HomeMy WebLinkAboutJefferson County Public Health~SOL~ Cr
`-~ .1EFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
s, "'t'".r 615 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend • Washington • 98368
~S9in~t~
www.jeffersoncou ntypu b lichea Ith.org
Raising the awareness of Substance Abuse issues in Port Townsend with
data, research, education and training
June 21, 2010
Port Townsend City Council presentation
Thank-you for your support for Substance Abuse Prevention programs. You are part of the
solution.
Jefferson County Public Health (JCPH), along with the Substance Abuse Advisory Board (SAAB)
and Jefferson County Community Network (JCCN) has worked for many years to raise the
awareness of the problems of drug and alcohol abuse in our community. The hope is that by
raising the awareness with data, research, education and trainings the community and individuals
will be motivate to:
- Get involved in prevention activities,
- Change behaviors that harm themselves and the community, and
- Change community norms.
Jefferson County Public Health is all about prevention. By preventing problems in the first place
we prevent the long term consequences and cost of treatment and intervention later. JCPH
works on preventing the spread of disease though the Communicable Disease Prevention
program. It works in preventing untended pregnancies through Family Planning Programs and it
works on preventing child abuse and neglect through Family Support programs.
There are many layers to prevention programs. This evening we will highlight Jefferson County
Public Health Substance Abuse Prevention programs. At a later meeting we will highlight
Jefferson County Public Health, Nurse Family Partnership program and how it provides a Best
Practice Substance Abuse Prevention program for families.
Attachments:
• Overview chart of state and local government agencies, advisory boards and
funding for Substance Abuse Prevention
• Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)
Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth
• Project ALERT report for Port Townsend 2009-2010 school Year
• Community Capacity Building report for Port Townsend
• Also Board of Health Invitation to participate in Steering workgroup.
DEOVELOPMENTAL D SABILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONWATERLOUA ITY
MAIN: (360) 385-9400 ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND MAIN: (360) 355-9444
FAX; (360) 385-9401 HEALTHIER CONIMUHITY FAX: (360) 379-4487
Washington State
Institute for
Public Policy
110 Fifth Avenue Southeast, Suite 214 PO Box 40999 Oympia, WA 98504A999 • (360) 56&2877 • vmw.wsipp.wa.gov
September f 7, 2004
BENEFITS AND CO5TS OF PREVENTION AND
EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH
Dces prevention pay? Can an ounce of prevention
avoid (at least) an ounce of cure?
More specifically for public policy purposes, is there
credible scientific evidence that for each dollar a
legislature spends on "research-based" prevention or
early intervention programs for youth, mare than a
dollafs worth of benefits will be generated? If so,
what are [he policy options that offer taxpayers the
best return on their tlollar?
These are among the ambitious questions the 2003
Washington State Legislature assigned the
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
(Institute).' This report describes our findings and
provides an overview of how we conducted the
analysis.z An Appendix, published separately,
contains a full description of our results and methods.
Summary of Findings. Our principal contusion is
that, as of September 2004, some prevention and
early intervention programs for youth can give
taxpayere a good return on their dollar. That is,
there is credible evidence that certain well-
implemented programs can achieve significantly
more benefits than costs. Taxpayers will be better
off if investments are made in these successful
research-based programs.
This good news, however, must be tempered in
three important ways. Pirst, we found evidence that
some prevention and early intervention programs
fail to generate more benefits than costs. Our
research indicates that money spent on these
unsuccessful research-based programs is an
ineffident use of taxpayer money.
Our second caveat concerns the "marketplace° for
rigorously researched prevention and early
intervention programs: it is a young market, but it is
evolving quickly. Most high-quality evaluations have
' ESSB 6464 Sec. 666(2), Chapter 25, Laws of 2003.
'Suggested study cdation: Steve Aos. Rmanne tieb, Jim
MayFeM, Marne Miller, Annie Pennucci. (2664) Benefits and
costs orprevenfion and early infervenGOn programs ror youth.
Olympia: Washington State Instl[ute for Public Polley.
' The Appendix is available from the Institute's website:
IX,ttP:lAvwwwsippwa.gov~lesl04-073961 a.pdD.
been completed only in the last two tlecades, and
many new rigorous studies will become available in
the years ahead. As the evaluation evidence
accumulates, and as the market matures, our relative
ranking of programs ran be expected to change.
Third, while Washington has taken significant steps
in recent years, many currently funded prevention
and early intervention programs in the state have
not been rigorously evaluated. Thus, for many
programs in Washington, there is insufficient
evidence a[ this time to determine whether they
produce positive or negative returns for taxpayers.
The main policy implications of these findings are
straightforward and analogous to any sound
investment strategy. To ensure the best possible
return for Washington taxpayers, the Legislature
and Governor should:
• Invest in research-proven "blue chip" prevention
and early intervention programs. Most of
Washington's prevention portfolio should be
spent an these proven programs.
• Avoid spending money on programs where
there is little evidence of program effectiveness.
Shift these funds into successful programs.
• Like any business, keep abreast of the latest
research-based findings from around the United
States to determine where there are
opportunities to use taxpayer dollars wisely.
The ability to distinguish a successful from an
unsuccessful research-based program requires
spedalized knowledge.
