[AFF Question:]{.underline}

**Can the PPB/Coalition be one and the same or do we have to establish a
separate Policy Prevention Board?**

During discussions with various coalition members over the last few
months the question has come up about the flexibility to tailor the PPB
concept in a way that works for our community coalition.  

[Response:]{.underline}

The Prevention Policy Board (PPB), composed of key policymakers, is
expected to work in conjunction with the CPP Coalition. Communities can
determine how the PPB and Coalition interact. For example, the PPB can
exist as a completely separate group or can function as a component of
the CPP Coalition, as a subcommittee, advisory group, workgroup or
executive board.  Whatever the arrangement, CPP projects must engage
policymakers in the local CPP process.

The PPB is seen as a critical component of the CPP process because of
the vital role policy makers can play in supporting and furthering local
prevention efforts. The involvement of policy makers and the emphasis on
environmental and policy change are unique aspects of the CPP
initiative. CPP emphasizes policy change and engagement of policy
makers, because research has shown that policy change is one of the most
effective strategies for changing unhealthy behaviors. For example,
raising the cost of cigarettes has been found to be one of the most
effective means of lowering smoking rates overall and among youth.
Policy change also helps address sustainability of local CPP efforts.
For more information about the role of policy in changing youth smoking
trends, access:
[[http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2006/cigarette-price-drop-led-to.html]{.underline}](http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2006/cigarette-price-drop-led-to.html).

**1. Page 11 in the AFF, is the baseline readiness assessment the
collaboration survey?** 

As a part of Step 2 of the CPP process, communities are being asked to
assess coalition readiness, community readiness and infrastructure
readiness to address [underage drinking prevention]{.underline} and any
additional issue that they wish to focus on during the CPP initiative.

Recommended assessment tools for coalition and community readiness are
contained within ASPIRE. The recommended coalition assessment tool is an
adapted version of *Working Together*, a survey that assesses
collaboration effectiveness. The recommended community readiness
assessment tool is an adapted version of the *TriEthnic Center's
Community Readiness Assessment.* Both tools have been piloted and
adapted to support the CPP process. Communities may wish to administer
these tools on an annual or biannual basis to monitor change. You may
review the recommended assessment tools in ASPIRE
(<http://aspire2.omni.org/SPFSIG/Default.aspx>[)]{.underline}, using
your user id provided at the regional training and on the CD-ROM of
training materials.

The infrastructure assessment tool will be used as an evaluation tool as
well as a readiness assessment. This tool is currently being piloted and
will be ready in the new fiscal year for use by CPP communities. One
baseline measure for evaluation and readiness using this tool will be
needed during fiscal year 2006-07. This tool will be implemented for
subsequent annual measures on a schedule coordinated with the OMNI
evaluation team.

As shown in the CPP Strategic Plan template shared at the spring 2006
regional trainings, CPP communities are being asked to assess coalition,
community and infrastructure readiness and to use this information to
guide the development of sections of the community's prevention plan.
Using the assessment tools contained within ASPIRE will make completion
of the strategic plan in ASPIRE straightforward, but other coalition and
community readiness assessment tools may be utilized (Only the
infrastructure assessment tool will be required. Please note, however,
that whatever assessment tool is used, it should be specific to the
issues of [underage drinking]{.underline} in order to best support your
strategic planning process.

If your community has recently administered a version of *Working
Together* and/or the *TriEthnic Center's Community Readiness
Assessment*, please consider carefully whether the information speaks
well enough to underage drinking prevention and the parties involved in
the local CPP effort. Note that some Drug Free Communities recipients
may have already administered the CPP coalition assessment tool as a
part of their evaluations. These communities should determine whether
the same data is applicable to the CPP planning process. You may wish to
consult your OMNI Regional Prevention Consultant (and evaluation team
contact, if OMNI is your DFC evaluator) for more information.

