September 23, 2008
We had a very successful second Annual Arizona Rural Policy Forum in Flagstaff at Northern Arizona University, July 10th and 11th.
We have enclosed for your review the Final Report of the 2008 Arizona Rural Policy Forum prepared by Jeff Peterson and Megan Stalheim of the Arizona Rural Policy Institute at NAU. These “best practices” were gleaned from successful rural programs around the world and were the basis for our discussions at the 2008 Arizona Rural Policy Forum.
Drug abuse in rural Arizona was the main focus of this year’s forum. The 2008 event also highlighted the current state of the three topics discussed during the 2007 forum: Affordable Housing, Workforce Training and Recruitment and Retention of Health Care Workers in Rural Arizona.
We are very conscious of our environment, therefore, we are providing this report to you electronically. If you would like for us to provide you with a hard copy or CD of the report we would be glad to do so, please contact Charlie Thompson at charliethompson@cox.net or 602-828-9734. The final report is also posted at: http://www.franke.nau.edu/RPI/.
Sincerely,
Mike Ortega Charles P. Thompson
Chairman, Board of Directors Conference Chair
Enclosure: Final Report
Michael Ortega, Chair
Cochise County
Carla Roberts, Vice Chair
AZ Community Foundation
Michael Proctor, Secretary
University of Arizona
Wayne Fox, Treasurer
Northern Arizona University
Richard Adams
Bullhead Regional EDA
Jane Bristol
City of Prescott
Debbie Broermann
HUD, SONAP
Bill Bolin
AZ Department of
Commerce
Eddie Browning
USDA, RD
Dave Castillo
SRPMIC
Cathy Connolly
Retired
Shawn Dralle
RBC Capital Markets
Angie Harmon
Freeport McMoran
Royce Jenkins
Hopi Tribe
Fred Karnas
AZ Department of Housing
Marty Laurel
Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Arizona
Sheldon Miller
Graham Co. Chamber of
Commerce
Lee Randall
Apache Gold Casino Resort
Dr. Kathy Turner
Northern Arizona United Way
Derrick Watchman
JP Morgan Chase
ADVISORY
Rich Gaar
SEAGO
Richard Kuczek
WAEDD
Craig Ringer
CAAG
Kenneth Sweet
NACOG
Arizona Rural Development Council
P.O. Box 45439
Phoenix, AZ 85064-5439
(602) 254-7700 2008 Arizona Rural Policy Forum Final Report Drug Abuse in Rural Arizona
A Project of the Arizona Rural Development Council
This report was prepared by the Arizona Rural Policy Institute, Northern Arizona University, partially funded under award #07-66-05876 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Prepared by The Arizona Rural Policy Institute A Unit of the Center for Business Outreach Jeff Peterson, Research Associate Megan Stalheim, Graduate Assistant Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 2
PARTNERS/SPONSORS We would like to give recognition to our Partners and Sponsor whose support is essential to the Forum President’s Council Corporate Rural Policy Forum Event Sponsors: Rural Policy Forum Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 4
Featured Speakers and Topic Updates...................................................................... 6
Common Risk Factors .................................................................................................. 7
Impact of Drug Abuse on Business .......................................................................... 10
What Can Be Done on a Community Level ............................................................. 12
Effective Strategies for Rural Arizona....................................................................... 15
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 19
Arizona Rural Development Council ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Panel Chairs & Recorders ..................................................................................... 20
2008 Forum Participants ........................................................................................ 20 Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 4
Executive Summary
The 2nd annual Rural Policy Forum was held July 10th and 11th, 2008, at the W.A. Franke College of Business on the Northern Arizona University Campus.
A project of the Arizona Rural Development Council, the forum provided a priceless opportunity for community and business leaders to become informed, discuss important topics, and network with others from around the state.
Drug abuse in rural Arizona was the main focus of this year’s Arizona Rural Policy Forum. The 2008 event also highlighted the current state of the three topics discussed during the 2007 forum: Affordable Housing, Workforce Training, and Recruitment and Retention of Health Care Workers in Rural Arizona.