• Embark on a strategy to evaluate Washington's
currently funded programs to determine if benefits
exceed costs.
• Achieving "real-world" success with prevention
and early intervention Drograms is difficult;
therefore, dose attention must be paid to quality
wntrol and adherence to original program
designs. Successful prevention strategies require
more effort than just picking the right program.
• Consider developing a strategy to encourage
local government investment in research-proven
programs.
3
I. Legislative Direction
For this review of "research-based" programs, the
Legislature indicated seven outcomes of interest.
The Legislature is interested in idenfitying
prevention antl eady intervention programs that
have a demonstrated ability to:
(1) Reduce crime;
(2) Lower substance abuse;
(3) Improve educations! outcomes such as test
scores and graduation rates;
(4) Decrease teen pregnancy,'
(5) Reduce teen suicide attempts;
(6) Lower child abuse orneglect; and
(7) Reduce domestic wolence.4
In addition to requesting a review of what works [o
achieve these outcomes, the Legislature required
that the study incude an ecnnomic analysis. The
"bottom-line" measures that we produce are our
best estimates of the benefits and costs of each
programs
Why study benefits and costs? In recent years, the
Institute has conducted economic reviews of
criminal justice programs and poficies.a In these
previous studies, we found that some criminal
justice programs produce positive returns to
taxpayers while others fail [o generate more
benefits than costs. The Legislature and Governor
have used this benefit-cost information to reduce
funtling for some criminal justice policies antl
programs with poor returns and to direct some
funds to programs with better returns to the
taxpayer.
This project provides a more comprehensive view of
outcomes than our earlier studies allowed. In our
previous work, we limited our focus to programs that
attempt [o affect criminal outcomes. In the present
study, we take a step forward to examine and
`Spa~cally, the legislative language directs the Institute to
°...review research assessing the electiveness otpreventicn
and eadyiiRerrenfion programs...b reduce the at-risk behaviors
br children and youth...." The seven outmmes referenced in
Me IeguWtive tlireUion are in RCW ]0.190.010(4].
' The legislative assignment far the benetitcost analysis is to
°.. identify specific research-proven Programs that Prctlure a
positive return on the dollar mmparcd fo the costs o/the
pragrem.°
`Sea, S. Aos, P. Phipps, R. Barmski, antl R. Lieb. (2001)
The mmparalive costs end benefits oiprograms fo reduce
crime; S. Aos, R. Bamoski. (2002) The jwenilejustix system in
Washington state: Remmmendafions to improve cost-
e//ectiveness; antl S. Aos. (2003) The criminal/ustice system in
Washington state: Incarceration rates, taxpayer cnsfs, come
rotes and prison economics. Thethree domments are
publishetl by [he Wmhinglm Stale Insptu[e for Public Policy antl
available born <htlpllwww.wsippwa.gov>.
monetize etlucation outcomes, substance abuse
outcomes, teen pregnancy outcomes, and child
abuse and neglect outcomes, in addition to criminal
outcomes. This effort produces a more complete
accounting of options to Increase the efficiency with
which taxpayer dollars are spent, and this
information may be useful in subsequent budget
and policy decision making.
As part of this project, the Legislature also directed
the Institute to investigate ways in which local
government can be encouraged to develop
ecenomically attractive prevention antl eady
intervention programs. We were asked to examine
this question: When there is evidence that local
actions can save state govemment money, how can
some of the state benefits wntribute to [he efforts of
local government?'
Our final assignment concerns quality control.
Recent researoh indicates that without quality
control, prevention and intervention progrems
developed in carefully cenlrolled settings often fail to
achieve the same results in the "real world.°s After
selecting programs with research evidence, the next
step is ensuring that the implementation include a
quality review component. The Institute was directed
to develop recommendations on this topic e
II. Study Methods
In the Appendix to this report, we provide a detailed
description of the research methods employed in
this study. Here, we summarize our approach.
There are two basic steps to this study. First, we
quantify the scientific research literature on
prevention antl early intervention programs that
addresses the seven outcomes. The goal of this
stage of the analysis is to determine if there is
aedible evidence that some types of programs
work. To consider a program for inctusion in our
analysis, we require that it have scientifc evidence
from at least one rigorous evaluation that measures
' The legislative tliredim far the Institute Is to "...tleve/op
recommendations Iorpohntial state legislation that enmu2ges
local govemmeMinvesfinent in research-proven prevention antl
early iMerverAOn programs by reimbursing local governments
lore portion of the savings that accrue b the state as the result
orlara! investments in such programs."
° See, R. Bamoski. (21%14) Outcome evaluafion o/Washingfon
sfaM's reseamhbasedpmgmms Iorjuvernle oRenders.
Olympia: Washington State Instltu[e for Public Policy
<hnpa/wwvcwsipp wa.gov/rpt(les/04-01-1201.pdr>; antl D.S.
Elliott, 5. Mihalic. (2004) "Issues in tlisseminating antl replicating
e%edive prevention programs" Prevention Saexe 5(1 )' 4].
s The legislative assignmen[for the Institute is to °_ o'evebp
cdreda designed to ensure gwlity implementafion andpmgram
fidelity o/research-proven progrems in the state."
one of Me seven outcomes, and that it be a
program capable of application or replication in the
"real world "10 These two requirements eliminated
numerous evaluations of prevention and eady
intervention programs from our review.
