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  Josh Hansen, M.Div  Community Organizer—Wedgwood Christian Services

Learning Objectives 1.Understand the process by which the Kent County Prevention Coalition (KCPC) is building a partnership with multiple law enforcement agencies. 2.Align this process to the Strategic Prevention Framework 3.Receive a model for that process in the form of our MIP brochure

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

A Little Reminder of Focus

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.

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

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

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.

A SPF Overview

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?

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

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

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. Planning: Vision

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.

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.

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: 1. Educate youth & parents about MIP’s 2. Increase use of SBIRT alternatives 3. Secure law enforcement support

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

Theory of Change 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 Then

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

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

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

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

Planning: Building a Logic Model

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).

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

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

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

Implementation: Activities, con’t 6.Disclaimer – “not legal advice”. 7. Design  Coalition colors  Catchy cover

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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   x184  Joshua Hansen  

Questions and Comments?