**2. What is the timeline for completion of the ASPIRE system to be
completely ready for community use?**

Please keep in mind that most communities are currently using the
pre-planning period to build capacity and identify stakeholders that
will help support needs assessment activities, to be conducted in the
next fiscal year.  OMNI, RPCs and evaluation staff plan to work with
communities the end of August/early September to lay groundwork for
initial data meetings with small community workgroups. ASPIRE trainings
also are being planned as a follow up to the regional training. These
dates will be communicated through the local evaluation liaison listserv
and RPCs will be notified.  

OMNI will continue to develop and enhance ASPIRE throughout the CPP
initiative to improve its capabilities for supporting local and state
needs assessment activities. This is a major objective in Colorado's
Strategic Plan for building the state's prevention infrastructure.

As per an email that was sent through the listserv to local evaluation
liaisons on June 21^st^, important changes have been made that are
improving the system's geographical mapping capabilities.  Migration of
a large dataset also was underway to increase the number of indicators
available through the system. OMNI encouraged you to delay of use of
Step 1 in the ASPIRE system until these changes were made. System work
on Step 1 will be completed after the 4^th^ of July holiday, by July
6^th^ (instead of July 3^rd^). You will be able to use ASPIRE and save
your work at that time. Please note that you should direct technical
issues and questions concerning ASPIRE to Mike Schultz (extension 57,
<mschultz@omni.org>), the new CPP ASPIRE point person.

The goal is to have all 3 components of ASPIRE ready for use starting in
the new funding year. In the meantime, you can utilize Step 1 and Step 2
of the system. For option 2 communities, the readiness assessment tools
in Step 2 will provide useful information, as well, for community
prevention plans and will require some time for administration. **  **

**3. Can the evaluator position and coordinator position be filled by
the same person?**

Yes, these positions can be filled by the same person. Please note that
.5 FTE is required for the CPP Coordinator position and .25 FTE is
required for the CPP Local Evaluation Liaison position. Thus, a single
individual will be required to dedicate .75 FTE to both positions.
However, it is acceptable and encouraged for a community to hire
different staff people for the two positions, as this process will allow
the community to develop additional capacity. Please review the job
descriptions for both positions provided in Appendix C and D in the
Application Instructions and Packet. These positions require different
skill sets.

Also, communities should carefully consider whether they are better
served by the having the position filled by one or two individuals.
Applicants planning to utilize a single person as both Coordinator and
Local Evaluation Liaison should address his/her availability to dedicate
.75 FTE to these positions.

**4. Can the CPP local evaluation liaison be shared by multiple
communities?**

The CPP Management Team believes there is value in each community having
its own CPP local evaluation liaison, especially if this person lives in
the community and can serve in this capacity in ongoing and future
community prevention work. At the same time, the CPP Management Team
recognizes the need to be flexible and work with communities to
determine what staffing will best meet local needs.

Some issues you may wish to consider first before submitting a proposal
to share a local evaluation liaison in your 2006-07 CPP application
include:

-   If you share an evaluation liaison, you may not have the opportunity
    to build or utilize local evaluation capacity in your community for
    the CPP effort. Having a local evaluation liaison may be an
    important way to address sustainability beyond the initiative.

-   If you do share an evaluation liaison, you may have some travel cost
    savings for state and regional trainings, however you will also have
    to budget for travel to each of the participating counties.

-   Evaluation activities for communities likely will occur at the same
    time. While some accommodation can be made to help ensure
    coordination across communities, it is likely that the evaluation
    liaison will be busier during some periods and not busy during
    others. It may be difficult for the evaluation liaison to juggle the
    different priorities of different communities during busier periods.

-   Approximately .25 FTE total will still be required to fulfill the
    evaluation responsibilities for each community, whether these are
    shared or assigned to a single local staff person. Sharing an
    evaluation liaison will not significantly reduce the time that an
    evaluation liaison will spend working with the individual
    communities, although it will cut down on travel costs to state
    level meetings and regional trainings by sending one person to
    represent all of the participating counties. Each community will
    still be required to contribute .25 FTE to this position.