We conducted the literature review by gathering
evaluations of programs wnducted, generally in the
United States, since 1970. We searched electronic
research databases and loceted study references in
narrative and systematic reviews conductetl by
other researchers, assembling and reviewing a
wllection of over 3,500 documents.
Some programs we wnsider in this review are
specific "off-the-shelf programs. The Nurse Family
Partnership program" is an example of a specific
"real-world' program that has a precise approach to
program implementation. Other estimates are for
more generalized program groupings, such as early
chiltlhootl education, boot camps, and "wreparound"
services.
After sveening the evaluation studies for research
design quality, we compute the average effect of
each program on the seven outcomes of interest."
We then proceed to Me second basic step in this
stutly where we estimate the comparative benefits
and costs of each research-based program. These
measures are our best estimates about the "bottom-
line" economics of each approach. To conduct this
analysis, we wnstructed a benefit-cost model to
assign monetary values to any observed changes in
education, crime, substance abuse, child abuse and
neglect, teen pregnancy, and public assistance
outcomes.
As was the case in our eartier benefit-cost work, we
consistently make a number of cautious assumptions.
As mentioned, we require that evaluations have a
scientifcally valid research design. Even for studies
that pass this test, we penalizethe results from those
with aless-than-rendomized research approach,
since there is evidence that studies with weaker
research designs tend to show more favorable
results." We also discount findings from evaluations
10 To assess whether a program afletls an outcome, we require
that an evaluatbn have swell-consVUtled compariwn group.
The comparison group ran be rentlomy assigned w norv
expedmentaly assigned if aetlible evitlence u preseMetl for
group comparabiliy. We do not include sNtlies wtlhasingle
group, pre-post research design.
' <ht[pl/cacao.nccfc.orglnurseFemilyPartnership.cfin>.
"All unatljustetl effect size ralculetions are mmetl out following
the methotls tlasmibed in M. W Lipsey antl ~. B. K11son. (2001)
Pieciical mefaanalysis. Thousand Oeks: Sage Publication.
"M. W Lipsey. (2003) -Those canfountletl matlerators in meta
anaysis: GOOtl, bad, end ugly.° fieAnne/s o/the American
Academy o/Pdifical and Sodal Stance 56](1): 69-81.
in highly conVOlled research settings, since we have
found that "real-world° programs often produce
reduced levels of outcomes.t0 We also use a number
of other wnservative adjustments, diswssed in the
Appendix, in an effort to isolate the causal
relationships between a prevention program antl the
monetary valuation of the outcomes of interest.
As a result of these cautious assumptions, the
benefit-cos[ ratios we report will usually be smaller
than the values from studies undertaken by program
developers or advocates. Across all the outwmes
and programs we consitler, however, we have
attempted to be as internally consistent as possible.
That is, our bottom-line estimates have been
developed so that abenefit-cast ratio for one program
can be wmpared directly to that of another program.
By striving for internal consistency, our benefit-cost
estimates are not only our best estimates of the
economics of the programs, they can be wmpared to
each other on a relative basis, as well.
III. Study Limitations
Before summadzing our findings, it is important to
mention [he limitations of this study.
Many readers may be surprised that certain well-
known prevention programs are not listetl in this
report. There are six reasons why our current study
does not inclutle the full range of prevention and
intervention programs.
First, we limit our focus to the seven outwmes
assigned by the LegislaWre for this study: crime,
substance abuse, educational outcomes, teen
pregnancy, teenage suicitle attempts, child abuse or
neglect, and domestic violence. The field of
prevention antl early intervention is vast and extends
beyond these seven outcomes. Some areas of
prevention are, therefore, beyond our assigned
swpe. For example, we were not asked to assess
prevention programs related strictly to public health
outcomes such as low birth weight, child injury,
immunizations, and obesity; thus, much of the public
health area is not covered in the present study. Our
review could be extendetl to include these other areas
of prevention.
Second, as mentioned, we exclude some
prevention programs because their research
designs do not meet our minimum standards. For
example, we were unable to locate studies Mat
meet our design requirements for programs such as
" R. Bamnki. (2064) Outcome evaluation of WasNrgfon
state's research-based programs /orjuvenile oHenders-
Olympia: VJeshinglon State Institute for Public Pdic/, available
from <htlpalwwx.wsipp.wa.gov/rytfilesl04-01-1201.ptl1>.
crisislresptte nurseries. Yvhen researoh
incorporating wellcons[mcted comparison groups is
published on programs exGuded for this reasoD, our
benefit-cost analysis can be updated.
Third, some studies are exGuded because, at
present, we cannot monetize their measured
outcomes. We found evaluations with good
research designs, but they measured outcomes we
do not directly value in our benefit-cest analysis,
such as the Child Behavior Checklist or intentions
and attitudes. Although these outcomes may be
significant, it is not clear whether, or the degree to
which, changes in these measurements translate
into less substantiated abuse or neglect, less crime,
better education outcomes, or any of the other
outwmes spedfied by the legislation forthis study.