After an intensive series of presentations and question-and-answer sessions, the participants separated into five breakout groups. Each group, guided by panel moderators, discussed both risk factors and the effects on businesses and communities. They then identified community assets for prevention and treatment, and some best practices from current efforts from around the state and country. The results of each topic have been grouped into six major categories.
Common Risk Factors
Perceived deficit in activities for children and youth in rural towns
Depressed economy and lack of quality jobs
Proximity to Mexico
Barriers to effective law enforcement due to vast distances, lack of resources, and weak prosecution
Lack of awareness of the consequences of drug abuse among potential users and parent
Communities lack essential social fabric, resulting in gang activities and other social problems.
Impact of Drug Abuse on Business
Lack of applicants who successfully pass pre-employment drug screening
Prohibitive costs of drug screening for small businesses
Employee theft, high turnover, and absenteeism
Poor workplace productivity and quality
High safety risks in potentially hazardous occupations
Drug problems with families have a ripple effect in the workplace
Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 5
What Can Be Done to Promote and Use Community Assets
Form strong public/private sector coalitions within communities
Establish effective leadership for community-based prevention efforts – identify ―champions‖ within each community
Harness the energy of youth and students
Use the highly effective statewide coordinating organizations (Partnership for a Drug-Free America, Arizona Methamphetamine Task Force, etc.) Encourage effective interaction of existing prevention, enforcement, and treatment organizations
Continue effective local/regional/tribal/statewide prevention outreach and education activities (broadcast and print media, public presentations, etc.)
Effective Strategies for Rural Arizona
Develop effective community and regional coalitions throughout rural Arizona, including private sector, government, education, and faith-based organizations
Establish the ―Willcox Model‖ as a statewide standard for community action, with due consideration of local cultural characteristics
Limit access (statewide) to pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products
Develop a ―drug abuse factsheet‖ to effectively inform policymakers about the economic impact of drug abuse
Provide incentives to establish effective regional treatment centers
Provide resources for more comprehensive drug testing activities (public employers, businesses, schools, etc)
This final report will hopefully serve as a guiding document for those involved in the epidemic of drug use in rural Arizona, with a special emphasis on Methamphetamine.
Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 6
Featured Speakers and Topic Updates
The 2008 forum began on Thursday with a series of speakers addressing the current state of topics from the 2007 forum as well as 2008’s central topic of the Impact of Drug Abuse on Rural Arizona. An update and discussion of Affordable Housing in Rural Arizona was anchored by Fred Karnas, the director of The Arizona Department of Housing; Jean Richmond-Bowman from the Arizona Housing Commission; Helen Hudgens-Ferrel, Executive Director of Bothands; and Robert King of the Arizona Community Foundation. The update and discussion of Workforce Training in the state was presented by Jody Ryan, Director of Workforce Development at the Arizona Department of Commerce, and Bill Bolin, Director of the Arizona Department of Commerce’s Rural Development Office. Joyce Hospodar, Senior Program Coordinator of the Rural Health Office at the University of Arizona’s Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Health provided the update and discussion on the Recruitment and Retention of Health Care Workers. The 2008 Forum topic, The Impact of Drugs on Arizona’s Rural Economy, was introduced and discussed at length by Leslie Bloom, CEO, and Colleen Pyra, Program Director, of the Arizona Affiliate of the Partnership for a Drug Free America. This discussion was continued on Friday morning with a presentation by Dr. Dawn Walker of Wilcox, who detailed the successful approach her community used to reduce methamphetamine abuse. Dr. Walker also provided the participants with valuable insight about the medical and social costs of methamphetamine along with prevention strategies.
