Performance audit, Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council

View Description

View PDF & Text

PDF
Text

Text Search...

State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
ARIZONA
DRUG AND GANG
POLICY COUNCIL
April 1999
Report No. 99-7
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
April 20, 1999
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Ms. Peggy Eggemeyer, Director
Governor’s Office—Division of Drug Policy
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council. This report is in response to a May 27, 1997,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was
conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §§41-2951 through 41-2957.
The report addresses the progress the Council has made in meeting its mandates to
coordinate and evaluate the State’s publicly funded drug and gang prevention and
treatment programs since the Council’s 1996 Sunset review. The 1996 Auditor General
Report (Report No. 96-11) found the Council to be ineffective in fulfilling these
mandates due to poor member attendance and lack of program evaluations and
monetary support. Since this report, the Council has made significant progress in
improving its attendance. The Council has also developed statewide indicators that will
allow it to generally assess the State’s efforts in reducing substance abuse and gangs,
and has identified best practices that it will require service providers to use in their
prevention and treatment programs. However, the Council’s continued progress is
dependent on future funding and member agency commitments to redirect monies to
effective programs. As such, the Council should pursue all possible funding options
including seeking external grants, member agency contributions, and general fund
appropriations; and seek formal commitments from member agencies to identify and
redirect all permissible monies to effective programs.
April 20, 1999
Page -2-
As outlined in its response, the Council agrees with all report findings, but a different
method of dealing with the findings will be implemented. However, it is not clear that the
Council’s proposed method of dealing with the finding on redirecting resources to more
effective programs will adequately address the finding.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on April 21, 1999.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
i
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and Sunset review of
the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council, pursuant to a May 27, 1997, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review
set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through 41-2957.
In 1990, the Legislature created the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council to address, in a
coordinated manner, the State’s education, prevention, and treatment activities dealing with
substance abuse and gangs.1 The Council is comprised of 16 members, including the Gover-nor,
Attorney General, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Administrative Director
of the Courts, state agency directors, and representatives from local government, commu-nity
colleges and universities; and business and community groups who play an integral
role in the fight against drugs and gangs by providing prevention, treatment, and law en-forcement
programs.
This audit focused on two of the Council’s statutory duties:
n Recommending effective methods to coordinate all state programs and expenditures for
prevention and treatment programs relating to substance abuse and gang participation.
n Evaluating the effectiveness of publicly supported treatment and prevention programs
and making recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for revising pro-grams
or redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public resources.
A 1996 Sunset review (Auditor General Report No. 96-11) found that the Council was inef-fective
in coordinating and evaluating substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment
programs. Specifically, the report found that poor attendance, lack of program evaluations,
and lack of monetary support impeded the Council’s ability to perform effectively.
Council Moves Forward in Coordinating
and Evaluating Services, but Additional
Measures Are Needed
(See pages 5 through 11)
Since the 1996 report, the Council has moved forward in addressing its coordination and
evaluation mandates. Using federal grant monies, the Council has developed three key
1 When the Council was created in 1990, it was called the Drug Policy Council. Its name and scope
were changed in 1991 to include gangs.
ii
components of an accountability system to coordinate resources and measure the effective-ness
of prevention and treatment activities across the State. The three components are:
n Indicators to measure the impact that programs have in reducing substance abuse and
gang participation in the State;
n Identification of practices that yield the most successful results; and
n A standardized contracting framework requiring service providers to use best practices
and perform program evaluations.
Despite the Council’s progress, fulfillment of its evaluation mandate may be at risk. One
reason is the Council’s reliance on grants as a funding source. This reliance means that ef-forts
are limited to those activities specifically within the grants’ scope and purpose. For ex-ample,
the three grants the Council currently receives are specific to preventing substance
abuse. As such, these grants cannot be used to include the Council’s other responsibilities
related to gangs and substance abuse treatment. In addition, the grants all expire by 2001,
leaving future funding uncertain.
A second reason is that once the accountability system is in place, there is no mechanism for
ensuring that member agencies redirect funding from ineffective programs to those ap-proaches
that are shown to be most effective. For example, some agencies continue to fund
the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs despite evidence that the programs
are not effective.
To address these obstacles, the Council should seek additional funding sources, such as
contributions from member agencies, a General Fund appropriation, or additional external
grants to ensure continued implementation of the accountability system. The Council
should also seek commitments from all member agencies to identify all permissible monies
for redirection and work with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these re-sources
to effective programs.
iii
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Background........................................................... 1
Finding I: Council Moves Forward in
Coordinating and Evaluating Services,
but Additional Measures Are Needed.......................................... 5
Background
and Follow-Up.................................................................................................................. 5
Council Takes Steps
to Meet Coordination
and Evaluation Mandates............................................................................................... 6
Council’s Progress Dependent
on Future Funding and
Agency Commitments..................................................................................................... 8
Council Should Take Additional
Measures to Ensure Accountability
System Is Implemented................................................................................................... 9
Recommendations............................................................................................................ 11
Sunset Factors.................................................................................... 13
Agency Response
Appendix
Drug and Gang Policy Council
Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts
to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation
Adopted by the Council in September 1998 .............................................. a-i
Table
Table 1 Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council
Membership Defined by Statute................................................... 2
iv
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and Sunset review of
the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council, pursuant to a May 27, 1997, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review
set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through 41-2957.
Council Established to Coordinate
and Evaluate Substance Abuse and
Gang Prevention/Treatment Programs
In 1990, the Legislature created the Drug Policy Council to address, in a coordinated man-ner,
the State’s education, prevention, and treatment activities dealing with substance abuse.
In 1991, the Council’s name and scope were changed to include gangs.
According to A.R.S. §41-617, the Council’s primary mandates include:
n Recommending effective methods to coordinate all state programs and expenditures for
prevention and treatment programs relating to substance abuse and participation in
criminal street gangs;
n Conducting an annual inventory of publicly supported education, treatment, and pre-vention
programs related to substance abuse and gang participation in this State;
n Evaluating the results achieved by publicly supported education, treatment, and pre-vention
programs and making recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature
for revising programs or redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public re-sources;
and
n Overseeing the operation of the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center
(Center), which maintains the collection, storage, and distribution of information relating
to substance abuse and gang education, prevention, and treatment programs.
Organization and Budget
The Council’s membership consists of a cross section of state agency directors who play an
integral role in the fight against drugs and gangs by providing education, prevention, and
treatment and law enforcement programs. Table 1 (see page 2) illustrates the Council’s vast
representation:
2
Table 1
Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council1
Membership Defined by Statute
Directors of the
following agencies:
A representative from
each of the following:
Attorney General
State Superintendent of
Public Instruction
Administrative Director of
the Courts
Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System
Departments of:
Corrections
Economic Security
Health Services
Juvenile Corrections
Public Safety
A local community or neighbor-hood
group
Arizona Board of Regents
Arizona Criminal Justice Com-mission
League of Cities and Towns
State Board of Directors for
Community Colleges
The business community
1 A total of 16 members.
Source: Arizona Revised Statutes §41-617.
Although the Council includes representatives from a wide range of agencies, it has no
dedicated budget or personnel. Historically, the Council has relied primarily on the Arizona
Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center and member agency staffing contributions to
fulfill its statutory mandates. Specifically, the Center conducts the annual inventory of sub-stance
abuse and gang prevention and treatment programs and maintains a clearinghouse
of information pertaining to these issues. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Center was ap-propriated
selected Superior Court fees of $205,2001 and $207,400, respectively, to provide
these services for the Council. In addition, the Council has established a working group
comprised of 20 staff from member agencies to aid it in fulfilling its mandates. Finally, the
Governor’s Division of Drug Policy assists the Council in fulfilling its mandates by supply-ing
staff and support services to administer the Council’s and working group’s activities.
1 Although appropriated $205,200 in fiscal year 1998, the Center received only $203,000 due to a reduc-tion
in fees collected during this year.
Governor
(serves as Chair)
3
This includes coordinating the Council’s quarterly meetings, taking meeting minutes, pre-paring
meeting agendas, chairing the working group, and assisting with the development of
the Council’s comprehensive strategic plan, a plan that presents goals and strategic direc-tions
for reducing drug use and gang participation in the State.
In addition, because the Council has no dedicated funding, it has relied on federal grants
received by member agencies to help finance its activities. Currently, the Council is relying
on $2.22 million from three grants for use between fiscal years 1998-2001:
n The Data Collection Grant—This grant, consisting of $1.2 million over two years, is
provided by the U.S. Department of Education and administered by the Arizona Drug
and Gang Prevention Resource Center. Its purpose is to assist states in developing data
collection mechanisms to judge the effectiveness of substance abuse prevention pro-grams.
n The State Incentive Program—Funding for this program is provided by the U.S. Cen-ter
for Substance Abuse Prevention and administered by the Governor’s Division of
Drug Policy and the Department of Health Services. These agencies have made avail-able
$300,000 per year for the next three years to the Council to better coordinate sub-stance
abuse prevention resources, implement best practices, and measure the effective-ness
of prevention programs.
n The Needs Assessment Grant—This funding is provided by the U.S. Center for Sub-stance
Abuse Prevention and administered by Arizona’s Department of Health Services
(DHS). DHS has made available $125,000 over three years to the Council to identify spe-cific
substance abuse prevention programming needs in order to implement programs
that are more appropriate and effective for identified problems.