Unless these programs also inGude the outcomes
that we can monetize, they are not included in this
analysis. Future research may enable us to
monetize and include some of these other
outcomes.'s The "Incredible Years" is an example
of a prevenion program with outcomes we cannot
currently monetize and, therefore, we do not include
it in this benefit-cost stutly.18
Fourth, we had to exclude some areas of prevention
and eady intervention because of resource and time
constraints. In particular, we were unable to
cemplete work on domestic violence and school
violence, including bullying." We also were unable
to finish work on the effectiveness of alcohol and
tobacco taxes on reducing the adverse
consequences of these substances. Future
versions of this report can incorporate these
important topics.
's As Alen Kaztlin cbserveQ "...tlemansbating that children
realm [o nonnative levels of symptoms on a atandardizetl
measure (e.9~. Child Behavior Checklist) does not necessariy
mean that a genuine difference is evident in everyday Ii/e or that
functioning b palpaby improved. It mgM; there is just limle
evidence to support the view that It does.... Much more work is
needed to permit interpretation of measures of clinical
sgnificance currently in use" A. E. Kazdin. (2003) "Problem
solving skills training and parent management training for
conduct tlisoNer ° In A. E. Kazdin antl J. R. Weisz, ads.,
ENdenre-basedpsychotherapies for children and adolescents.
New YOrk: GuiMOrq pp. 241-262.
<hltpa/www.incretlibleyears.mm>.
On these topics, recent meta-analyses are a valuable
resource to readers. See, 5. 11MISOn, M. W Lipsey, and J. H.
Derzon. (2003) "The eRecls of scF»oWased intervention
programs on aggressive behavior: Ameta-arelysia" Jovma! o!
Consulting aM Clinical Psychology 71: 136-149; J. C. Babcock,
G E. Green, and C. Robie. (20D4) "Does bederers' Ueatment
work? A metaanalytic review of danestic violence treaUnent'
pinical Psydwlo9y Review23: 7023-1053; antl K M. Kifzmann,
N. K. Gaybr, A. R. HoX, antl E. D. Kenny. (2003)'Child witness
to domestic violence: A melaanalylic reviex.' Joumar of
ConsWtlrg arM Clinical Psychoogy ]7 (2): 339352.
Fifth, we exclude some studies from our benefit-cost
analysis when we cannot estimate the costs of the
program.
Finally, in our previous work on benefits and costs,
we included programs that target adult criminal
offenders. In this review, we have not included
these programs because they are not prevention or
eary intervention programs, per se. In subsequent
versions of this study; we intend to inGude an
updated benefit-vest analysis of programs for adult
offenders.
IV. Study Results: Estimates of Benefits
and Costs
We summarize our bottom-line findings in Table 1
on page 6. For each type of prevention and early
intervention program we review, Table 1 includes
information on total benefts and total costs. We
also show the benefit-cost ratio antl the net benefit
(benefits minus vests) for each program. This last
column on Table 1 is most significant: it indicates the
net economic advantage or disadvantage per youth.
While wlumn 3 shows benefit-cost ratios, we
include these measures only because many people
like this statistic. Benefit-cost ratios, however, can
tie misleading when comparing programs.
Therefore, we recommend focusing on the net
benefit per partiupant in wlumn 4 of Table 1.
In reviewing the economic results, several findings
emerge:
• Investments in effecfive programs forjuvenile
offenders have the highest net benefit. Such
programs yield from $1,900 to $31,200 per youth.
• Some forms of home visiting programs that
target high-risk andlor low-income mothers and
children are also effective, returning from
$6,000 to $17,200 per youth.
• Early childhood education for low income 3-and
4-year-olds and some youth development
programs provide very atfractive returns on
investment.
• While their net benefits are relatively low, many
substance use preventon programs far youth
are cost effective, because the programs are
relatively inexpensive.
• Few programs are effective at reducing teenage
pregnancy.
• Each program area we examined has
interventions that are not cost effective. Some
prevention antl eady intervention programs are
very expensive antl produce few benefits.
..-
.. .
rt. ' :.
„ +~s _
Eery Chiltlhootl Education for Low Inceme & end 4-Year-Olds' 817,202 87,307 5236 59,807
HIPPY (Home InsBUCgon Program for Preschool Youngsters) S3,3t3 $1,837 $1.60 S7 A76
Parents as Teachers $4,300 $3,500 $123 $800
Parent-Child Home Progmm EO 53,890 $000 53,890
Even Start EO 54,883 $0.00 Sd,663
Early Heatl Start $4,]68 $20,8]1 $023 -$16,2113
CNM MNIM'J eVlEl~,IMOnM~M• :,I .?~. .~ ..?'~~ ~~.'.: ~ .
