Many Voices ~ One Vision Partner Agencies Government Center Indianapolis, IN July 25, 2006

1. Many Voices ~ One VisionPartner AgenciesGovernment CenterIndianapolis, INJuly 25, 2006 Prevention Planning and Grant-WritingUsing the SPF Logic Model Applied tothe Case of Methamphetamine Barbara Seitz de Martinez, PhD, MLS, CPP Deputy Director Indiana Prevention Resource Center

2. Acknowledgments Special thanks to • Merrill Hatlen, MA, IPRC Grants Consultant • Rosie King, IPRC Grant-Writer

3. The Indiana Prevention Resource Center is funded, in part, by a contract with Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, financially supported through HHS/Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant.  The IPRC is operated by Indiana University Department of Applied Health Science, School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.   It is affiliated with the Department’s Institute of Drug Abuse Prevention.

4. Strategic Prevention Framework:Outcomes-Based Prevention Profile population needs, resources, and readiness to address needs and gaps Monitor, evaluate, sustain, and improve or replace those that fail Mobilize and/or build capacity to address needs Cultural Competence Sustainability Implement evidence- based prevention programs and activities Develop a Comprehensive Plan Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, CSAP

5. Cultural Competence: Organizational Dimensions • Cultural Competency is: • more than being sensitive to ethnic differences • more than not being a bigot • more than the warm fuzzy feeling • crucial to provision of services and retention of clients • It is a set of congruent practical skills, attitudes, policies and structures which come together in a system, agency or among professionals which enables that system or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. (Taylor, 2002) Indiana Prevention Resource Center

6. Cultural Competency Spectrum • Cultural Destructiveness • Cultural Incapacity • Cultural Blindness • Cultural Precompetence • Cultural Proficiency Source: Taylor, Trusanda. “Effective Cross-Cultural Communication in DA Intervention. In Ethnicity and Substance Abuse Xueqin Ma & Henderson, 2002. Indiana Prevention Resource Center

7. Ethnocultural Competency “ability … to function effectively in the context of ethnocultural differences” Ethnocompetency includes: • Valuing diversity • Understanding one’s own ethnocultural background & values • Basic knowledge about the ethnoculture of clients • Commitment to working with diverse clients • Adapting practices/skills to fit client’s ethnocultural background • Flexibility in reaching out to appropriate cultural resources Source: Straussner, Shulamith Lala Ashenberg, ed. Ethnocultural Factors in Substance Abuse Treatment. New York: Guilford Press, 2003. Indiana Prevention Resource Center

8. Profile Population • Needs Assessment Worksheet Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, CSAP

9. GIS in PreventionCounty Profile Fact Sheet IPRC website: www.drugs.indiana.edu/resources/prev-stat/

10. GIS in PreventionCounty Profile (complete) Introduction PREV-STAT™ Overview Geographic and Historical Notes Protective Factors Basic Demographics Archival Indicators of Risk Community Risk Factors • Availability of Drugs • Laws and Norms • Transitions and Mobility • Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation • Family Risk Factors Management Problems Complementary Resources Appendices • Including Ranking Tables, Counties by Variable IPRC website: www.drugs.indiana.edu/resources/prev-stat/

11. 5.7 Educational Attainment Source: IPRC, GIS in Prevention, Series 3, Dubois County Profile, Bloomington: Indiana Prevention Resource Center, 2006.

12. 5.8 Households Source: IPRC, GIS in Prevention, Series 3, Fayette County Profile, Bloomington: Indiana Prevention Resource Center, 2006.

13. 5.9 Families (by type) Source: IPRC, GIS in Prevention, Series 3, Hamilton County Profile, Bloomington: Indiana Prevention Resource Center, 2006.

14. Map: Education, Any College Degree Source: IPRC, GIS in Prevention, Series 3, Hamilton County Profile, Bloomington: Indiana Prevention Resource Center, 2006.