Audit Scope and
Methodology
This audit focuses primarily on the Council’s ability to meet its mandates dealing with co-ordination
and evaluation. To determine the extent to which the Council fulfills this re-quirement,
two Council meetings and three working group meetings were observed, and
minutes of previous Council and working group meetings were reviewed from February
1995 to September 1998 and January 1995 to February 1999, respectively. In addition, current
Council and working group members were interviewed to determine the progress made in
evaluating programs and the obstacles encountered while attempting to fulfill this mandate.
Auditors’ work also included a review and analysis of:
n The Council’s Annual Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention Program Inventory of
publicly supported substance abuse and gang education, prevention, and treatment
programs;
4
n The Comprehensive Strategic Plan, which contains goals and strategic directions to be
implemented over the next five years to reduce substance abuse and gang participation;
n The statewide indicators that will be used to measure the impact of the State’s efforts in
reducing substance abuse and gang participation;
n The grant funding used to finance the Council’s recent activities in developing an
evaluation system; and
n Literature regarding best practices and program evaluations of substance abuse and
gang programs.
Finally, other states were contacted to determine how they coordinate and evaluate sub-stance
abuse prevention activities that are funded by numerous state agencies.1
This report presents a finding and recommendations regarding the Council’s need to take
additional measures to ensure that a statewide coordination and evaluation process is fully
implemented.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to all the council and working group
members, the Director of the Governor’s Division of Drug Policy and staff, and the Director
of the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center and staff for their cooperation
and assistance throughout this audit.
1 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington
were contacted. These states were identified as being active in evaluating their substance abuse pro-grams
and/or were implementing evaluation systems similar to Arizona’s.
5
FINDING I
COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD IN COORDINATING
AND EVALUATING SERVICES, BUT
ADDITIONAL MEASURES ARE NEEDED
The Council has made progress in developing a statewide accountability system to address
its coordination and evaluation mandates, but there are two reasons why continued imple-mentation
of the system may be at risk.
n First, the current effort is being sustained with grant funding—an uncertain funding
source that can be applied to only some aspects of the Council’s responsibilities.
n Second, the Council has no assurance that agencies will agree to apply funding to those
programs and approaches that have the greatest opportunity for success.
As such, the Council should seek additional funding sources to ensure continued imple-mentation
of the accountability system. In addition, the Council should seek commitments
from all participating agencies to identify all permissible monies for redirection and work
with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective programs.
Background
and Follow-Up
Legislative mandate requires the Council to coordinate and evaluate publicly supported
treatment and prevention programs for substance abuse and gang participation. It is also
required to make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for revising these
programs or redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public resources. Arizona
funded over $87 million for 824 substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment pro-grams
in fiscal year 1998. By fulfilling its mandate, the Council can ensure that these re-sources
are being spent effectively to reduce Arizona’s substance abuse and gang problems.
A 1996 Sunset review (Auditor General Report No. 96-11) found that the Council was inef-fective
in coordinating and evaluating substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment
programs. Specific problems included poor attendance at council meetings, lack of program
evaluations, and lack of monetary support. To enhance effectiveness, the report recom-mended
that the Council improve its attendance and pursue all possible funding options to
implement a statewide accountability system. These funding options included dividing the
cost among member agencies, and/or seeking external grants.
6
The Council’s attendance has since improved sufficiently to obtain a quorum at meetings. In
fact, Council attendance has almost doubled with an average of 10 out of 16 members cur-rently
attending, including the Governor, Attorney General, Maricopa County Attorney,
and several state agency directors or their designees. (For more information on the Council’s
improved attendance, see Sunset factor 2, pages 13 through 14.)
Council Takes Steps
to Meet Coordination
and Evaluation Mandates
Since the 1996 report, the Council has moved forward in addressing its coordination and
evaluation mandates. The Council has identified three key components of an accountability
system to coordinate resources and measure the effectiveness of prevention and treatment
activities across the State and is working to develop each component. The three components
include:
n The development of indicators that will measure the impact programs have in reducing
substance abuse and gang participation in the State;
n Identification of practices that yield the most successful results; and
n Development of a standardized contract requiring service providers that contract with
member agencies to use best practices and perform program evaluations.
Indicators will help measure impact of the State’s efforts—The Council has approved and
begun collecting data on ten indicators that measure the impact of the State’s efforts in re-ducing
substance abuse and gang participation. These indicators were established using
national indicator models and chosen based on such factors as availability of data, relevance
to Arizona’s substance abuse and gang problems, and the importance of the data for state
planning purposes. As indicated in the Appendix (see pages a-i through a-iv) these indica-tors
range from the number of gang members as reported by the Department of Public
Safety to the rate of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use by youth as reported by the Ari-zona
Criminal Justice Commission.
While these indicators will not speak to the effectiveness of individual programs, the Coun-cil
plans to annually collect indicator data at both the state and community levels to gauge
the impact that programs have had in a particular geographical area. More specifically, this
information will provide a broad overview of how successful overall efforts have been in
reducing substance abuse and/or gangs in that region. For example, a reduction in the indi-cators
may generally indicate that current efforts are effective in addressing substance abuse
7
and gang problems for that particular area and should continue to receive funding. How-ever,
an increase in the indicators may require further action, such as further evaluation of
programs to confirm their effectiveness in a geographical area, revision of existing pro-grams,
or redirection of funding to other programs.
Identification of successful practices will ensure more effective use of resources—In addi-tion
to approving the ten indicators, the Council is developing a guide, “Promoting Good
Practice,” to ensure service providers use practices that have demonstrable effectiveness in
reducing substance abuse and gang problems. The guide:
n Highlights research findings that demonstrate which programs are successful and the
reasons for their success;
n Shares the ingredients of success underlying such programs; and
n Provides a tool for policymakers who must decide where and how to invest scarce re-sources.
Service providers can use the guide to implement more effective programs. For example,
research indicates that peer mentoring through programs such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters
effectively reduces the onset of drug abuse for children between the ages of 10 to 14.1 The
draft guide includes this type of information and the practices that make this program suc-cessful.
The Council plans to review and discuss the draft guide during its May 1999 meet-ing.
Model contract will require specific outcomes, use of best practices, and program evalua-tions—
The Council is also in the process of developing a model request for proposal (RFP)
for substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment programs. This model RFP will re-quire
contractors providing prevention and treatment services to specify program out-comes,
use best practices, and perform evaluations of their programs. Specifically, the model
RFP will, among other things, require contractors to specify the outcomes they will seek to
achieve with state funds. These outcomes should be one of the ten indicators currently ap-proved
by the Council to ensure that prevention and treatment services relate to those indi-cators
that will be measured at the State and community levels. In addition, contractors will
be required to specify the “best practices” that their methodology will encompass and cor-relate
these “best practices” to those identified in the “Promoting Good Practices” guide.
The model RFP will also require that all providers evaluate their programs. However, the
type of evaluation required may vary based on such factors as program funding and
whether the program has already been evaluated. For example, for programs already
proven effective, an evaluation would ensure only that the program is being implemented
according to originally evaluated methods. For larger programs not already evaluated but
1 Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology, “Best Practices Summary Table.”
8
using best practices, a more rigorous evaluation that demonstrates effectiveness would be
required. The Council is considering varying the evaluation requirement so as to not burden
small programs or programs already proven effective with costly evaluations. The Council
expects to complete a draft RFP model by April 1999.
Council’s Progress Dependent
on Future Funding and
Agency Commitments
While the Council has made significant progress in developing the statewide accountability
system, fulfillment of the Council’s evaluation mandate may be at risk for two reasons.
n First, because the Council relies on grants as its primary funding source, its efforts are
limited to those activities specifically within the grants’ scope and purpose and are also
subject to a lack of funding when the grant ends.
n Second, there is no mechanism for ensuring that member agencies follow best practices
and redirect funding to those approaches that are shown to be most effective.
Reliance on grants limits Council’s efforts—The Council’s reliance on grants may impact its
progress in developing and implementing the statewide accountability system. Without
dedicated funding, the Council has had to rely on three grants totaling $2.22 million to fi-nance
its evaluation activities, including the development of the best practices guide and the
statewide indicators.1 While grants have allowed the Council to progress, reliance on them
as a funding source creates some difficulties. Specifically:
n The Council’s activities are limited to the grants’ scope and purpose—The three
grants the Council currently receives are specific to preventing substance abuse. As a re-sult,
they cannot be applied to programs aimed at treating substance abuse or to pro-grams
aimed at preventing or treating gang-related problems. While the concepts identi-fied,
such as the best practices guide, could apply to all programs, the Council has
money to apply them only to substance abuse prevention programs. Without additional
funding, gang and treatment programs may not be included in the accountability sys-tem.