Nurse Family PeMershlp for LOw Income Women 526.296 S9,t18 52.08 S7T,160
Home Ysiting ProgmmsFor At-risk Mothers entl Chiltlren' $10.969 E4,B92 $2.24 36,077
Parent-Chiltl Interaction Therapy $4,]24 57,296 5364 33,427
HeeBhy Families America $2,052 53314 50.62 -$7,263
Systems of CareNYraparountl Programs` ED 51914 $000 -57,974
Family Preservation Services (ezclutling Washington)' ED 52.531 $0.00 -$2,537
Comprehensive Child Development Program -Ee $3].388 $0.00 -$37,J97
The Infant Health and Devel merit Program EO $49,021 $D.DD -$49,027
Y4wM O8M(PM11~n11MO/nrm:: _ ;i; JI
$ea81e Socal Development Project $td,426 54,590 83.14 59,837
Guiding Good Choices (formerly PDFV) $],1305 $68] 511.0] 58,978
Strengthening Families Program for Parents antl VouU 70-74 56,656 8851 57.82 35,605
Child Development Project$ 5440 516 52642 $432
Gootl Behavior Game$ 5204 $e 82592 5196
CASASTART (Striving Together to Achieve Revrerding Tomorrows $4,949 55,559 50.89 -3670
MM~aMU:h~h~
-..
Big Bro0ters/Big Sisters
54,058
54,010
5191
348
Big Brothers/Big Sisters (takpeyar vest only) 54.056 51,236 E3.2B 52,622
GuantumO artuniges Program 510,900 $25.921 E~42 -$75,022
YrwM7WM4~c~116uN I1e5+s7tls6 Pn/17ptls ~ --~ ~ ~ .
AdolescentTrensitions Progrem$ $2,420 5482 5502 57,938
Project Northland # 51,5]5 5152 $1D.39 $7,423
Family Matters $1.247 $156 Ee a2 57,092
Life Skills Training (LST) # 5746 529 $25.61 E]7T
Project STAR (Stutlenls Taught Awareness end Resistance) # 5856 5162 5529 $694
Minnesota Smoking Prevention Program # SS1t $5 St02.29 5506
Other Social InfluencelSkills Builtling Substance Prevention Programs 5492 $] 870.34 5485
Prg'ecl Towards NO Tobacco USe (TNT $ 52]9 E5 $55s4 3274
Source: 6. Aos. R. Lieb. J. Mavfieltl. M. Millet A. Pennum. (2004) Benefits eM Costs of Prevenfion antl Eery Interve ntion Progmms for YOUth.
Olympia: Wachington State Institute for Public Polity, available at <htlp'./Mww.waipp wa.gov/ryMIesN4-0]-3901.ptlD.
Mole tlatatl is preaeMetl in the Appentlix to this repot, available at <b8p:/AVwwwsipp.wa.gavJrptfiles/04-07-3901a.ptlr~. The values on Nis table
are estimates of pmttnFValuetl benefits antl wars of earb program v4N statistically significant result with respect tc come, education, substance
abuse, GrJtl abuse antl neglect, teen pregnancy, entl WNic assistance. Many of Nett programs Have achievetl outwmea in adtlition to NO50 for
Much we are wmengy able M eaemate monetary benefits.
$ Cost estimates br Nesa progrems do not indutle the coats inwmetl by teachers who might MherMSe be engaged in other protlucli~e teatlling
adivilies. Estimates of these oppommgy vests will be intlutletl in MUre revisions.
' Programs marked wiN an asterisk era the average etfeds for a group or progrema; pmgrems w8hout an asterisk refer to iMMdual programs.
All Stars $
Project ALERT (Adolescent Leaminp Fem. in R<Yatence Training) $
STARS for Families (Start Taking Alwhd Risks Sedousy)
D.A. R.E. D Above Resistance Etlucelion)%
~!. ,.,. ~M .. - ',
Teen Outreach Program
Reducing the Risk Program $
Postponing Sexual Involvement Program $
Taen Taik
Schwl-Based Clinics far Pregnancy PreveMi0n'
Adolescent Sibling Pregnancy Preventive Project
Diakdicel Behavior Therapy (in Washington)
MulBtlimensional Treatment Foster Care (v. regular group care)
Washington Basic Training Camp §
Adolescent Divemion Project
Funcgonal Family Therapy (in Washington)
Omer Famiy-Based Therepy Progrems for Juvenile Ogenders'
MultbSystemic Therapy (MST)
Aggression Replacement Training (m Washington)
Juvenile 0%ender Interagency Coordination Programs'
Mentoring in the Juvenile Justice System (in Washington)
Diversion Progs. vAlh Serviws (v. regular juvenile wurt processing)'
Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision Programs'
Juvenile Intensive Parole (in Washington)
Sceretl Straight
Regular Parole (v. not having parole)
Omer NaCOnal Proarems -
Fundional Family Therapy (excluding Washington)
Aggression Replacement Training (excluding Washington)
Juvenile Boot Camps (excluding Washington)' §
InaNUre br PUbrc Pdiry,
$169 $49 $3.43 $120
558 89 818.02 Ss4
$0 318 50.00 -$18
$0 $99 $0.00 -$99
bem - 1620 ~-~ ~ 3129 8181
SO $13 SODO -$13
-345 $9 -$5.0] -$54
$0 $et $0.00 -$81
80 3805 80.00 -$805
3]09 53,350 $0.21 -E2,641
$32,08] ,i,: E843 53805 331,213
$26,]48 32,459 510.80 324,290
$14, P8 -5],588 Na 322,384
$24,06] $1,]]] 313.54 522,290
$16,455 $2,140 $].fi9 37 d,3t5
$14,061 $1,820 SB.6B 312,441
814,996 55,661 5264 59,318
E9,Efi4 E]59 31260 38,806
E8,669 $559 $1546 36,100
311 544 56,4]1 S1 ]8 38,073
82.2]2 $408 E658 E7,885
EO 51 482 50.00 -$1,482
EO E5,992 5000 -$5,992
-$11,002 854 -$203.51 -311056
-$103]9 52,096 -54.95 -312,4]8
528,356 E2,140 $13.25 328,216
$15,606 $]59 $R56 374,848
IO -E8,414 Na 38,474
More tlelal h gemnrM inge AppeMi¢ N qis repo,l, arakble al<hnylMVN.waiDp.va.pwhpHksg4-0].3B01e p36. lM valces on M'c fable are esM1,rmre¢ alpe¢em-
vaiuea benama am wxa ureau, p,ngrem vAm satl¢nwlNel9nlfiwm resuXS xiq reepedm cn,re. muwM1On, awmence above, ova awae alm re9kd, i¢en pregnancy,
aM W dic aaistance. Mew IXiMae pmgromc lave acNwM oNm,re¢ in atltlitlon ra Ibom Wr v.1YCM1 ¢w en wrtenLy ede ro esli,Me monMary [enefi[.