Following Dr. Walker’s presentation and the ensuing question and answer session, the participants separated into five discussion groups. The groups approached the discussion by first identifying risk factors and ill effects. They then discussed community assets and defined what they saw as best practices in the fight against drug abuse. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 7
Challenges and Solutions - Economic Impact of Drug Abuse in Rural Arizona
Common Risk Factors
The five groups deliberated on the risk factors contributing to drug abuse in rural areas of Arizona. Group members identified the following common risk factors:
Perceived deficit in activities for children and youth in rural towns
Depressed economy and lack of quality jobs
Proximity to Mexico
Barriers to effective law enforcement, due to vast distances, lack of resources, and weak prosecution
Lack of awareness of the consequences of drug abuse among potential users and parents
Communities lack essential social fabric, resulting in gang activities and other social problems
Perceived Deficit in Activities for Youth Group members suggested that youth in their area perceive a lack of activities in which to participate, and may engage in drug use as an escape from boredom. Those who live in remote areas and lack transportation could be particularly susceptible to this problem. Cultural tolerance of drug use and the cultural norm of instant gratification were listed as possible causes for young people’s preference of drug use over other activities. In addition, youth may be attracted to the ―cool factors‖ of specific drugs, such as weight loss, increased energy, street credit, and fitting in with other users. Economic Depression
Group participants suggested that the high rate of unemployment or underemployment found in some areas can lead to boredom and depression, which may in turn lead to drug abuse. Lack of legitimate economic opportunity also encourages participation in the lucrative trade of drug dealing. Parents who choose to stay in legitimate low wage jobs to support their family may need to Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 8
work several jobs, leaving their children unsupervised and more likely to experiment with drugs. Poor and sparsely populated communities are attractive to dealers and meth lab operators since rent is inexpensive, law enforcement is lax, and demand for the drug is high. Dealers and bootleggers who work with impoverished users are known for cut-throat business practices such as raising prices for addicts and accepting bartered items in lieu of cash when the addict’s money runs out. These practices encourage a cycle of poverty and unemployment among drug users. Proximity to Mexican Border Recent law enforcement efforts and increased restrictions on the sale of meth components within Arizona have encouraged a shift of drug production to Mexico. Several communities located near the U.S./Mexican border have noted an increase in drugs smuggled into their communities. In addition, the legal age for alcohol consumption in Mexico is 18, which draws underage drinkers from Arizona border towns. Ineffective Law Enforcement Many barriers to effective law enforcement exist in Arizona communities, including vast distances, weak prosecution, and lack of resources. In vast, understaffed law enforcement zones, officers may be unable to execute adequate surveillance. Arrests cannot be made without proof of drug use or possession, which may be difficult or impossible. Finally, law enforcement efforts often lack the necessary funding to effectively stifle drug use and production. Lack of Public Awareness Ignorance and misperception are barriers to drug abuse prevention efforts in communities. Lack of public awareness also hinders the detection and eradication of drug abuse. In sparsely populated rural areas, drug users may be able to keep their activities concealed from other residents and law enforcement officers fairly easily. Residents who are under the mistaken impression that drug abuse is only a problem in metropolitan areas may be less likely to detect drug-related activities in their family or neighborhood. Youth may harbor misconceptions about drugs being able to help them loose weight or fit into a social circle, and remain uneducated about drugs’ long-term negative consequences. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 9
Lack of Social Fabric in Communities Individuals in contemporary society often experience a lower level of connection to others in their family and community. When family and community fail to provide individuals with social acceptance and stability, gangs and drug cliques become attractive alternatives. Decreasing levels of connectedness and accountability in communities also make drug abuse easier to hide and perpetuate. As a result, family and community activities are seen as unappealing, while drugs provide instant gratification. Whereas community residents used to know their neighbors and were aware of the activities of youth in the neighborhood, that is often not the case today. Decreased social cohesiveness in communities also makes anti-drug efforts more difficult to carry out, since the entire community must be involved in order to successfully eradicate drug abuse. Other Methamphetamine is particularly attractive to some youth because it is relatively inexpensive and easier to obtain than alcohol. It also provides an income for enterprising youth. Lighter legal penalties for youth compared to adult offenders may also serve to embolden young drug abusers. Group members also cited societal factors that contribute to drug abuse, such as parents who are not very involved in their children’s development and the rise of gang culture in rural areas and on Native American reservations. Cultural factors noted include a society which values privacy over connectedness and immediate gratification over hard work with long-term rewards. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 10