According to the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), the
agency that provides many of these grants, in the future, grants will continue to be spe-cialized,
addressing certain populations or geographical areas.
n Unstable grant monies make it difficult to plan future activities—Reliance on grant
monies as a source of funding makes planning for future activities difficult. CSAP con-
1 Although the Center receives some funding from court fees, these monies produce the Annual Sub-stance
Abuse Program Inventory and support the clearinghouse of substance abuse and gang informa-tion.
9
firmed that not only are federal grant opportunities limited and competitive, their spo-radic
nature cannot provide a consistent source of funding. For example, CSAP initially
offered the State Incentive Grant to only five states. Although Arizona applied, its appli-cation
was not sufficient to receive the award. Once the federal government’s fiscal year
1998 budget was approved, CSAP funded an additional 14 states, including Arizona.
However, when the three grants discussed above expire in the year 2001, it is unclear
how the Council’s activities will be funded.
n Redirection of funding dependent on agency commitment—In addition to unstable
funding, the Council’s progress in implementing an accountability system is at risk un-less
agencies agree to redirect resources to programs that are proven to be effective.
A.R.S. §41-617 requires the Council not only to evaluate the effectiveness of programs,
but to make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor to redirect resources and
achieve better use of these resources. However, state agencies that fund these programs
are under no obligation to shift resources to effective programs based on evaluation re-sults.
For example, despite substantial evidence indicating that Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (DARE) programs are not effective in reducing substance abuse among
youth, some member agencies spent about $461,000 in fiscal year 1998 to fund DARE
programs because of their popularity.1 This spending occurs in spite of the Council’s
own Annual Inventory discussing the program’s shortcomings. Unless Council mem-bers
redirect resources within their own agencies based on evaluation results, an ac-countability
system will lose its value.
Council Should Take Additional
Measures to Ensure Accountability
System Is Implemented
To fulfill its coordination and evaluation mandates, the Council needs to take additional
measures. First, the Council should seek additional funding sources to ensure continued
operation of the accountability system and expansion of the system to include all programs.
Second, the Council should seek formal agreements from all participating agencies to ensure
their commitment in redirecting resources once evaluation results are available.
The Council needs to pursue funding to fully implement accountability system—To con-tinue
its progress in meeting its evaluation mandate, the Council needs to seek ways to fi-nance
continued implementation of the accountability system and expand it to include all
programs. The Council has estimated an initial cost of approximately $447,000 to implement
an expanded system and an annual figure of about $476,000 to sustain the system once it is
fully operational. The annual figure includes support for approximately 7 FTE to compile
and report on the statewide and community indicators, update the best practices guide, and
1 Office of Justice Programs, “Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t and What’s Promising,”
1997.5-35. Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center, “1988 Arizona Drug and Gang Pre-vention
and Treatment Program Inventory,” 1999.1.15.
10
conduct a biennial needs assessment to determine which programs are needed for various
communities. In addition, staff would review and verify individual program evaluations
based on indicator results and conduct additional evaluations, if necessary. The estimate
also includes enhancing and verifying the annual Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention Pro-gram
Inventory. According to the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center, the
Inventory is currently produced using self-reported information. The Center indicated it
would use the additional monies to verify agency data through a sampling method. As in-dicated
earlier, the Center already receives approximately $200,000 per year from selected
Superior Court fees and has historically used these monies, in part, to produce the Inven-tory.
Because existing grant funding for implementing the accountability system will expire by
2001 and will not include any gang or treatment programs, the Council should pursue all
possible funding options including:
n Continuing to seek additional external grants to support the system.
n Seeking a legislative change that would require member agencies to support the ac-countability
system through their existing budgets. Doing so would require revision of
A.R.S. §41-617. This section of the law already requires member agencies to supply staff
and support services for the Council. Funding for evaluation services could be sought as
another required contribution.
n Seeking a General Fund appropriation to finance the system. Council members previ-ously
agreed to pursue this option in response to the 1996 Sunset report. However, to
date, no action has been taken.
The Council should identify and redirect resources through agency agreements—In addition
to securing future funding, the Council should seek commitments from member agencies to
identify all permissible monies for redirection. Once identified, the Council should work with
member agencies and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective programs. For
example, member agencies that use the model RFP are implicitly agreeing to redirect monies
because the structure of the RFP will require that only programs whose effectiveness has
been documented will be funded. However, the state of Connecticut has addressed redirec-tion
of resources differently by signing an inter-agency agreement among the various agen-cies
that fund prevention programs. Specifically, at the Governor’s request, state agencies
estimated the amount of all federal and state resources that would be legally permissible to
re-direct toward more effective uses. Of the total $58 million in prevention funding in Con-necticut,
agencies estimated about $13 million of this could be re-directed. Included in the
monies to be redirected were the federal Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
monies provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Additionally, officials in Oregon and
Delaware agree that interagency agreements can ensure agency support to redirect resources.
11
While some of Arizona’s funding may be tied to specific requirements, which preclude it
from being redirected, other funding could be reallocated. For example, in fiscal year 1997,
the Council’s working group identified a total of approximately $13 million that could po-tentially
be redirected. This figure includes monies from the Department of Health Services,
the Department of Education, the Supreme Court, and others. Obtaining commitments from
agencies to identify and redirect all permissible monies based on evaluation results may
increase the likelihood of directing funding to effective programs.
Recommendations
1. The Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §41-617 to require member agencies to
support the accountability system with existing resources.
2. The Council should pursue funding options for funding the development and
sustainability of the accountability system, such as:
a) Continuing to seek additional external grants to support the system.
b) Seeking a General Fund appropriation to finance the system. Council members pre-viously
agreed to pursue this option in response to the 1996 Sunset report (Auditor
General Report No. 96-11). However, to date, no action has been taken.
3. The Council should seek commitments from member agencies to identify all permissible
monies for redirection. Once identified, the Council should work with member agencies
and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective programs.
12
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
13
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A.R.S. §41-2954, the Legislature should consider the following 12 factors
in determining whether the Drug and Gang Policy Council should be continued or termi-nated.
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the agency.
The Drug and Gang Policy Council was created in 1990 to coordinate and evaluate
all state programs relating to substance abuse and gangs and to make recommenda-tions
to the Governor and Legislature for revising and/or redirecting expenditures to
achieve better use of public resources. 1
2. The effectiveness with which the agency has met its objectives and purposes
and the efficiency with which the agency has operated.
The Council’s effectiveness has improved since the last Auditor General report in
1996, with particular progress toward developing an evaluation system. Specifically,
the Council has developed key components of an evaluation system, such as success-ful
practices to reduce substance abuse and gangs, statewide indicators to measure
the impact of the State’s efforts, and a model contract that would require service pro-viders
to use best practices and perform program evaluations. However, its ability to
implement this system is at risk due to its reliance on grant funding and a lack of
formalized agency agreements (see Finding I, pages 5 through 11).
In addition, the Council’s attendance at meetings has also improved. The 1996 report
noted that the Council’s effectiveness was hindered by an inability to obtain a quo-rum
at meetings. Between February 1994 and June 1996, an average of only 5 out of
17 members attended meetings. However, between January 1998 and March 1999,
attendance had almost doubled with an average of 10 out of 16 members in atten-dance
during this time.2 Despite this improvement, certain members are still consis-tently
absent from meetings. Specifically, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
representative has attended only two meetings since February 1995. Furthermore,
between January 1997 and January 1999, positions from the business community and
the League of Cities and Towns were vacant, bringing the number of routine ab-
1 When the Council was created in 1990, it was called the Drug Policy Council. Its name and scope
were changed in 1991 to include gangs.
2 In 1997, the Legislature terminated the Drug Enforcement Task Force, thus eliminating the task force
member on the Council and reducing its membership to 16.
14
sences to at least 3 for most meetings. While a representative from the business
community was appointed in January 1999, the League of Cities and Towns’ position
was still vacant as of March 1999. These absences/vacancies make it more difficult
for the Council to obtain a quorum, potentially jeopardizing its effectiveness.
3. The extent to which the agency has operated within the public interest.
The Council generally operates in the public interest by bringing together state
agency representatives and community leaders who are dedicated to reducing the
incidences of substance abuse and gang participation in Arizona. Through its com-prehensive
membership, the Council can make recommendations to the Legislature
regarding expenditures for substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment pro-grams.
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the agency are con-sistent
with the legislative mandate.
The Council has no authority to promulgate rules and regulations.
