Related