T Cml estir,ata brgme noBmmaEO nm indWe qe rusts ma,reC trytwMers vAw,ngM NM1e,xise he e,Ip~M in al6erpatluctlve tearliire acWNes. Estimelw W
blue oppalW rvN wqa ryill ke inclutlatl in 1W,re reWalan.
s The OA R.E, pap2m M1x rAemed wrciEe,ahN sin¢ Ne lasrwalua5on uaeJ in Mc repoa- A fivayeor erMUa4on orlba new
raag,.n beaaa N zagt.
g Tbejuvaniie noN temp coat in wiumn(lJ Ia a negalbe wmcerbe®use.ln waaN,remn, yonn m are Slate's bwc o-airim wmp apene ieas
wwame lnrnwumarma qan wmparede yaNn net anenaiae me wmp In cdumn(41.1NS-negeMe'cwriaa bereq area w„P Vemaa
e,ey~brineNUgonal ¢lay.
Progrona NM an aderlsk eretlp weroge eflegs tar a group or Drc9rom¢', DroAra„c,xVpN en ash,ik relerru iMMJUaI paprenc
2009 Drub Use Statistics
Use patterns for 8th graders show that last month:
US WA state Jefferson County
6.5% Smoked cigarettes 7.3% 8.2%
6.5% used marijuana 8.3% 10.9%
14.9% used alcohol 16.1 % 19.7%
2009 Morti[oring the future 2008 Healthy Youth Survey
Project ALERT is a proven solution -
Anationally recognized, middle school, evidence-based program
that gives students insight, understanding, and actual skills for
resisting substance use.
Project ALERT successfully addresses tobacco, alcohol, mari••
Juana and inhalants, the substances teens are most likely to use.
It helps kids realize that not everyone is doing drugs.
Project ALERT core strategies
Using Small group activities, role playing exercises, real life
videos & guided classroom discussions Project ALERT:
• Motivate students against drug use
• Provide skills & strategies to resist drugs
• Establish new non-use attitudes and beliefs
PUBLIC NEIILTN
-~,~~ ALWAYS WORKIWG FMt A SAFER ANI
HEA1Li1~ER ~FERSOI~
www. j effersoncountypublicheal.th.org
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
May 2010 K. Obermeyer
~~ F~~~
Students learn to use critical thinking when viewing advertisements.
Then make their own ads telling the truth about tobacco & alcohol prod
I1t~~urd1
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
C0111111L1I111y Ca,p2.Clty BL111C~111g' -Substance Abuse Prevention
in Port Townsend
Capacity Building ~ Working with other community organizations, businesses
and members to leverage existing resources to increase the number and the
effectiveness of prevention programs and strategies offered in Jefferson County.
Prevention:
Identify the risk factors that
can lead to the development
of the problem & the protec-
tive factor that can buffer an
individual from the risk fac-
tors;
Then find ways to reduce the
risk factors and enhance the
protective factors across
multiple domains- individ-
ual/peer, family, school and
community.
JCPH chooses evidence
based prevention strategies
for children, adolescences
and families.
People who begin drinking
before the age of 15 are
four times more likely to
develop alcohol depend-
ence than those who wait
until age 21. Each additional
year of delaying alcohol use
reduces the risk of alcohol
dependence by 14%.
.(http.//ncadisamshagov.govpubs'hp~992/)
"With minimal and diminishing resources coming into Jefferson County
to fund prevention efforts, the Network's partnership with Public Health
is more critical now than ever. Collaboration allows our organizations to
cast a wider and deeper net into the community to work on preventing
substance abuse and emphasizing healthier families and lifestyles."
Anne Dean, Program Manager Jefferson County Community Network
~ Community Meeting Participation
JCPH prevention staff regularly attend community organization and
business meetings to more effectively collaborate with these commu-
nity partners. The meetings are:
Jefferson County Substance Abuse Advisory Board, Healthy Youth
Coalition, METH Action Team, Law and Justice, Meetings with school
districts & OESD Prevention Professionals, Boiler Room weekly staff
meetings.
