Updated SEPT 15, 2014
Assessment Report
New Mexico Office of Substance Abuse Prevention Grantees
COMPLETE REPORT DUE – December 7, 2014
Please submit this report to the following people , Natalie Skogerboe , and Liz
Coalition Name:Project Director:
Program Coordinator:
Other Staff:
Briefly describe your coalition
Key Members:Core Team Members:
Key accomplishments to date (highlights):
Challenges or barriers experienced:
This Assessment form will help you and your coalition plan your prevention efforts in the future. Consider it to be a tool for your best use, so continuously update as you gather more data and be sure to make it understandable for others.
Section I Submit Section I by October 15th for OSAP review
ALL PROGRAMS: complete the two substance tables below. You are only required to use archival data for these tables—that is, data that already exists. Refer to the 2014 NM Substance abuse EpiProfile (), and your county’s YRRS results. Add additional data as you have available in your community ie, from IBIS (), NMCS from 2014 that you gathered yourself; other prevention program evaluation results (such as DWI programming), other community surveys, etc. Fill in all data in the left column for each age group. Use the column on the right to show the source of data and results.
Priorities: Underage Alcohol-related Priorities (Binge Drinking / Drinking and Driving)
Using the Underage Drinking Logic Model provided at the Assessment Training, please describe the data you gathered on the problem itself (in the table below).
Binge Drinking and Drinking and Driving12-17 yrs / List data source, date and results here.
This is an example of the kind of information we are looking for. Please delete the example information and enter your own:
Drank Before age 13 / Data Source 2011 YRRS (update with 2013 data!)
Lea County is higher than the state for drinking before age 13
- Lea HS 30.7% compared with NM HS 22.4% (US rate is 21.9)
Current Drinking
(past 30 days) / Data Source 2011 YRRS
Lea County is higher than the state for drinking in the past 30 days
- Lea Middle School: 21.4% compared with NM 12.9%;
- Lea High School: 41.1% compared with NM 36.9%
Current Binge Drinking / Data Source 2011 YRRS
Our youth also report binge drinking more than the rest of NM
- Lea MS: 10.5%, NM MS:6.3%
- Lea HS: 30.7%, NM HS:22.4%
Current DWI / Data Source 2011 YRRS
Lea County is higher than the state for DWI in the last 30 days
- Self-reported DWI: Lea HS: 15.5%, NMHS 9.3%
- Driving in a car with a drunk driver: Lea HS 18%, NMHS 13%
Other data? (youth DWI arrests, youth alcohol hospitalizations, etc.) / (Optional – according to availability of data)
18-20yrs (adults under legal age for drinking) / Possible data sources: (note that you may not have good data on a county level for this challenging age group).
2011 NSDUH
2010, 2012, 2014 (if choose to) Community Survey – May have too limited numbers for this age group to report.
Other?
Current Drinking (past 30 days)
Current Binge Drinking
Current DWI
Other data? (youth DWI arrests, youth alcohol hospitalizations, etc.) / (Optional – according to availability of data)
Adults over 18 / Possible Data sources: NM Epi Profile
Current Binge Drinking / 2010, NM-Epi profile
9% in Lea County, and 11.1% in NM (US is 15.1)
Current DWI / .9% in New Mexico, as compared to .3% in Lea County. (US not available)
Other data? (Adult DWI arrests, alcohol hospitalizations, etc.) / (Optional – according to availability of data)
Alcohol-related Consequences (from the 2014 NM Epi profile)
Alcohol-related deaths / 2014 NM Epi Profile: between 2008-2012, there were 39.7 per 100,000 deaths in Lea County, lower than the state rate of 52.3, but still higher than the national rate of 28.5 per 100,000.
Alcohol-related chronic disease death / The 2014 NM Epi Profile reports that between 2008-2012, there were 14.5 alcohol-related chronic disease deaths per 100,000 in Lea, lower than the NM rate of 24.6 , but higher than the national rate of 12.3
Alcohol-related injury death / Lea County: 25.4 versus NM 27.7 but still higher than US 16.2 (same Epiprofile source)
Alcohol-related crash deaths / Lea County’s rate of 7.7 per 100K, considerably higher than the NM rate of 5.4 and the US rate of 3.4!
Other? (DWI crash rates, alcohol-related hospitalizations, etc.) / (Optional – according to availability of local data sources)
Priority: Prescription Drug Abuse
Using the Prescription Drug Logic Model provided at the Assessment Training, please describe the data you gathered on the problem itself (in the table below). If data are not available, state. See if there are other resources locally.
Prescription Drug Misuse/Abuse12-17 yrs / List data source, date and results here AS AVAILABLE.
This is an example of the kind of information we are looking for. Please delete the example information and add your own data.