5. The extent to which the agency has encouraged input from the public before
promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has informed
the public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public.
Although the Council has no authority to promulgate rules and regulations, all
council meetings are open to the public. Our review found that the Council follows
Open Meeting Law requirements.
6. The extent to which the agency has been able to investigate and resolve com-plaints
that are within its jurisdiction.
The Council has no authority to investigate complaints.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
state government has the authority to prosecute actions under enabling legis-lation.
This factor does not apply to the Council.
15
8. The extent to which the agency has addressed deficiencies in the enabling
statutes which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
The Council has not proposed any legislative changes since our last Sunset review in
1996.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the agency to ade-quately
comply with the factors listed in the subsection.
The Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §41-617 to require member agencies
to provide funding to support the accountability system. This statute already re-quires
member agencies to supply staff and support services for the Council at the
Governor’s direction. Funding for evaluation services could be added as another re-quired
contribution.
10. The extent to which the termination of the agency would significantly harm the
public health, safety, or welfare.
Although termination of the Council would not significantly harm the public health,
safety, or welfare, its membership provides the potential for broad interagency and
community collaboration on drug and gang prevention and treatment issues.
Moreover, as there is no other entity that allows for such substantial cooperation, the
Council has a unique opportunity to make a positive impact on the State’s drug and
gang problems. In particular, its recent progress in developing an evaluation system
can assist in ensuring that the $87 million spent on substance abuse and gang pre-vention
and treatment programs is used in the most effective manner.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the agency is appro-priate
and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appro-priate.
The Council has no regulatory authority.
12. The extent to which the agency has used private contractors in the perform-ance
of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be ac-complished.
The Council has recently used private consultants to facilitate working group meet-ings
to ensure time spent at these meetings is used effectively. In addition, the Coun-cil
intends to use private consultants when operating the evaluation system.
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Agency Response
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
April 20, 1999
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2910 N. 44th St.
Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Auditor General’s performance
audit of the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council. We are pleased that you
have recognized the Council’s progress over the past two years and find your
recommendations fair and thoughtful.
The report cites a variety of positive accomplishments and directions. We would
like to take this opportunity to elaborate on areas that were not included in the
report.
We would like to recognize the Council members for their dedication to
improving Arizona’s response to drug and gang problems. As mentioned in the
report, participation in the quarterly Council meetings has risen dramatically and
major steps have been taken including adoption of The Comprehensive Strategic
Plan for Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention, Education, and Treatment and
the Statewide Scorecard Indicators. The Governor has provided significant
support and has made it a priority to ensure that her and her executive staff are
available for Council activities.
The members of the Working Group have been exemplary in their commitment
and dedication to the Council’s mission. They have been instrumental in
developing The Comprehensive Strategic Plan for Substance Abuse and Gang
Prevention, Education, and Treatment, the Statewide Scorecard Indicators, the
Promoting Good Practice guide and the model request for proposals format.
Their participation and leadership in monthly Working Group meetings and
various subcommittees has greatly improved Arizona’s efforts to decrease
substance abuse and gang violence.
The Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center and its staff have been
a driving force in securing grant funding for and creating the Statewide
Scorecard Indicators and the Promoting Good Practices guide, identifying
additional sources of revenue to support the Council’s mission, and conceptualizing and
assisting with the implementation of Council activities. Their expertise and vision have
been instrumental in realizing the Council’s achievements over the past two years.
Our responses to the recommendations follow:
Recommendation 1: The Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §41-617 to require
member agencies to support the accountability system with existing resources.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the
finding will be implemented. We agree that the work of the Council should be supported
by a consistent source of funds. However, we are not certain of the best way to achieve
this end nor do we presume to know if the Legislature would consider such a request.
We would like to have available to us a range of opportunities for future funding of the
Council, including those that are recommended.
Recommendation 2: The Council should pursue funding options for funding the
development and sustainability of the accountability system such as:
a) Continuing to seek additional external grants to support the system.
b) Seeking a General Fund appropriation to finance the system.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the
finding will be implemented. Again, we agree with securing additional resources but do
not want to limit our options to those recommended. A General Fund appropriation is
also contingent on legislative approval, something of which we are not in complete
control. While we agree with the potential for funds from the Auditor General and the
General Fund, we are unable at this time to determine if it would be more advantageous
to consider both sources, just one source, or completely different sources for future
funding.
Recommendation 3: The Council should seek commitments from member agencies to
identify all permissible monies for redirection. Once identified, the Council should work
with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective
programs.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the
finding will be implemented. Redirection can still occur if an explicit commitment is not
provided. By approving the RFP format, Council members are implicitly agreeing to
redirect funds because the structure of the RFP will require that only programs whose
effectiveness has been documented will be funded. Similarly, approval of the indicators
would suggest an implicit agreement to target programs to ensure the indicators are
impacted. It should also be pointed out that categorical or restricted program funding can
still use best practices. It is our intention to ensure that these more restricted resources
are also used in an effective manner.
We have appreciated this opportunity to work with the Office of the Auditor General and
its staff. While such a review can be time consuming, it affords a chance to examine the
Council’s work in an objective and critical way and identify areas for improvement.
Thank you again for this opportunity to respond.
Sincerely,
Peggy Eggemeyer
Director
cc: Alan Brown, Director, Research, Planning, and Special Projects, Arizona
Prevention Resource Center
Gail Chadwick, Director, Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center
Elizabeth Reich, Executive Director, Governor’s Community Policy Office
George Weisz, Executive Assistant for Criminal Justice
Appendix
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Appendix
Drug and Gang Policy Council
Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts
to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation
Adopted by the Council in September 1998
Indicators
(Problems to be Measured)
Definition
(Reported Method of Measurement)
Source
of Data
Prenatal alcohol and tobacco used by
pregnant females
n Rate of prenatal alcohol used per 1,000 live
births
n Rate of prenatal tobacco used per 1,000 live
births
n Rate of prenatal alcohol and tobacco used
per 1,000 live births
n Arizona Department of Health Services
n Arizona Department of Health Services
n Arizona Department of Health Services
Households in community below poverty
level1
n Rate of households living in poverty per
100 households
n Ratio of students receiving free/reduced-priced
lunch and/or breakfast to the general
school population
n Arizona Department of Economic
Security
n Arizona Department of Education
Early first use of substances n Age group of those indicating first use per
students surveyed
n Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
(continued)
1 Indicator to be used for needs assessment only.
Appendix (Cont’d)
Drug and Gang Policy Council
Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts
to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation
Adopted by the Council in September 1998
Indicators
(Problems to be Measured)
Definition
(Reported Method of Measurement)
Source
of Data
Substance use rates for youth, family, elders,
and community for alcohol, tobacco, and
other drugs
n Rate of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use
by youth as indicated in survey
n Rate of alcohol/drug used by adults as
indicated in survey
n Number of licensed retail alcohol outlets
Percentage of successful youth (16 to 17 years of
age) buys per attempts
n Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
n Arizona Department of Health Services
n Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses
and Control; Arizona Department of
Revenue
n Arizona Department of Health Services
Gang membership identification and
association
n Number of gang members and associates n Arizona Department of Public Safety
Domestic violence and abuse n Type and frequency of domestic violence
offenses
n Number of child abuse
reports/investigations
n Number of elder abuse
reports/investigations
n Arizona Department of Public Safety
and Governor’s Division for Domestic
Violence Prevention
n Arizona Department of Economic
Security
n Arizona Department of Economic
Security
(continued)
Appendix (Cont’d)
Drug and Gang Policy Council
Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts
to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation
Adopted by the Council in September 1998
Indicators
(Problems to be Measured)
Definition
(Reported Method of Measurement)
Source
of Data
School-based youth violence and discipline
incidents
n Rate of discipline and violence incidents per
1,000 population: violence, weapons, and
substance abuse
n Arizona Department of Education
Positive drug testing results n Number and rate of inmate positive drug
tests per total number of inmates tested
n Rate of positive drug tests per total number
administered for probation and parole
system
n Rate of positive drug tests per total
administered for workplaces
n Arizona Department of Corrections
n Treatment Assessment Screening Center
n Treatment Assessment Screening Center
Alcohol/drug-related arrests n Number of juvenile alcohol/drug-related
arrests
n Number of adult alcohol/drug-related
arrests
n Number of juvenile and adult DUI
n Arizona Department of Public Safety
n Arizona Department of Public Safety
n Arizona Department of Public Safety
(continued)
Appendix (Concl’d)
Drug and Gang Policy Council
Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts
to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation
Adopted by the Council in September 1998
Indicators
(Problems to be Measured)
Definition
(Reported Method of Measurement)
Source
of Data
Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug-related
deaths and injuries
n Number of persons, by age groups, killed
and/or injured in alcohol-related crashes
n Calculated economic loss due to alcohol-related
crashes
n Number of drug-related deaths
n Number of alcohol, tobacco, and other
drug-related deaths and injuries by age
group
n Arizona Department of Public Safety
n Arizona Department of Public Safety
n Arizona Department of Public Safety
n Arizona Department of Health Services
Source: Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center.