~ Towns Hall Meeting on Underage Drinking
JCPH wrote the grants and facilitated meeting in Port Townsend on:
March 28, 2006
May 9, 2006
November 14, 2007
April 14, 2008
JCPH wrote the grant and provided technical assistance to Student
Assistance Professional, Barbara Hansen, for the student organized
Town Hall Meeting on April 27, 2010.
"Karen Obermeyer and Kelly Matlock, Prevention Specialist with Jef-
ferson County Public Health, are the two primary prevention profes-
sionals that 1 work with to make the maximum impact on the lives of
the kids 1 serve."
Barbara Hansen, OESD Prevention Specialist at PTHS
www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org ~ pUBLIC I'IEALTI
~/ ALWAYS WORKIlM. RNtASAFERM
li~nii~ ~sol
~ Our Kids: Our Business
Under the umbrella of child abuse prevention Jefferson County Public Health and Jefferson County Commu-
nity Network developed, coordinated with other community partners and implemented acounty-wide social
awareness campaign on child abuse prevention in Apri12008, 2009, and 2010, bringing together substance
abuse prevention, intervention, treatment and aftercare, mental health treatment, parenting classes and sup-
ports, community resources, etc., for the benefit of our children. JCCN and JCPH were responsible for the gen-
eral organization and the marketing for the campaigns. Technical assistance was given to other community or-
ganizations and businesses in the development of other OKOB events.
Specific events funded and/or facilitated by JCPH:
2008 -Town Hall Meeting on April 14, 2008
- Co-organized with PTHS the PTHS 2 half-day conference and funded the Poetic Justice Theatre
Ensemble workshop for the conference on April 24 - 25, 2008.
2009 -Kick-off luncheon with Dr. Claudia Black and Laura Wells, the Director of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,
Washington, on Friday, March 27, 2009.
2010 -Wrote the grant and provided technical assistance to the PTHS Task Force for the Town Hall Meeting
on underage drinking on Apri127, 2010.
- Co-organized with Dev. Disabilities "Posters and Coasters," the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
prevention campaign.
2011 -Collaboration with Jody Glaubman from the Port Townsend City Library on a Youth
Community Read for the book "Thirteen Reasons Why" and follow-up activities and events.
"On Behalf of Make Waves!..:.I extend our deep appreciation for Jefferson County Public Health & Jefferson
County Community Network ....as part of the Our Kids: Our Business campaign Make Waves! pledged to host
a free pool party in May for children whose parents could not afford the user fees at the local public
pool.... This synergy is the result of the work that Kelly Matlock and Karen Obermeyer with Jefferson County
Public Health andAnne Dean with Jefferson County Community Network have contributed on behalf of the
Health Youth Coalition. " Karen Nelson, President of Make Waves!
"I just wanted to send along our thanks for another successful Our Kids: Our Business event at the Food Co-
op this spring.... The collaboration you inspired [JCPHJ amongst the Co-op, the Zocal maritime organizations,
and the other youth-oriented programs (the boat school, the air museum, and the farm community) has
resulted in a very appropriate family friendly Earth Day celebration here in Port Townsend...and a chance for
our nonprofits to gain needed exposure. We look forward to next year's event. "
Elizabeth Becker,. Sound Experience/Schooner Adventuress, 2010
~ Community Collaboration :"Protecting You/ Protecting Me" Prevention Program
To add to the prevention program Project Alert in the middle school, in the spring of 2007 JCPH initiated a
campaign to have Protecting You/ Protecting Me, an evidence-based prevention program, facilitated in grades
1-5 in Port Townsend. Grants were written to cover the cost of the curriculum and the training. Port Town-
send Police were trained in the curriculum during the falUwinter of 2007- 2008. Jeannie Glaspell, a Grant
Street Elementary counselor, Jane Ansley, a community member, and 2 additional PT Police were trained in
the fall of 2009. The curriculum was facilitated in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th grades at Grant Street Elementary and
Blue Heron Middle School in the winter of 2010.4 grade levels (308 students total) received 8 sessions each.
"Fifth grade students at Blue Heron School participated in The Protecting You /Protecting Me curriculum
this year. Students enjoyed the visits from the program's presenters Mike Evans and Garin Williams and
learned about neurotransmitter of the brain, how the brain is affected by alcohol and how alcohol impairs de-
cision making in the developing adolescent brain: They also learned about how to socially avoid being around
people who have abused alcohol.... the presenters provide opportunity far students to role play, play games
and write commercials to offer warnings against underage drinking....It is a program that is appropriately
designed for this age group. "
Christian Laugbbon, 5"' grade teacher, Blue Heron Middle School
June 20l0 K Matlock
R
L
U
O
LL
d
.~
0
ai
'a
LL
N
E
rn
0
a
C
O ~
~o
~ N
~ N
a
m m
y c
7 ~
a~
Q
m
V
C
N
y~I
I
..