15. Complementary Resources • IPRC PREV-STAT Service (www.drugs.indiana.edu/resources/prev-stat) • STATS Indiana (www.stats.indiana.edu) • Indiana Youth Institute (www.iyi.org) • Indiana Department of Education (ideanet.doe.state.in.us) • Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (www.icji.in.gov) • FBI Uniform Crime Report (fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/) • U.S. Census Bureau American Factfinder (www.census.gov) • SAVI (www.savi.org) • Social Indicator System (www.sis.indiana.edu) • Indiana State Department of Health (www.in.gov/isdh/)

16. Methamphetamine: Data for Problem Description

17. SPF SIG Logic Model Substance-Related Consequences and Use Intervening Factors Strategies Adapted from CSAP, Strategic Prevention Framework, Indianapolis, Feb. 21, 2006 www.in.gov/dcs/policies/dec.html

18. Who? • *Rural / urban / suburban • *White / Hispanic / African-Americans • Heterosexual / homosexual • Young adult, mature adult, youth, child • Male and female • Substance users / polydrug users “There’s no such thing as a typical meth user.” -- recovering meth addict

19. Consequences of Use Substance-Related Consequences and Use Community • Crime • Family services • School • Healthcare, environment Individual • Physical damage • Psychological damage • Harm loved ones • Family disintegration Adapted from CSAP, Strategic Prevention Framework, Indianapolis, Feb. 21, 2006

20. Consequences of Use Substance-Related Consequences and Use Ill effects to addict: Other effects to community: violent crime, child abuse, child neglect, strain on child services, school personnel, healthcare services, law enforcement, judicial system Addiction, brain damage, HIV/STDs, weight loss, paranoia, hallucination, dental damage, fetal effects, Family disintegration, burns, loss of children, loss of job, loss of marriage, imprisonment

21. Short-term Effects Dopamine is normally recycled in the body. Once fired, cocaine blocks the return of the dopamine. Meth, too, blocks its return. But meth also destroys terminals that fire the dopamine. Permanent damage results from improper regrowth of tissue. Source: Richard Rawson, “Meth: A Focus on Women and Children,” Women and Children in Recovery Conference of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, IN Government Building, April 7, 2005.

22. Source: Bill O’Dell, Community Prevention Specialist, West Virginia Prevention Resource Center, “What’s Up with Meth” PowerPoint, 2004

23. Source: Bill O’Dell, Community Prevention Specialist, West Virginia Prevention Resource Center, “What’s Up with Meth” PowerPoint, 2004

24. Source: Bill O’Dell, Community Prevention Specialist, West Virginia Prevention Resource Center, “What’s Up with Meth” PowerPoint, 2004

26. Source: DOJ, DEA, Pseudoephedrine Brochure, Aug. 2003

27. Source: Michael G. Heavican, U.S. Attorney for District of Nebraska, Photos taken by Lincoln police of persons arrested for meth possession. 1999 2001

28. Consequences of Use Substance-Related Consequences and Use • Insomnia • Intense sleep • Intense hunger • Depression Effects upon Parenting: Binge Phase: Physical Abuse – agitated, violent behavior Sexual Abuse – libido increased Neglect – intensely self-centered Crash Phase: Physical Abuse – violent, easily agitated Sexual Abuse – children unprotected from others Neglect – no supervision, neglect of child’s needs

29. Consequences for Children Shame Illness Poverty School Problems Injury Addiction Criminal Behavior Depression Delinquency Attachment Disorder School Absenteeism Chaotic Lifestyle Loneliness Anger Issues Homelessness Neglect, e.g. hunger Abuse, e.g., porn Adapted from CSAP, Strategic Prevention Framework, Indianapolis, Feb. 21, 2006

30. Use: Consumption Patterns Substance-Related Consequences and Use Overall consumption data Acute, heavy consumption data Consumption in risky situations • Parties • Homes with children • Unsafe sex (STDs, HIV) Consumption by high-risk groups • Pregnant Women • Youth, college students Adapted from CSAP, Strategic Prevention Framework, Indianapolis, Feb. 21, 2006