Description

Rating
TITLE	Performance audit, Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council
CREATOR	Office of the Auditor General
SUBJECT	Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council--Auditing; Substance abuse--Arizona--Prevention; Gangs--Arizona;
Browse Topic	Government and politics
DESCRIPTION	34 pages (PDF version). File size: 280 KB
Language	English
Publisher	Office of the Auditor General
TYPE	Text
Material Collection	State Documents
Acquisition Note	Report No. 99-7
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT	Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.
DATE ORIGINAL	1999-04
Time Period	1990s (1990-1999)
ORIGINAL FORMAT	Born Digital
Source Identifier	LG 6.2:R 36
Location	o41351858
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER	99-7.pdf
DIGITAL FORMAT	PDF (Portable Document Format)
REPOSITORY	Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.
File Size	286698 Bytes
Full Text	State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General PERFORMANCE AUDIT Report to the Arizona Legislature By Douglas R. Norton Auditor General ARIZONA DRUG AND GANG POLICY COUNCIL April 1999 Report No. 99-7 2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051 DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA AUDITOR GENERAL DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL STATE OF ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL April 20, 1999 Members of the Arizona Legislature The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor Ms. Peggy Eggemeyer, Director Governor’s Office—Division of Drug Policy Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council. This report is in response to a May 27, 1997, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §§41-2951 through 41-2957. The report addresses the progress the Council has made in meeting its mandates to coordinate and evaluate the State’s publicly funded drug and gang prevention and treatment programs since the Council’s 1996 Sunset review. The 1996 Auditor General Report (Report No. 96-11) found the Council to be ineffective in fulfilling these mandates due to poor member attendance and lack of program evaluations and monetary support. Since this report, the Council has made significant progress in improving its attendance. The Council has also developed statewide indicators that will allow it to generally assess the State’s efforts in reducing substance abuse and gangs, and has identified best practices that it will require service providers to use in their prevention and treatment programs. However, the Council’s continued progress is dependent on future funding and member agency commitments to redirect monies to effective programs. As such, the Council should pursue all possible funding options including seeking external grants, member agency contributions, and general fund appropriations; and seek formal commitments from member agencies to identify and redirect all permissible monies to effective programs. April 20, 1999 Page -2- As outlined in its response, the Council agrees with all report findings, but a different method of dealing with the findings will be implemented. However, it is not clear that the Council’s proposed method of dealing with the finding on redirecting resources to more effective programs will adequately address the finding. My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report. This report will be released to the public on April 21, 1999. Sincerely, Douglas R. Norton Auditor General Enclosure i SUMMARY The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and Sunset review of the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council, pursuant to a May 27, 1997, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through 41-2957. In 1990, the Legislature created the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council to address, in a coordinated manner, the State’s education, prevention, and treatment activities dealing with substance abuse and gangs.1 The Council is comprised of 16 members, including the Gover-nor, Attorney General, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Administrative Director of the Courts, state agency directors, and representatives from local government, commu-nity colleges and universities; and business and community groups who play an integral role in the fight against drugs and gangs by providing prevention, treatment, and law en-forcement programs. This audit focused on two of the Council’s statutory duties: n Recommending effective methods to coordinate all state programs and expenditures for prevention and treatment programs relating to substance abuse and gang participation. n Evaluating the effectiveness of publicly supported treatment and prevention programs and making recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for revising pro-grams or redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public resources. A 1996 Sunset review (Auditor General Report No. 96-11) found that the Council was inef-fective in coordinating and evaluating substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment programs. Specifically, the report found that poor attendance, lack of program evaluations, and lack of monetary support impeded the Council’s ability to perform effectively. Council Moves Forward in Coordinating and Evaluating Services, but Additional Measures Are Needed (See pages 5 through 11) Since the 1996 report, the Council has moved forward in addressing its coordination and evaluation mandates. Using federal grant monies, the Council has developed three key 1 When the Council was created in 1990, it was called the Drug Policy Council. Its name and scope were changed in 1991 to include gangs. ii components of an accountability system to coordinate resources and measure the effective-ness of prevention and treatment activities across the State. The three components are: n Indicators to measure the impact that programs have in reducing substance abuse and gang participation in the State; n Identification of practices that yield the most successful results; and n A standardized contracting framework requiring service providers to use best practices and perform program evaluations. Despite the Council’s progress, fulfillment of its evaluation mandate may be at risk. One reason is the Council’s reliance on grants as a funding source. This reliance means that ef-forts are limited to those activities specifically within the grants’ scope and purpose. For ex-ample, the three grants the Council currently receives are specific to preventing substance abuse. As such, these grants cannot be used to include the Council’s other responsibilities related to gangs and substance abuse treatment. In addition, the grants all expire by 2001, leaving future funding uncertain. A second reason is that once the accountability system is in place, there is no mechanism for ensuring that member agencies redirect funding from ineffective programs to those ap-proaches that are shown to be most effective. For example, some agencies continue to fund the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs despite evidence that the programs are not effective. To address these obstacles, the Council should seek additional funding sources, such as contributions from member agencies, a General Fund appropriation, or additional external grants to ensure continued implementation of the accountability system. The Council should also seek commitments from all member agencies to identify all permissible monies for redirection and work with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these re-sources to effective programs. iii Table of Contents Page Introduction and Background........................................................... 1 Finding I: Council Moves Forward in Coordinating and Evaluating Services, but Additional Measures Are Needed.......................................... 5 Background and Follow-Up.................................................................................................................. 5 Council Takes Steps to Meet Coordination and Evaluation Mandates............................................................................................... 6 Council’s Progress Dependent on Future Funding and Agency Commitments..................................................................................................... 8 Council Should Take Additional Measures to Ensure Accountability System Is Implemented................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations............................................................................................................ 11 Sunset Factors.................................................................................... 13 Agency Response Appendix Drug and Gang Policy Council Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation Adopted by the Council in September 1998 .............................................. a-i Table Table 1 Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council Membership Defined by Statute................................................... 2 iv (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and Sunset review of the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council, pursuant to a May 27, 1997, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§41-2951 through 41-2957. Council Established to Coordinate and Evaluate Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention/Treatment Programs In 1990, the Legislature created the Drug Policy Council to address, in a coordinated man-ner, the State’s education, prevention, and treatment activities dealing with substance abuse. In 1991, the Council’s name and scope were changed to include gangs. According to A.R.S. §41-617, the Council’s primary mandates include: n Recommending effective methods to coordinate all state programs and expenditures for prevention and treatment programs relating to substance abuse and participation in criminal street gangs; n Conducting an annual inventory of publicly supported education, treatment, and pre-vention programs related to substance abuse and gang participation in this State; n Evaluating the results achieved by publicly supported education, treatment, and pre-vention programs and making recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for revising programs or redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public re-sources; and n Overseeing the operation of the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center (Center), which maintains the collection, storage, and distribution of information relating to substance abuse and gang education, prevention, and treatment programs. Organization and Budget The Council’s membership consists of a cross section of state agency directors who play an integral role in the fight against drugs and gangs by providing education, prevention, and treatment and law enforcement programs. Table 1 (see page 2) illustrates the Council’s vast representation: 2 Table 1 Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council1 Membership Defined by Statute Directors of the following agencies: A representative from each of the following: Attorney General State Superintendent of Public Instruction Administrative Director of the Courts Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System Departments of: Corrections Economic Security Health Services Juvenile Corrections Public Safety A local community or neighbor-hood group Arizona Board of Regents Arizona Criminal Justice Com-mission League of Cities and Towns State Board of Directors for Community Colleges The business community 1 A total of 16 members. Source: Arizona Revised Statutes §41-617. Although the Council includes representatives from a wide range of agencies, it has no dedicated budget or personnel. Historically, the Council has relied primarily on the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center and member agency staffing contributions to fulfill its statutory mandates. Specifically, the Center conducts the annual inventory of sub-stance abuse and gang prevention and treatment programs and maintains a clearinghouse of information pertaining to these issues. In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Center was ap-propriated selected Superior Court fees of $205,2001 and $207,400, respectively, to provide these services for the Council. In addition, the Council has established a working group comprised of 20 staff from member agencies to aid it in fulfilling its mandates. Finally, the Governor’s Division of Drug Policy assists the Council in fulfilling its mandates by supply-ing staff and support services to administer the Council’s and working group’s activities. 