A
m
2
V
a
3
a
C
U
C
y0
L
m
7
u
u c % v
O .-
E a~o
T? Ow
OWZ~
N
a ;;
c u
m ~~
c w
30
o_
F O
Y ~
O t
a "
N
c
2 ~
O 'a
^_ a c
c
t '-' U
'" ` 3
m 4
x
w d ~'
O ~ ~
~ C
m a R
Y ~a
U ~_`
m n E
a FLL
0
N
2
O
m
V
.Z
fn
L
m
2
M
R
O
N
0
m
r
a
O
K
Z
m
O
u
K
L
d
2
A
`o_
.m
10
c
D
S
E
a Eo
= U
W
R a
N
0 0
c c
m o
E c
i0 ~
m u
O n
`- o
0
0 0
0 0
O ~
1~ N
M ca
ea w
N
U U
~~
(/~ m
Q
R
0
n
C
_ °o o %
m o c m
my
c ey~m
3 ~a~
~ °~w
~ a v o
a° SQ
,r ° P. -
C ~.CJ
~ ~E~
U vE"
O
U
2
a
U
O
0
Gw_ „j d O
•G N = J
~ N J
0
U = L' c
?.' c 'c ~
C ~ ~U
o ~~o
V w U c
O R2 al
ILl m d W
~ m' ~
m T.O. p
~ C U
~ c
U ...
C
d
E
oEwo
J ~ O
O
C7 v
C
d
R m
a_ e
o y
D ~
w
Y
O
d N
z ~
T ~ w
'C O C
~ `ry O
E ~ R
EQN
o ~ 'n
U c o
R
cdD
~ ~ 'c
U j E
c co E
~ U
a
e m
~m
oz
r
O N
r Q
m C
~ ~
Qa
n
2
m
~' v
~a
Ua
0
'rv
m
7
N
'O N
O d
Z,eu s E
0 0 ~
H O
~ U
Q
m mN
~ ~
~d T
T R C U
~ ~ E m o
10 U °
O O~
Q _
~ m c N
m T
y v
y
O. a Y~ y
G C_ C T
a m
V a O
` m
O C 'n
Z
m
> O =
U N
U~ J n M U (
~f
c ro
i ~ O'CO ORT
a ~ _m ~~ ~Em
a°
m ~ o R E R
Y
O 2
a
q
m m N N c
i
> w e
~ > C
u d R
'
~
rn 0 ~ a
A v a c
O n ~ c m
7 `
_u da ~ 6 m N i
a m~
Q '
m m o= c-
O
6 E
^7 c o~ u a S
t E °o
~ E a V y t u~ u
o o u N?~?
^ u f N '
tr. . .
/ m m
£ ° ~ '^
u
i t u
p ~~mtlml d
a rN`wcm
Y 6 ~ O` 6 >
a n~
O ~,s c ~ u
R O (q m C
~ mo $o.°-
V7 LL N ~ 'c o. c
m
~:~ v Z `m a Z
0 3 U m t m
A ~z C7 ~ rd U
2 ~ itl m
L V m
U
a 10 V
=
' •C
C
U w
d
n
~ m
9 N ~
y'2` ~
«z a ~
m
~6
c c ~ m . ?+
j = R
E ~
m
~ c
(
5 S m
w
C V = ~ y
~
_
N N
3
= o ~
~
E
U U
U m m
d ~ C
J
N ~
Y
d E
_m .~
~ C O
O
my y-O d
c eta
O
' N
u ~
~
~ c ~~ ~~
E d -' w
oa ~
U
~~ .IEFFERSi~N COUNTI~ PUBLIC HEALTH
~,~''"~";? 615 Sheridan Street • Port Townsend • Washington • 98368
>~~ z
www.jeffersoncou ntypu blic health.o rg
June 10, 2010
City of Port Townsend
250 Madison Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Dear Community Leader,
Jefferson County faces many challenges. We are in a major recession, with local job
layoffs, decreasing personal income, and plummeting governmental revenues. Our
neighbors are hurting, "safety net" programs are stretched to the limits, and economic
recovery is still a long way off. We have gone through difficult economic times in the
past and have successfully addressed similar challenges by mobilizing community
partnerships to set priorities and solve specific problems.
Newly enacted federal legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA), provides an unprecedented opportunity to not only improve access to health
care and but also to increase our investment in proven disease and injury prevention
practices. Communities that are ready to lead the way in developing patient-centered,
prevention-oriented, community focused healthcare systems will be well positioned to
secure the new "Community Transformation Grants' authorized by PPACA.
Our first step is to forma "Steering Committee' and convene a meeting in early summer.
The Committee will review the most up-to-date community health information and guide
the process of interpreting and prioritizing this information. The goal of this committee is
not only to collect and analyze new information, but also to identify gaps in our
understanding of community health and to take the specific steps needed to transform
the way we provide services for our citizens. Will you join us?
A health department representative will contact you in the next two weeks to invite you to
a kick off meeting. Thank you for considering the opportunity to become involved in the
redesign of our health care system and improvement of the health in our entire
community.
Sincere) , /
i
Chuck Russell
Chair, Jefferson County Board of Health
DEOVE OPIMENTAL DISABILITIES PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONWATER QUA ITY
MAIN: (360) 385-9400 ALWAYS WORKttlG F9W R 4AFffk ANA MAIN: (360) 385-9444
FAX: (360) 385-9401 HEALTHIER CONINIUNIiY FAX: (360) 379-4487