Used pain killers to get high / Data Source: 2011 YRRS(update with 2013 data!) Lea County’sprevalence of prescription drug misuse is higher among middle school (MS) students than the rest of the state, while high school (HS) students report similar use as the rest of New Mexico. Youth report using pain killers to get high:
- Lea MS: 9.8%, NM MS:4.9%
- Lea HS: 10.9%, NM HS:11.3%
Used prescription drugs without a prescription / Data Source: 2011 YRRS Lifetime Rx use without a prescription:
- Lea MS: 12.7%, NM MS: 8%
- Lea HS: 20%, NM HS: 20.2%
Other: Past year non medical pain-reliever use (12 and older)l / From the NM Epi profile 2014, Appendix 2 (2008-2010 NSDUH): 5.60% in the SE region, slightly lower than 5.76% of state
Adults 18-older / 2011 NSDUH (probably only available at the regional level)
2013 Epi Profile appendices
2010, 2012 Community Survey (may have limited numbers or none at all)
Painkillers to get high (NMCS)
Used prescription drugs without a prescription (NMCS)
Non-medical pain reliever use (Epi Profile- IBIS-NSDUH)
Young adults, elderly or Other Age / 2011 NSDUH (probably only available at the regional level)
2013 Epi Profile appendices
2010, 2012 Community Survey (may have limited numbers or none at all)
Painkillers to get high (NMCS)
Used prescription drugs without a prescription (NMCS)
Non-medical pain reliever use (Epi Profile, IBIS)
RX painkiller consequences (from 2014NM Epi Profile)
Drug Induced Death / Rates per 100K population according to the 2014 NM Epi Profile, 2008-2012: 15.9 Lea County; 24.3 NM; 11.9 US.
In 2009, New Mexico had the highest Drug induced death rate in the nation.
Unintentional Rx drug Overdose rates / Rates per 100K according to the 2014 NM Epi Profile, 2008-2012:
6.2 in lea County, lower than 9.5 in New Mexico, and larger than Lea’s illicit drug overdose death rates at 4.6.
Other consequences data such as hospitalizations, age specific consequences) / (Optional – according to availability of local data sources)
Complete the tables above before completing this final section
Your coalition is asked to work on at least two of the following priorities with OSAP funding: underage binge drinking, underage DWI, adult binge drinking, adult DWI, or prescription painkiller abuse. You are not required to determine these today, but based upon the data entered above and your assessment process to date, please check off all the possible priorities you may be working on, and give a brief justification of those priorities (as well as the ruling out of others).
Substance abuse priorities selected for your county: Check at least twoUnderage DWI / Adult DWI
Underage Binge Drinking / Adult Binge Drinking
Prescription Painkiller abuse
Please explain your choices and exclusions. For example:
- We will choose among the alcohol-related priorities (underage and adult binge drinking and DWI) because our YRRS data show us that underage drinking is much higher than in other NM counties and that adult alcohol-related deaths are also very high. Rx painkillers abuse, while of concern, is still lower than the rest of the state, as shown by overdose rates and YRRS results. Additionally, an existing coalition in our county works with Rx and illicit drug prevention, and in discussion with them, we have determined it to be the best approach to focus on alcohol alone in order to best supporting the coalition’s work.
- Our initial assessment shows that all areas are still of concern. We therefore collected qualitative data on all priorities. We will continue to consider all the above priorities as we move forward.
Send your completed Section I to and Natalie Skogerboe.
Keep Section I attached to the rest of this report
Section II
The data gathered throughout your community assessment will help you make informed decisions about where the problems are in your community, and what contributes to those problems.
- Complete the Focus Group Summaries as you conduct them.
Once you complete all your data collection, please provide an overview of the data collected. You do not need to report everything, but the highlights of what you have learned.
- Use the tables with BLUE headings for alcohol-related priorities
- Use the tables with TAN/GOLD headings for prescription drug priorities
(You can delete the tables for the priorities about which you will not be collecting further data, but you are encouraged to complete them anyway for your community’s/coalition’s benefit).
FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARIES
Using the table below, please provide a brief description of each focus group and/or interview you conducted, or the survey you implemented to collect data.Add or delete tables as needed.
1 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name / EXAMPLE (delete this example before submitting your report):Focus Group with parents and community members who have middle/high school age children
Special geographic area / population? / This group was from a village closer to the Mexico border than the county seat and many participants were Spanish-speakers
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place / April 10, 2014 / 5:30-6:30pm / 9 parents (6 females, 3 males, Ages 30-56)
The focus group was held at the Boys & Girls Club community room.
Main Feedback / The parents gave us great information on where they think youth access alcohol, and shared stories about a local incident involving prescription drugs being sold at the high school by a student.
Their perception of risk for providing alcohol to minors was very low. Hosting parties where alcohol is available for underage youth seems common.
Other pertinent information / We provided dinner and $25 gift cards to all participants.
Our Prevention coordinator and partner from the SBHC facilitated the FG.
2 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
3 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
4 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
5 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
6 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
7 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
8 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
9 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
10 / Focus Group / Interview / Tool Name
Special geographic area / population?
Date / Time / Number of Participants / Place
Main Feedback
Other pertinent information
INTERVENING VARIABLE/CONTRIBUTING FACTOR DATA
Now, please describe the type of data gathered and the key findings for each intervening variable and contributing factor for the alcohol-related priorities (UDWI/UBD, ADWI/ABD). Use the UAD/DWI Logic Model Provided at the Assessment Training.Try to make note of unique differences among different populations (under 18, 18-20 year olds, parents, etc). Add relevant contributing factors as needed.