1 Although appropriated $205,200 in fiscal year 1998, the Center received only $203,000 due to a reduc-tion in fees collected during this year. Governor (serves as Chair) 3 This includes coordinating the Council’s quarterly meetings, taking meeting minutes, pre-paring meeting agendas, chairing the working group, and assisting with the development of the Council’s comprehensive strategic plan, a plan that presents goals and strategic direc-tions for reducing drug use and gang participation in the State. In addition, because the Council has no dedicated funding, it has relied on federal grants received by member agencies to help finance its activities. Currently, the Council is relying on $2.22 million from three grants for use between fiscal years 1998-2001: n The Data Collection Grant—This grant, consisting of $1.2 million over two years, is provided by the U.S. Department of Education and administered by the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center. Its purpose is to assist states in developing data collection mechanisms to judge the effectiveness of substance abuse prevention pro-grams. n The State Incentive Program—Funding for this program is provided by the U.S. Cen-ter for Substance Abuse Prevention and administered by the Governor’s Division of Drug Policy and the Department of Health Services. These agencies have made avail-able $300,000 per year for the next three years to the Council to better coordinate sub-stance abuse prevention resources, implement best practices, and measure the effective-ness of prevention programs. n The Needs Assessment Grant—This funding is provided by the U.S. Center for Sub-stance Abuse Prevention and administered by Arizona’s Department of Health Services (DHS). DHS has made available $125,000 over three years to the Council to identify spe-cific substance abuse prevention programming needs in order to implement programs that are more appropriate and effective for identified problems. Audit Scope and Methodology This audit focuses primarily on the Council’s ability to meet its mandates dealing with co-ordination and evaluation. To determine the extent to which the Council fulfills this re-quirement, two Council meetings and three working group meetings were observed, and minutes of previous Council and working group meetings were reviewed from February 1995 to September 1998 and January 1995 to February 1999, respectively. In addition, current Council and working group members were interviewed to determine the progress made in evaluating programs and the obstacles encountered while attempting to fulfill this mandate. Auditors’ work also included a review and analysis of: n The Council’s Annual Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention Program Inventory of publicly supported substance abuse and gang education, prevention, and treatment programs; 4 n The Comprehensive Strategic Plan, which contains goals and strategic directions to be implemented over the next five years to reduce substance abuse and gang participation; n The statewide indicators that will be used to measure the impact of the State’s efforts in reducing substance abuse and gang participation; n The grant funding used to finance the Council’s recent activities in developing an evaluation system; and n Literature regarding best practices and program evaluations of substance abuse and gang programs. Finally, other states were contacted to determine how they coordinate and evaluate sub-stance abuse prevention activities that are funded by numerous state agencies.1 This report presents a finding and recommendations regarding the Council’s need to take additional measures to ensure that a statewide coordination and evaluation process is fully implemented. This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards. The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to all the council and working group members, the Director of the Governor’s Division of Drug Policy and staff, and the Director of the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center and staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout this audit. 1 Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington were contacted. These states were identified as being active in evaluating their substance abuse pro-grams and/or were implementing evaluation systems similar to Arizona’s. 5 FINDING I COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD IN COORDINATING AND EVALUATING SERVICES, BUT ADDITIONAL MEASURES ARE NEEDED The Council has made progress in developing a statewide accountability system to address its coordination and evaluation mandates, but there are two reasons why continued imple-mentation of the system may be at risk. n First, the current effort is being sustained with grant funding—an uncertain funding source that can be applied to only some aspects of the Council’s responsibilities. n Second, the Council has no assurance that agencies will agree to apply funding to those programs and approaches that have the greatest opportunity for success. As such, the Council should seek additional funding sources to ensure continued imple-mentation of the accountability system. In addition, the Council should seek commitments from all participating agencies to identify all permissible monies for redirection and work with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective programs. Background and Follow-Up Legislative mandate requires the Council to coordinate and evaluate publicly supported treatment and prevention programs for substance abuse and gang participation. It is also required to make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature for revising these programs or redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public resources. Arizona funded over $87 million for 824 substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment pro-grams in fiscal year 1998. By fulfilling its mandate, the Council can ensure that these re-sources are being spent effectively to reduce Arizona’s substance abuse and gang problems. A 1996 Sunset review (Auditor General Report No. 96-11) found that the Council was inef-fective in coordinating and evaluating substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment programs. Specific problems included poor attendance at council meetings, lack of program evaluations, and lack of monetary support. To enhance effectiveness, the report recom-mended that the Council improve its attendance and pursue all possible funding options to implement a statewide accountability system. These funding options included dividing the cost among member agencies, and/or seeking external grants. 6 The Council’s attendance has since improved sufficiently to obtain a quorum at meetings. In fact, Council attendance has almost doubled with an average of 10 out of 16 members cur-rently attending, including the Governor, Attorney General, Maricopa County Attorney, and several state agency directors or their designees. (For more information on the Council’s improved attendance, see Sunset factor 2, pages 13 through 14.) Council Takes Steps to Meet Coordination and Evaluation Mandates Since the 1996 report, the Council has moved forward in addressing its coordination and evaluation mandates. The Council has identified three key components of an accountability system to coordinate resources and measure the effectiveness of prevention and treatment activities across the State and is working to develop each component. The three components include: n The development of indicators that will measure the impact programs have in reducing substance abuse and gang participation in the State; n Identification of practices that yield the most successful results; and n Development of a standardized contract requiring service providers that contract with member agencies to use best practices and perform program evaluations. Indicators will help measure impact of the State’s efforts—The Council has approved and begun collecting data on ten indicators that measure the impact of the State’s efforts in re-ducing substance abuse and gang participation. These indicators were established using national indicator models and chosen based on such factors as availability of data, relevance to Arizona’s substance abuse and gang problems, and the importance of the data for state planning purposes. As indicated in the Appendix (see pages a-i through a-iv) these indica-tors range from the number of gang members as reported by the Department of Public Safety to the rate of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use by youth as reported by the Ari-zona Criminal Justice Commission. While these indicators will not speak to the effectiveness of individual programs, the Coun-cil plans to annually collect indicator data at both the state and community levels to gauge the impact that programs have had in a particular geographical area. More specifically, this information will provide a broad overview of how successful overall efforts have been in reducing substance abuse and/or gangs in that region. For example, a reduction in the indi-cators may generally indicate that current efforts are effective in addressing substance abuse 7 and gang problems for that particular area and should continue to receive funding. How-ever, an increase in the indicators may require further action, such as further evaluation of programs to confirm their effectiveness in a geographical area, revision of existing pro-grams, or redirection of funding to other programs. Identification of successful practices will ensure more effective use of resources—In addi-tion to approving the ten indicators, the Council is developing a guide, “Promoting Good Practice,” to ensure service providers use practices that have demonstrable effectiveness in reducing substance abuse and gang problems. The guide: n Highlights research findings that demonstrate which programs are successful and the reasons for their success; n Shares the ingredients of success underlying such programs; and n Provides a tool for policymakers who must decide where and how to invest scarce re-sources. Service providers can use the guide to implement more effective programs. For example, research indicates that peer mentoring through programs such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters effectively reduces the onset of drug abuse for children between the ages of 10 to 14.1 The draft guide includes this type of information and the practices that make this program suc-cessful. The Council plans to review and discuss the draft guide during its May 1999 meet-ing. Model contract will require specific outcomes, use of best practices, and program evalua-tions— The Council is also in the process of developing a model request for proposal (RFP) for substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment programs. This model RFP will re-quire contractors providing prevention and treatment services to specify program out-comes, use best practices, and perform evaluations of their programs. Specifically, the model RFP will, among other things, require contractors to specify the outcomes they will seek to achieve with state funds. These outcomes should be one of the ten indicators currently ap-proved by the Council to ensure that prevention and treatment services relate to those indi-cators that will be measured at the State and community levels. In addition, contractors will be required to specify the “best practices” that their methodology will encompass and cor-relate these “best practices” to those identified in the “Promoting Good Practices” guide. The model RFP will also require that all providers evaluate their programs. However, the type of evaluation required may vary based on such factors as program funding and whether the program has already been evaluated. For example, for programs already proven effective, an evaluation would ensure only that the program is being implemented according to originally evaluated methods. For larger programs not already evaluated but 1 Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology, “Best Practices Summary Table.” 