Impact of Drug Abuse on Business
The five groups deliberated on the impact of drug abuse on business in their communities. Group members identified the following key impacts:
Lack of applicants who successfully pass pre-employment drug screening
Prohibitive costs of drug screening for small businesses
Employee theft, high turnover, and absenteeism
Poor workplace productivity and quality
High safety risks in potentially hazardous occupations
Drug problems within families have a ripple effect in the workplace
Lack of applicants who successfully pass pre-employment drug screening Several businesses reported finding very low percentages of applicants who pass a drug test. When businesses are unable to find drug-free applicants, they are forced to lower their standards or recruit labor from other pools, such as recent high school graduates or workers from more distant communities. This may result in a lower-skilled workforce or additional transportation costs for the employer. Some businesses have even been forced to shut down due to a lack of available drug-free employees. Prohibitive costs of drug screening for small businesses Small businesses in particular suffer from the increased drug screening and insurance costs caused by increased drug abuse, since their expense per employee is much higher than that of a large business. Discussion participants noted that small businesses are often unable to afford drug screening, and may only become aware of drug abuse among employees through decreased work performance or legal charges brought against the employee. As a result, small businesses face great problems with employee retention due to drug abuse. Employee theft, high turnover, and absenteeism
When businesses are forced to hire employees without performing a pre-employment drug screening or when employees develop drug abuse problems after their hire, employers observe higher instances of employee theft, turnover, and absenteeism. Even drug users who are productive workers when they are Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 11
present might go on ―benders‖ and miss work for an entire week or more when the company needs them most. Poor workplace productivity and quality Employees who abuse drugs are routinely less productive at work. They often come to work under the influence of drugs, physically exhausted, emotionally disturbed, or lacking motivation. The quality of their performance as well as the volume of work they are able to accomplish suffers measurably. High safety risks in potentially hazardous occupations Employees working under the influence of drugs put themselves and others under great risk of physical injury or death when operating heavy machinery. Drug problems within families have a ripple effect in the workplace Employees who have drug problems in their families are often less productive at work due to stress and increased absenteeism. They often need to leave work suddenly or miss work in order to deal with the problems of their drug abusing family member(s). Youth with drug-abusing parents who often miss work are more likely to abuse drugs themselves and copy their parents’ poor work habits. Other Even though youth are the primary focus of many methamphetamine prevention efforts, the average age for meth users is 32. Since the average user is in prime child-rearing years, the quality of parenting and domestic work may suffer as drastically as the quality of work which takes place outside of the home. When meth users fail at their jobs as parents, children are removed from the household and sent to adoption agencies. This process is quite costly for the county. In Pima County, 700 children are currently available for adoption, and drug use is the primary reason they have been removed from their homes. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 12
What Can Be Done on a Community Level
Participants were asked to identify what can be done on a community level to promote community assets (families, faith based, schools, programs) to deter drug abuse in rural communities?
Form strong public/private sector coalitions within communities
Establish effective leadership for community-based prevention efforts—identify ―champions‖ within each community
Harness the energy of youth and students
Use the highly effective statewide coordinating organizations (Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Methamphetamine Task Force, etc.)
Encourage effective interaction of existing prevention/ enforcement/ treatment organizations
Continue and increase effective local/regional/tribal/statewide prevention outreach and education activities (i.e., broadcast and print media, public presentations)
Form strong public/private sector coalitions within communities “Looking only to government may not be the best solution.” Most groups noted that the skills of both private and public entities are necessary to successfully address the issue. The assets of the community exist both within and outside the government. As mentioned repeatedly during the forum’s presentations and discussions as well as the background report, drug abuse is a financial drain on private firms through such issues as employee turnover and theft. Businesses should be cooperative if they realize that their best interest lies in the eradication of this problem. The public and private sectors have different skill sets; using every approach possible is the surest way to solve the problem. It will be necessary to define the common interests of the sectors.