If you are using a data source that is not on the Assessment Guide or was not given to you by OSAP, please briefly describe the data source (what is the source, how many surveys were collected from whom, who collected it, and where it was collected, etc.) We would like to get an idea of the validity and reliability of the data and how representative the sample is for your community.
Please tell us your 1st ALCOHOL RELATED PRIORITY:
Intervening Variable / Social AccessContributing Factors / Data Source (i.e. YRRS, Focus Group with youth, survey name, etc) / What do the data for your community reveal?
Does this seem to be a main contributor to alcohol misuse or is it not really important?
Minors access alcohol from of-age friends / relatives / Focus Group data from Parents, Community Members and Youth.
YRRS / EXAMPLE (erase before submitting):
This is a main contributor to UAD as it is the main way minors obtain alcohol
- There a perception in many of our communities that people are “expected to do certain things at certain ages no matter what the law is…” and so older family member supply alcohol to youth
•As noted above from the YRRS information, Happy County is higher than the state average for drinking before age 11, as well as middle school and high school binge drinking. The majority of our youth who drink give money to adults to purchase alcohol or it is given to them.
•It seems the common theme is that youth are able to ask adults (from the focus groups youth indicate asking people who they know) who are willing to purchase them alcohol
Minors consume alcohol at certain “hot spots” or unsupervised parties
Other: fill in CFs as you identify them & add rows. Refer to logic models for help.
Other:
Intervening Variable / Retail Access
Contributing Factors / Data Source (i.e. YRRS, Focus Group with youth, etc) / What do the data for your community reveal?
Does this seem to be a main contributor to alcohol misuse or is it not really important?
Merchants sell to minors
Merchants sell to intoxicated patrons
High alcohol outlets density makes access easy
Other: fill in CFs as you identify them & add rows. Refer to logic models for help.
Intervening Variable / Low Enforcement
Contributing Factors / Data Source (i.e. YRRS, Focus Group with youth, etc) / What do the data for your community reveal?
Does this seem to be a main contributor to alcohol misuse or is it not really important?
Lack of resources for saturation or party patrols / checkpoints
Lack of resources for prosecuting MIP
Lack of enforcement for providing alcohol to minors*
Low number of DWI checkpoints and saturation patrols*
Few arrests for alcohol-related crimes*
Low conviction rates*
Other: fill in CFs as you identify them & add rows. Refer to logic models for help.
* For these you will need to fill in current and possibly past # of annual enforcement events from your enforcement data gathering table. If you end up selecting an enforcement strategy to follow, you will need to have baseline data to show that there is a need to increase enforcement, so seek out this information as early as you can.
Intervening Variable / Perception of RiskContributing Factors / Data Source (i.e. YRRS, Focus Group with youth, etc) / What do the data for your community reveal?
Does this seem to be a main contributor to alcohol misuse or is it not really important?
Youth do not perceive any enforcement for drinking
Adults to not see or know of legal consequences for offering alcohol to minors
Lack of evidence of DWI enforcement leads to low perception of risk of gettingcaught
Other: fill in CFs as you identify them & add rows. Refer to logic models for help.
Intervening Variable / Community Norms
Contributing Factors / Data Source (i.e. YRRS, Focus Group with youth, etc) / What do the data for your community reveal?
Does this seem to be a main contributor to alcohol misuse or is it not really important?
Family Acceptance (inclusion of alcohol at events, parents permit UAD)
Considered a rite of passage
Excessive drunkenness is OK or even cool
Community stakeholders support efforts to reduce UAD
Other: fill in CFs as you identify them & add rows. Refer to logic models for help.
Intervening Variable / Price & Promotion
Contributing Factors / Data Source (i.e. YRRS, Focus Group with youth, etc) / What do the data for your community reveal?
Does this seem to be a main contributor to alcohol misuse or is it not really important?
Low prices make it easy for minors to get alcohol
Bars near campus compete for student purchases
Advertising / marketing toward youth
Other: fill in CFs as you identify them & add rows. Refer to logic models for help.
Intervening Variable / Individual Factors
Contributing Factors / Data Source (i.e. YRRS, Focus Group with youth, etc) / What do the data for your community reveal?
Does this seem to be a main contributor to alcohol misuse or is it not really important?
Peer support for not drinking
Peer pressure to drink
Healthy family boundaries discourage drinking
Other: fill in CFs as you identify them & add rows. Refer to logic models for help.
Other:
What community strengths relative to alcohol abuse prevention did you find that you might be able to build upon and benefit the work of this grant?
What differences did you find between different age groups, geographic areas, focus groups, or populations for alcohol and/or DWI?
What challenges did you face, if any, in collecting data for underage or adult binge drinking and/or DWI?
What data have you not been able to find/use? Why?
What did you learn about underage drinking/binge drinking/DWI in your community that you did not expect?
What Intervening Variables appear to have more influence in your community for Alcohol abuse and/or DWI?
***If both of your priorities are alcohol-focused, please SKIP to the tables with blue headings. DELETE the tables directly below on Prescription Drug misuse.