8 using best practices, a more rigorous evaluation that demonstrates effectiveness would be required. The Council is considering varying the evaluation requirement so as to not burden small programs or programs already proven effective with costly evaluations. The Council expects to complete a draft RFP model by April 1999. Council’s Progress Dependent on Future Funding and Agency Commitments While the Council has made significant progress in developing the statewide accountability system, fulfillment of the Council’s evaluation mandate may be at risk for two reasons. n First, because the Council relies on grants as its primary funding source, its efforts are limited to those activities specifically within the grants’ scope and purpose and are also subject to a lack of funding when the grant ends. n Second, there is no mechanism for ensuring that member agencies follow best practices and redirect funding to those approaches that are shown to be most effective. Reliance on grants limits Council’s efforts—The Council’s reliance on grants may impact its progress in developing and implementing the statewide accountability system. Without dedicated funding, the Council has had to rely on three grants totaling $2.22 million to fi-nance its evaluation activities, including the development of the best practices guide and the statewide indicators.1 While grants have allowed the Council to progress, reliance on them as a funding source creates some difficulties. Specifically: n The Council’s activities are limited to the grants’ scope and purpose—The three grants the Council currently receives are specific to preventing substance abuse. As a re-sult, they cannot be applied to programs aimed at treating substance abuse or to pro-grams aimed at preventing or treating gang-related problems. While the concepts identi-fied, such as the best practices guide, could apply to all programs, the Council has money to apply them only to substance abuse prevention programs. Without additional funding, gang and treatment programs may not be included in the accountability sys-tem. According to the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), the agency that provides many of these grants, in the future, grants will continue to be spe-cialized, addressing certain populations or geographical areas. n Unstable grant monies make it difficult to plan future activities—Reliance on grant monies as a source of funding makes planning for future activities difficult. CSAP con- 1 Although the Center receives some funding from court fees, these monies produce the Annual Sub-stance Abuse Program Inventory and support the clearinghouse of substance abuse and gang informa-tion. 9 firmed that not only are federal grant opportunities limited and competitive, their spo-radic nature cannot provide a consistent source of funding. For example, CSAP initially offered the State Incentive Grant to only five states. Although Arizona applied, its appli-cation was not sufficient to receive the award. Once the federal government’s fiscal year 1998 budget was approved, CSAP funded an additional 14 states, including Arizona. However, when the three grants discussed above expire in the year 2001, it is unclear how the Council’s activities will be funded. n Redirection of funding dependent on agency commitment—In addition to unstable funding, the Council’s progress in implementing an accountability system is at risk un-less agencies agree to redirect resources to programs that are proven to be effective. A.R.S. §41-617 requires the Council not only to evaluate the effectiveness of programs, but to make recommendations to the Legislature and Governor to redirect resources and achieve better use of these resources. However, state agencies that fund these programs are under no obligation to shift resources to effective programs based on evaluation re-sults. For example, despite substantial evidence indicating that Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) programs are not effective in reducing substance abuse among youth, some member agencies spent about $461,000 in fiscal year 1998 to fund DARE programs because of their popularity.1 This spending occurs in spite of the Council’s own Annual Inventory discussing the program’s shortcomings. Unless Council mem-bers redirect resources within their own agencies based on evaluation results, an ac-countability system will lose its value. Council Should Take Additional Measures to Ensure Accountability System Is Implemented To fulfill its coordination and evaluation mandates, the Council needs to take additional measures. First, the Council should seek additional funding sources to ensure continued operation of the accountability system and expansion of the system to include all programs. Second, the Council should seek formal agreements from all participating agencies to ensure their commitment in redirecting resources once evaluation results are available. The Council needs to pursue funding to fully implement accountability system—To con-tinue its progress in meeting its evaluation mandate, the Council needs to seek ways to fi-nance continued implementation of the accountability system and expand it to include all programs. The Council has estimated an initial cost of approximately $447,000 to implement an expanded system and an annual figure of about $476,000 to sustain the system once it is fully operational. The annual figure includes support for approximately 7 FTE to compile and report on the statewide and community indicators, update the best practices guide, and 1 Office of Justice Programs, “Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t and What’s Promising,” 1997.5-35. Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center, “1988 Arizona Drug and Gang Pre-vention and Treatment Program Inventory,” 1999.1.15. 10 conduct a biennial needs assessment to determine which programs are needed for various communities. In addition, staff would review and verify individual program evaluations based on indicator results and conduct additional evaluations, if necessary. The estimate also includes enhancing and verifying the annual Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention Pro-gram Inventory. According to the Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center, the Inventory is currently produced using self-reported information. The Center indicated it would use the additional monies to verify agency data through a sampling method. As in-dicated earlier, the Center already receives approximately $200,000 per year from selected Superior Court fees and has historically used these monies, in part, to produce the Inven-tory. Because existing grant funding for implementing the accountability system will expire by 2001 and will not include any gang or treatment programs, the Council should pursue all possible funding options including: n Continuing to seek additional external grants to support the system. n Seeking a legislative change that would require member agencies to support the ac-countability system through their existing budgets. Doing so would require revision of A.R.S. §41-617. This section of the law already requires member agencies to supply staff and support services for the Council. Funding for evaluation services could be sought as another required contribution. n Seeking a General Fund appropriation to finance the system. Council members previ-ously agreed to pursue this option in response to the 1996 Sunset report. However, to date, no action has been taken. The Council should identify and redirect resources through agency agreements—In addition to securing future funding, the Council should seek commitments from member agencies to identify all permissible monies for redirection. Once identified, the Council should work with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective programs. For example, member agencies that use the model RFP are implicitly agreeing to redirect monies because the structure of the RFP will require that only programs whose effectiveness has been documented will be funded. However, the state of Connecticut has addressed redirec-tion of resources differently by signing an inter-agency agreement among the various agen-cies that fund prevention programs. Specifically, at the Governor’s request, state agencies estimated the amount of all federal and state resources that would be legally permissible to re-direct toward more effective uses. Of the total $58 million in prevention funding in Con-necticut, agencies estimated about $13 million of this could be re-directed. Included in the monies to be redirected were the federal Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities monies provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Additionally, officials in Oregon and Delaware agree that interagency agreements can ensure agency support to redirect resources. 11 While some of Arizona’s funding may be tied to specific requirements, which preclude it from being redirected, other funding could be reallocated. For example, in fiscal year 1997, the Council’s working group identified a total of approximately $13 million that could po-tentially be redirected. This figure includes monies from the Department of Health Services, the Department of Education, the Supreme Court, and others. Obtaining commitments from agencies to identify and redirect all permissible monies based on evaluation results may increase the likelihood of directing funding to effective programs. Recommendations 1. The Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §41-617 to require member agencies to support the accountability system with existing resources. 2. The Council should pursue funding options for funding the development and sustainability of the accountability system, such as: a) Continuing to seek additional external grants to support the system. b) Seeking a General Fund appropriation to finance the system. Council members pre-viously agreed to pursue this option in response to the 1996 Sunset report (Auditor General Report No. 96-11). However, to date, no action has been taken. 3. The Council should seek commitments from member agencies to identify all permissible monies for redirection. Once identified, the Council should work with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective programs. 12 (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) 13 SUNSET FACTORS In accordance with A.R.S. §41-2954, the Legislature should consider the following 12 factors in determining whether the Drug and Gang Policy Council should be continued or termi-nated. 1. The objective and purpose in establishing the agency. The Drug and Gang Policy Council was created in 1990 to coordinate and evaluate all state programs relating to substance abuse and gangs and to make recommenda-tions to the Governor and Legislature for revising and/or redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public resources. 1 2. The effectiveness with which the agency has met its objectives and purposes and the efficiency with which the agency has operated. The Council’s effectiveness has improved since the last Auditor General report in 1996, with particular progress toward developing an evaluation system. Specifically, the Council has developed key components of an evaluation system, such as success-ful practices to reduce substance abuse and gangs, statewide indicators to measure the impact of the State’s efforts, and a model contract that would require service pro-viders to use best practices and perform program evaluations. However, its ability to implement this system is at risk due to its reliance on grant funding and a lack of formalized agency agreements (see Finding I, pages 5 through 11). In addition, the Council’s attendance at meetings has also improved. The 1996 report noted that the Council’s effectiveness was hindered by an inability to obtain a quo-rum at meetings. Between February 1994 and June 1996, an average of only 5 out of 17 members attended meetings. However, between January 1998 and March 1999, attendance had almost doubled with an average of 10 out of 16 members in atten-dance during this time.2 Despite this improvement, certain members are still consis-tently absent from meetings. Specifically, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission representative has attended only two meetings since February 1995. Furthermore, between January 1997 and January 1999, positions from the business community and the League of Cities and Towns were vacant, bringing the number of routine ab- 1 When the Council was created in 1990, it was called the Drug Policy Council. Its name and scope were changed in 1991 to include gangs. 2 In 1997, the Legislature terminated the Drug Enforcement Task Force, thus eliminating the task force member on the Council and reducing its membership to 16. 14 sences to at least 3 for most meetings. While a representative from the business community was appointed in January 1999, the League of Cities and Towns’ position was still vacant as of March 1999. These absences/vacancies make it more difficult for the Council to obtain a quorum, potentially jeopardizing its effectiveness. 3. The extent to which the agency has operated within the public interest. The Council generally operates in the public interest by bringing together state agency representatives and community leaders who are dedicated to reducing the incidences of substance abuse and gang participation in Arizona. Through its com-prehensive membership, the Council can make recommendations to the Legislature regarding expenditures for substance abuse and gang prevention and treatment pro-grams. 4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the agency are con-sistent with the legislative mandate. The Council has no authority to promulgate rules and regulations. 