The motivations and assets of the private sector will vary. For-profit businesses require a competent, drug-free workforce and have financial power over their employees. Nonprofits, churches, and educational institutions exist to better the community and provide essential services and outreach. As one attendee stated Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 13
in the post-forum questionnaire, ―Are we relying solely on government to solve our problems? That is a recipe for disaster.‖ Establish effective leadership for community-based prevention efforts—identify “champions” within each community Leadership is essential when bringing together the mix of service providers necessary to enact such extensive social action. Finding the right leadership within the community is necessary, and these people must be groomed to address the long-term problem. Leadership needs to be identified, and existing assets need to be outlined and involved. It has been repeated that leadership needs to be identified by those involved. From the identified leadership locals must appoint ―champions‖ who direct and mobilize the assets available and lead a strong task force to tackle the issue. The leader of each coalition depends on the community. It is important to accurately identify where the leadership lies. Leaders may be anywhere, from government to the business community to youth leadership. Picking the right person for the job is essential. Harness the energy of youth and students Youth summits were mentioned by several groups. A number of outgoing questionnaires lamented the lack of a youth voice in the forum’s drug discussions. Young people are not only a significant portion of the users in many areas, they are also an essential part of the community and can provide insight into many of the factors that contribute to drug use. Student and youth leaders are needed in order to bring up the issues of this significant portion of stakeholders. The unique insights they have into the problem may hold the key to solving the issue for young people. Use the highly effective statewide coordinating organizations (i.e., Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Methamphetamine Task Force, etc.)
Arizona is fortunate to have a number of talented statewide coordinating agencies. Participants discussed the need for outside experts to work directly with local systems and leadership in promoting the development of a sustainable, culturally appropriate plan for individual communities. Teams of experts can help provide direction and support to local leaders. These locals can then mobilize their assets, address relevant barriers and take action in consideration of the local culture and resources. Direction from such experts will ensure that Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 14
interventions are rooted in evidence-based practice and that locally crafted responses apply patterns that have proven successful. Local drug-abuse coalitions should use the services and knowledge of such groups as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and the Arizona Methamphetamine Task Force. Effective interaction of existing prevention/enforcement/treatment organizations The existing groups should work together to create new strategies and emulate proven best practices. Simply enforcing the rules and policies already in place would lead to reductions in incidences of drug use. There is a general consensus that there are many rural community assets available to deter drug abuse. Every community has its unique mix of organizations already in place. Even very small communities use state and county law enforcement resources. Many are home to additional prevention and treatment organizations. Panel recommendations advocate the effective use of these currently available resources, both alone and in collaboration with each other. In terms of mobilizing these various entities, acknowledging the problem and assessing how each views it must come first. The chosen leadership must bear in mind the different viewpoints. Assets need to be identified and utilized, including medical facilities, schools, townspeople, churches, community groups, law enforcement, stay at home parents, social services, and young people. Continue and increase effective local/regional/tribal/statewide prevention outreach and education activities (i.e., broadcast and print media, public presentations) Education has proven effective in reducing meth use. The Montana Meth Project and successors such as the Arizona Meth Project and the National Indian Country Meth Initiative have worked to drastically reduce the number of people who use the drug. These projects use highly visible media to deliver messages about drug abuse. Most groups agreed that the use of such projects should continue and be more widespread. The people reached by these messages become educated about the consequences of drug use, the risks of addiction, and the effects of drug use on others. The effective continued use of a successful and proven program is something everyone can agree on. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 15
Other The groups mentioned other community assets that didn’t necessarily fit in the six major categories above. Reports stressed the fact that tailoring efforts to individual communities is essential. No two places will be identical, and what works in one place will not work exactly the same in another. Treatment should be both accessible and affordable for those who need it. This is especially important for those arrested and convicted, as the motivation to quit the drug will be high. Therefore, rehabilitation programs should be more widespread and available wherever the drug problem is found. Drug testing is often repeated as a necessary approach. Where testing is appropriate is often debated. Some believe testing should be applied to students, teachers, and all government workers. A group even recommended the testing of certain private employees. One group was concerned that local governments might not always be trusted to tackle problems like this. Because they often have competing obligations they may mishandle their duties. In this case other community assets might be more appropriate managers of drug policy. School districts and community centers were specifically mentioned.
Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 16
Effective Strategies for Rural Arizona
The final topic discussed by breakout groups focused on identifying the best practices to address and create momentum in the fight against substance abuse. These were identified as the best strategies for rural Arizona.