31. Source: Bill O’Dell, Community Prevention Specialist, West Virginia Prevention Resource Center, “What’s Up with Meth” PowerPoint, 2004

32. Source: Bill O’Dell, Community Prevention Specialist, West Virginia Prevention Resource Center, “What’s Up with Meth” PowerPoint, 2004

33. Age of 1st Use -- U.S. Source: National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 2005

34. Past Year Use Source: SAMHSA, 2006

35. Past Year Use, Ages 12-17, U.S. Source: National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 2005

36. Past Month Use, Ages 12-17, U.S. Source: National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 2005 Source: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/methamphetamine/index.html Last up-dated 6/3/05. (Accessed 6/4/05)

37. Indiana Youth Gr. 9-12, Life Time Ues Only increase was for IN 10th Graders, 6.9% up from 6.6%. Source: YRBS, 2005

38. Prevalence – Youth, U.S. Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse and University of Michigan, Monitoring the Future 2004 Data from In-School Surveys of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-Grade Students, December 2004 Source: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/methamphetamine/index.html Last up-dated 6/3/05. (Accessed 6/4/05)

39. 100 80 60 percent of students using 40 20 0 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Monthly Annual Lifetime Methamphetamine Use byIndiana 6th – 12th Graders, 2005 We have better things to do than drugs! The 2005 survey was the first in this series to include questions on methamphetamine use. Current use of methamphetamines increases with age. Source: Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University, 2005

40. Annual Use of Meth Indiana and U.S. Source: Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University, 2005 Johnston, et al., National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2004

41. Monthly Use of Meth Indiana and U.S. Source: Indiana Prevention Resource Center at Indiana University, 2005 Johnston, et al., National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2004

42. Intervening/Causal Factors Substance-Related Consequences and Use Intervening Factors Community • Crime • Family services • School • Healthcare Community • Availability • Price • Local labs, street, retail • Social • Social Norms • Enforcement Individual • Physical damage • Psychological damage • Harm loved ones • Family disintegration Individual • Perceptions of risk • Perceptions of harm Adapted from CSAP, Strategic Prevention Framework, Indianapolis, Feb. 21, 2006

43. Map: Meth Lab Busts, 2004 Total lab busts: 14,133 Indiana Prevention Resource Center

44. Map: Meth Lab Busts, 2005 Total lab busts: 12,226 Indiana Prevention Resource Center

45. Map: Meth Lab Busts 2004 Indiana Prevention Resource Center Source: IN State Police, 2005 Total lab busts, 1539

46. Map: Meth Lab Busts 2004 Total lab busts, 1539 Indiana Prevention Resource Center Source: IN State Police, 2005

47. Map: Meth Busts Jan-Oct 15, 2005 Indiana Prevention Resource Center Source: IN State Police, 2005 Total lab busts to mid October, 846

48. Map: Meth Busts, 2004, 2005 Total lab busts, 1539 Total lab busts to mid October, 846 Indiana Prevention Resource Center Source: IN State Police, 2005

49. Intervening/Causal Factors Substance-Related Consequences and Use Intervening Factors Community • Crime • Family services • School • Healthcare Social Values • Overachievement • Thinness ideal • Economic success • Letting others set your goals • Seeking the ‘high’ • Thrill of risk taking Individual • Physical damage • Psychological damage • Harm loved ones • Family disintegration Individual • Coping mechanism • Peer pressure Adapted from CSAP, Strategic Prevention Framework, Indianapolis, Feb. 21, 2006

50. Strategies Substance-Related Consequences and Use Intervening Factors Strategies Address problems identified and causal factors Community • Crime • Family services • School • Healthcare Community • Availability • Price • Retail • Social • Social Norms • Enforcement Individual • Physical damage • Psychological damage • Harm loved ones • Family disintegration Individual • Perceptions of risk • Perceptions of harm Adapted from CSAP, Strategic Prevention Framework, Indianapolis, Feb. 21, 2006