5. The extent to which the agency has encouraged input from the public before promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has informed the public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public. Although the Council has no authority to promulgate rules and regulations, all council meetings are open to the public. Our review found that the Council follows Open Meeting Law requirements. 6. The extent to which the agency has been able to investigate and resolve com-plaints that are within its jurisdiction. The Council has no authority to investigate complaints. 7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of state government has the authority to prosecute actions under enabling legis-lation. This factor does not apply to the Council. 15 8. The extent to which the agency has addressed deficiencies in the enabling statutes which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate. The Council has not proposed any legislative changes since our last Sunset review in 1996. 9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the agency to ade-quately comply with the factors listed in the subsection. The Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §41-617 to require member agencies to provide funding to support the accountability system. This statute already re-quires member agencies to supply staff and support services for the Council at the Governor’s direction. Funding for evaluation services could be added as another re-quired contribution. 10. The extent to which the termination of the agency would significantly harm the public health, safety, or welfare. Although termination of the Council would not significantly harm the public health, safety, or welfare, its membership provides the potential for broad interagency and community collaboration on drug and gang prevention and treatment issues. Moreover, as there is no other entity that allows for such substantial cooperation, the Council has a unique opportunity to make a positive impact on the State’s drug and gang problems. In particular, its recent progress in developing an evaluation system can assist in ensuring that the $87 million spent on substance abuse and gang pre-vention and treatment programs is used in the most effective manner. 11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the agency is appro-priate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appro-priate. The Council has no regulatory authority. 12. The extent to which the agency has used private contractors in the perform-ance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be ac-complished. The Council has recently used private consultants to facilitate working group meet-ings to ensure time spent at these meetings is used effectively. In addition, the Coun-cil intends to use private consultants when operating the evaluation system. (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) Agency Response (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) April 20, 1999 Mr. Douglas R. Norton Auditor General 2910 N. 44th St. Suite 410 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Dear Mr. Norton: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Auditor General’s performance audit of the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council. We are pleased that you have recognized the Council’s progress over the past two years and find your recommendations fair and thoughtful. The report cites a variety of positive accomplishments and directions. We would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on areas that were not included in the report. We would like to recognize the Council members for their dedication to improving Arizona’s response to drug and gang problems. As mentioned in the report, participation in the quarterly Council meetings has risen dramatically and major steps have been taken including adoption of The Comprehensive Strategic Plan for Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention, Education, and Treatment and the Statewide Scorecard Indicators. The Governor has provided significant support and has made it a priority to ensure that her and her executive staff are available for Council activities. The members of the Working Group have been exemplary in their commitment and dedication to the Council’s mission. They have been instrumental in developing The Comprehensive Strategic Plan for Substance Abuse and Gang Prevention, Education, and Treatment, the Statewide Scorecard Indicators, the Promoting Good Practice guide and the model request for proposals format. Their participation and leadership in monthly Working Group meetings and various subcommittees has greatly improved Arizona’s efforts to decrease substance abuse and gang violence. The Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center and its staff have been a driving force in securing grant funding for and creating the Statewide Scorecard Indicators and the Promoting Good Practices guide, identifying additional sources of revenue to support the Council’s mission, and conceptualizing and assisting with the implementation of Council activities. Their expertise and vision have been instrumental in realizing the Council’s achievements over the past two years. Our responses to the recommendations follow: Recommendation 1: The Legislature should consider revising A.R.S. §41-617 to require member agencies to support the accountability system with existing resources. The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be implemented. We agree that the work of the Council should be supported by a consistent source of funds. However, we are not certain of the best way to achieve this end nor do we presume to know if the Legislature would consider such a request. We would like to have available to us a range of opportunities for future funding of the Council, including those that are recommended. Recommendation 2: The Council should pursue funding options for funding the development and sustainability of the accountability system such as: a) Continuing to seek additional external grants to support the system. b) Seeking a General Fund appropriation to finance the system. The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be implemented. Again, we agree with securing additional resources but do not want to limit our options to those recommended. A General Fund appropriation is also contingent on legislative approval, something of which we are not in complete control. While we agree with the potential for funds from the Auditor General and the General Fund, we are unable at this time to determine if it would be more advantageous to consider both sources, just one source, or completely different sources for future funding. Recommendation 3: The Council should seek commitments from member agencies to identify all permissible monies for redirection. Once identified, the Council should work with member agencies and the Governor to redirect these resources to effective programs. The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method of dealing with the finding will be implemented. Redirection can still occur if an explicit commitment is not provided. By approving the RFP format, Council members are implicitly agreeing to redirect funds because the structure of the RFP will require that only programs whose effectiveness has been documented will be funded. Similarly, approval of the indicators would suggest an implicit agreement to target programs to ensure the indicators are impacted. It should also be pointed out that categorical or restricted program funding can still use best practices. It is our intention to ensure that these more restricted resources are also used in an effective manner. We have appreciated this opportunity to work with the Office of the Auditor General and its staff. While such a review can be time consuming, it affords a chance to examine the Council’s work in an objective and critical way and identify areas for improvement. Thank you again for this opportunity to respond. Sincerely, Peggy Eggemeyer Director cc: Alan Brown, Director, Research, Planning, and Special Projects, Arizona Prevention Resource Center Gail Chadwick, Director, Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center Elizabeth Reich, Executive Director, Governor’s Community Policy Office George Weisz, Executive Assistant for Criminal Justice Appendix (This Page Intentionally Left Blank) Appendix Drug and Gang Policy Council Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation Adopted by the Council in September 1998 Indicators (Problems to be Measured) Definition (Reported Method of Measurement) Source of Data Prenatal alcohol and tobacco used by pregnant females n Rate of prenatal alcohol used per 1,000 live births n Rate of prenatal tobacco used per 1,000 live births n Rate of prenatal alcohol and tobacco used per 1,000 live births n Arizona Department of Health Services n Arizona Department of Health Services n Arizona Department of Health Services Households in community below poverty level1 n Rate of households living in poverty per 100 households n Ratio of students receiving free/reduced-priced lunch and/or breakfast to the general school population n Arizona Department of Economic Security n Arizona Department of Education Early first use of substances n Age group of those indicating first use per students surveyed n Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (continued) 1 Indicator to be used for needs assessment only. Appendix (Cont’d) Drug and Gang Policy Council Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation Adopted by the Council in September 1998 Indicators (Problems to be Measured) Definition (Reported Method of Measurement) Source of Data Substance use rates for youth, family, elders, and community for alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs n Rate of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use by youth as indicated in survey n Rate of alcohol/drug used by adults as indicated in survey n Number of licensed retail alcohol outlets Percentage of successful youth (16 to 17 years of age) buys per attempts n Arizona Criminal Justice Commission n Arizona Department of Health Services n Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control; Arizona Department of Revenue n Arizona Department of Health Services Gang membership identification and association n Number of gang members and associates n Arizona Department of Public Safety Domestic violence and abuse n Type and frequency of domestic violence offenses n Number of child abuse reports/investigations n Number of elder abuse reports/investigations n Arizona Department of Public Safety and Governor’s Division for Domestic Violence Prevention n Arizona Department of Economic Security n Arizona Department of Economic Security (continued) Appendix (Cont’d) Drug and Gang Policy Council Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation Adopted by the Council in September 1998 Indicators (Problems to be Measured) Definition (Reported Method of Measurement) Source of Data School-based youth violence and discipline incidents n Rate of discipline and violence incidents per 1,000 population: violence, weapons, and substance abuse n Arizona Department of Education Positive drug testing results n Number and rate of inmate positive drug tests per total number of inmates tested n Rate of positive drug tests per total number administered for probation and parole system n Rate of positive drug tests per total administered for workplaces n Arizona Department of Corrections n Treatment Assessment Screening Center n Treatment Assessment Screening Center Alcohol/drug-related arrests n Number of juvenile alcohol/drug-related arrests n Number of adult alcohol/drug-related arrests n Number of juvenile and adult DUI n Arizona Department of Public Safety n Arizona Department of Public Safety n Arizona Department of Public Safety (continued) Appendix (Concl’d) Drug and Gang Policy Council Ten Indicators that Measure Impact of Statewide Efforts to Reduce Substance Abuse and Gang Participation Adopted by the Council in September 1998 Indicators (Problems to be Measured) Definition (Reported Method of Measurement) Source of Data Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug-related deaths and injuries n Number of persons, by age groups, killed and/or injured in alcohol-related crashes n Calculated economic loss due to alcohol-related crashes n Number of drug-related deaths n Number of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug-related deaths and injuries by age group n Arizona Department of Public Safety n Arizona Department of Public Safety n Arizona Department of Public Safety n Arizona Department of Health Services Source: Arizona Drug and Gang Prevention Resource Center.

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

Submit

Cancel

...

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home Performance audit, Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council

Performance audit, Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council

Description