Develop effective community and regional coalitions throughout rural Arizona, including private sector, government, education, and faith-based organizations
Establish the ―Willcox Model‖ as a statewide standard for community action, with due consideration of local cultural characteristics
Limit access (statewide) to pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products
Develop a ―drug abuse factsheet‖ to effectively inform policy makers about the economic impact of drug abuse
Provide incentives to establish effective regional treatment centers
Provide resources for more comprehensive drug testing activities (businesses, schools, etc.)
Develop effective community and regional coalitions throughout rural Arizona, including private sector, government, education, and faith-based organizations The best anti-drug plans are supported by regional and community coalitions. These include teachers, school administrators, corporations, local businesses, and all possible public agencies. There is really no limit to the amount of people and organizations that should participate. Effective coalitions need structure and accountability, and they must be based on the uniqueness of specific areas. A community may need to use consensus or democratic models, depending on its cultural aspects. Leadership is as important as the participants. Although each area will require certain unique approaches, the available examples are many, and communities should use the work of others as a model. It is also important to use the resources that are available through the state and federal governments as well as non-governmental resources such as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 17
Establish the “Willcox Model” as a statewide standard for community action, with due consideration of local cultural characteristics The approach Willcox took to address its meth problem should serve as a model for the entire state. The city took many of the best practices available and integrated them into a comprehensive and effective plan. Willcox’ Methamphetamine Task Force promoted education at every opportunity. It educated physicians about prevention and identifying meth-related illnesses. It used free advertising donated by the movie theatre, newspaper, and radio station, to reach people all over town. Medical and law-enforcement personnel presented educational forums to community organizations, local businesses and schools. Over-the-counter sales of pseudoephedrine were limited. Many businesses implemented random and pre-employment drug tests. Even the Willcox Unified School District implemented random testing of students. The Task Force facilitated treatment programs through the hospital and partnerships with larger cities. Limit access (statewide) to pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products Limiting access to pseudoephedrine has reduced the amount of locally-produced meth in communities across the country. Many states have laws requiring limited access, and some communities in Arizona do as well. Many groups suggested passing a state law to this effect. Develop a “drug abuse factsheet” to effectively inform policymakers about the economic impact of drug abuse Because education has proven to be an effective tool in this fight, the groups suggested creating a consistent fact sheet that can focus on different problems associated with drug abuse. While many policy makers may understand the personal toll the drug makes, they may be unaware of the economic impact. It has been proven that the effects of drug use go well beyond the negative personal impacts seen in most anti-drug campaigns. If more people were aware of the costs to government and private enterprises, there might be more community buy-in. Several groups suggested a significant increase in funding aimed at drug abuse education. Provide incentives to establish effective regional treatment centers
The success of treatment programs moved several groups to advocate for increased incentives for creating treatment centers. This is important in communities as well as the prisons, as drug addicts either check themselves into treatment or do so under the direction of law enforcement. Participants called for Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 18
an increase in funds and other resources offered to communities as an incentive to provide more treatment opportunities. Provide resources for more comprehensive drug testing activities (businesses, schools, etc.) Drug tests seem to have a dampening effect on drug use rates. Who and when to test is sometimes debated. Groups differed in who they believed should face drug test. Alternately, schools (employees and students), law enforcement, governmental institutions, and certain businesses were mentioned. Different communities will see different priorities and privacy issues. However, because of the proven success of testing programs, communities should be able to test when they decide to do so. Funding, expertise, and other resources should be offered to communities that choose to use drug tests. Other Other best practices participants noted are worth mentioning. One group emphasized that many cultures use certain drugs in cultural and religious ceremonies. These culturally-appropriate instances of drug use need to be respected and separated from the definition of drug abuse. Some suggested reforming legislation that deals with the complex and specific issues off meth use. Because the abuse of this drug leads to such severe consequences, it deserves special consideration in federal, state, and local law. This approach might go as far as using creative sentencing that implements education as well as punishment. Another suggestion was to tie sobriety in with eligibility for public resources and social privileges, such as the legal right to drive. Also discussed was the inclusion of ―non-traditional‖ participants in discussing solutions. Some people mentioned were homeowners, mail carriers, families of drug users, and the users themselves. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 19
Conclusion
Nearly all of rural Arizona is touched somehow by the negative effects of illegal drug abuse. The problem crosses all lines, between personal, professional, and community life. The solution to the problem can be found in the many approaches that have been used already around the state and the country. By working together and using all the resources available, communities and the entire state can stop the growth of the drug problem and eventually eradicate it.
This can be accomplished by implementing a combination of incentives, punishments, and cultural pressures. If people living together can successfully apply these three tools, the negative results of drug abuse can be stamped out. Governments and organizations tasked with solving the problem must use their resources to provide the proper tools for locals to tackle their individual situations. The best practices are available to imitate. Strong, current methods can be encouraged and enhanced. With a concentrated, collaborative effort put into place, next year’s Rural Policy Forum can include dozens of examples of small victories in Arizona’s fight against rural drug abuse.
Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 20
Appendix
Panel Chairs & Recorders
Group
Moderator
Recorder
Ponderosa
Mike Ortega
Corrie Griffith
Aspen
Marty Laurel
Allie Stender-Mrazek
Juniper
Eddie Browning
Eslir Musta
Pinon
Carol Sanger
Jaina Moan
Palo Verde
Jane Whitmire
Stefanie Kunze Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 21
2008 Forum Participants
Mike Albertson Health Solutions and Market Intelligence Arthur Batala The Hopi Tribe Tom Belshe League of Arizona Cities and Towns Leslie Bloom Partnership for Drug Free America Larisa Bogardus Town of Springerville Connie Boggs Pinetop-Lakeside Main Street/Economic Development Bill Bolin Arizona Department of Commerce Leah Bornstein Coconino Community College Sheila Breen Grand Canyon Unified School District Eddie Browning USDA Rural Development Marc Chopin NAU - W.A. Franke College of Business Madeleine Coil United Way of Yuma County, Inc. Glenn Cummings Gila River Indian Community Aja DeZeeuw Town of Superior Teri Drew NACOG Suzanne Drum SEAGO Eric Duthie Town of Taylor Maria Echeveste Bank of America Rebecca Flanagan U.S. Housing and Urban Development Keith Fish Town of Taylor Wayne Fox WA Franke College of Business Laurie Frost Navajo County Richard Gaar SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization Kathy Gallagher DNA Peoples Legal Services Mason Gerety NAU Kathleen Gomez Southeast Arizona Medical Center John Grahame Coconino County Sustainable Economic Development Initiative Judy Gresser Arizona Community Foundation L. H. Hamilton Cochise County Facilities Management Angie Harmon Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc. Peg Harmon Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona Leila Help-Tulley Navajo Nation Legislative Branch Mignonne Hollis Cochise College Bill Holmes Wells Fargo Todd D. Honyaoma, Sr. Hopi Tribe Joyce Hospodar Rural Health Office, UA MEZCOPH Chuck Hoyack Cochise College Helen Hudgens-Ferrell Bothands Matt Jewett Children's Action Alliance Fred Karnas Arizona Department of Housing Kelley Keffer-Marsh Mohave Community College Gary Kellogg Partnership For Economic Development Robert King Arizona Community Foundation Carl Kinney Arizona Housing Finance Authority Jeffrey Kros League of Arizona Cities and Towns Romalita Laban Walpai Housing Management Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 22
Marty Laurel Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Connie Leto Citizens Against Substance Abuse Todd Madeksza County Supervisors Association of Arizona Gary Marks Prescott Valley Economic Development Foundation Chris Martin Southern Gila County EDC David Maurer Prescott Chamber of Commerce Cindy May APS Jeff McCormick Arizona Department of Commerce Mike McElmury APS Stephanie McKinney National Bank of Arizona Nancy McLain AZ House of Representatives Jen Miles Mohave County Randy Nelson AWC SBDC George Nerhan Town of Huachuca City Lloyd Notah, Jr. Office of Planning and Evaluation Sally Odette APS Michael Ortega Cochise County Dana Overson EDAC Corporation Rayna Palmer Apache Junction Chamber of Commerce Lynne Pancrazi Arizona State Legislation Julie Pastrick Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce Gaye Perry Central Arizona College Donna Phipps APS Barbara Poley The Hopi Foundation Sara Presler Mayor, City of Flagstaff Mike Proctor University of Arizona - CALS Colleen Pyra Partnership for a Drug Free America Renee RedDog Tohono O'odham Ki:Ki Association Bill Regner Clarkdale Planning & Zoning Daniel Rhodes Yuma Police Department Everett Rhodes Project CENTRL Jean Richmond-Bowman Toltec Strategies Carla Roberts ACF/AZRDC Chris Romiti Central Arizona College Casey Rooney City of Cottonwood Economic Development James Rounds Elliott D. Pollack Jody Ryan AZ Department of Commerce Carol Sanger Arizona Community Foundation Don Schoening Arizona Western College Lynne Skelton Town of Sahuarita Danny Smith City of Safford Gary Smith Unisource Energy Services Richard Smith Flagstaff Medical Center Ken Sweet NACOG Carl Taylor Coconino County Charlie Thompson Community Advisor Kathy Turner United Way of Northern Arizona Nils Urman City of Nogales Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 23
Ken Volz Payson Regional Economic Development Corporation Dawn Walker Northern Coconino Community Hospital Heather Walker HWC Ron Walker Mohave County Kim Winter Williams Chamber of Commerce Nancy Welch Morrison Institute for Public Policy, ASU Marshall Whitmire RCI Surveys, Inc. Annette Zinky Small Business Development Center
The Arizona Rural Development Council would like to thank Michael Lainoff, Thomas Combrink, Jeff Peterson, and Megan Stalheim of the Arizona Rural Policy Institute for developing the background and final reports for this forum.
The Board of Directors would like to also thank Arizona Public Service Company and Freeport-McMoran Copper and Gold, Inc., for the printing and mailing services they provided for the forum. Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 24
FEDERAL
Ms. Debbie Broermann 2nd term, 2009
Grants Management Director HUD SW Office of Native American Programs
Mr. Eddie Browning 2nd term, 2010
State Director US Department of Agriculture – Rural Development
STATE
Mr. Bill Bolin 1st term, 2009
Rural Development Director Arizona Department of Commerce
Mr. Fred Karnas 1st term, 2010
Director Arizona Department of Housing
LOCAL
Term ends 2009
Ms. Jane Bristol 1st term, 2008
Economic Development Director
City of Prescott
Mr. Sheldon Miller 2nd term, 2010
Executive Director Graham County Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Mike Ortega, Chair 1st term, 2008
Cochise County Manager
22000088
BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 25
NON-PROFIT
Ms. Carla Roberts, Vice Chair 1st term, 2008
Vice President of Affiliates Arizona Community Foundation
Dr. Kathy Turner 1st term, 2010
Vice president of Community Initiatives
PRIVATE
Ms. Angie Harmon Filling, 2009
Manager, Community Affairs Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc
Mr. Marty Laurel Filling, 2008
Vice President for Community Relations Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona
Mr. Lee Randall Filling, 2008
General Manager
Apache Gold Casino Resort
Term ends 2010
TRIBAL
Mr. Royce Jenkins 1st term 2008 Director, Office of Community Planning & Economic Development The Hopi Tribe
Mr. Derrick Watchman 2nd Term, 2009
Vice President
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Native American Banking
Arizona Rural Policy Forum 2008 – Final Report 26
AT-LARGE
Term ends 2009 Ms. Cathy Connolly 1st term, 2009 Ms. Shawn Dralle 1st term, 2010 Managing Director RBC Capital Markets Mr. Wayne Fox, Treasurer 2nd term, 2010 Assistant Dean – College of Business Administration Northern Arizona University
Mr. Michael Proctor, Secretary 1st term, 2008
Assistant Dean College of Agriculture and Life Sciences University of Arizona
COGs: Advisory
Mr. Rich Gaar
Executive Director SouthEastern Arizona Government Organization (SEAGO)
Mr. Richard Kuczek
Director Western Arizona Economic Development District (WAEDD)
Mr. Craig Ringer
Deputy Director Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG)
Ms. Teri Drew
Regional Director Northern Arizona Council of Governments
Staff
Ms. Pat Schroeder, CED Kimberly Perez
Executive Director HomeTown Competitiveness Coordinator
05/17/07