-   If you plan on sharing an evaluation liaison, you should allocate a
    minimum of .15 FTE to fund someone locally to coordinate and enter
    data and work with OMNI evaluation staff. Proximity may be very
    helpful as the Community Level Instrument (to be administered every
    6 months starting in the winter of 2006/early 2007) and COKIT (to be
    used regularly once strategic plan is funded) are implemented.

**5. Can we submit an implementation plan with this application instead
of a scope of work for planning?**

Communities should submit a scope of work for planning with this
application. The CPP Strategic Plan will serve as your application for
implementation funds. Please refer to the CD-ROM of regional training
materials for the template of this strategic plan. Once the strategic
plan has been reviewed and discussed with the CPP Management Team, to
ensure alignment between federal, state and local goals and objectives
and to the Strategic Prevention Framework, communities will be allocated
implementation funds.

**6. Do we need to allocate funding to support travel of the Local
Evaluation to meetings that do not address evaluation specifically? This
can be costly for communities that are far from Denver.**

The CPP Management Team has asked communities to budget travels funds
for both the CPP Project Coordinator and the Local Evaluation Liaison to
attend CPP Advisory Council and Community Infrastructure (two full day)
meetings three times a year, plus annual two-day regional trainings
(which may be in your community, or at least closer than Denver). The
Strategic Prevention Framework and state level activities have important
implications for local evaluation activities. In addition, one goal of
Community Infrastructure meetings and regional trainings will be to
address community evaluation issues. The CPP Management Team, however,
is willing to work with communities and to consider alternatives
proposed in community applications. Please provide rationale in your
applications for proposing a different arrangement for CPP Advisory
Council and Community Infrastructure meetings. CPP Local Evaluation
Liaisons still will need to participate in regional trainings.

**In 1994 the Institute of Medicine (IOM) developed a new way to
conceptualize prevention that differed from the historical public health
system categories of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention
(National Institute for Drug Abuse (1995). The IOM model includes three
prevention classifications based on the degree of risk factors in the
target population: these are universal, selective, and indicated. This
classification was adopted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Administration (SAMHSA), the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
(CSAP) and the Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies
(CAPTS). The model is also part of the national Substance Abuse
Prevention Specialist Training (SAPST) that is provided in Colorado
through the Regional Prevention Services Project at OMNI. Regional
Prevention Consultants can provide follow up technical assistance on
this subject.**

**The IOM Continuum of Care, seen below, shows how the universal,
selective and indicated prevention categories fit into the whole
continuum of care, or wrap around services, that take place in
addressing substance abuse.**

The three prevention categories in the Institute of Medicine's
Prevention Classification

are defined as follows:

• Universal strategies address the entire population;

• Selective strategies focus on subsets or subgroups of the population
exposed to greater levels of risk;

• Indicated strategies are designed to prevent the onset of substance
abuse in individuals who have initiated the use of alcohol or other
drugs of first use.

**7.** **How much should we budget for the Healthy Kids Colorado
Survey?  We\'ve heard that there may be additional costs for reports.\
** \
Please budget \$2.00 per student.  This will cover basic costs
associated with the survey effort (ordering booklets, scanning, etc.). 
Analysis and reporting will be covered by OMNI\'s contract with ADAD, so
no additional fees or costs need to be built in. \
 \
Of course, you can build in additional funds to support your local work
as it relates to survey.  For example, you may want to build in funds
that will support a special meeting of the coalition or PPB to review
school data, youth and school incentives for participating in the
survey, assistance with survey administration and coordination, etc.

![](media/image1.png){width="5.997916666666667in"
height="3.4791666666666665in"}

**[\
Universal]{.underline}**

Universal prevention strategies address the entire population (national,
local community, school, grade, and neighborhood) with messages and
programs aimed at preventing or delaying the abuse of alcohol, tobacco
and other drugs. For example, it would include the general population
and subgroups such as pregnant women, children, adolescents, 7th
graders, gender groups, and the elderly.

The mission of universal prevention is to deter the onset of substance
abuse by providing all individuals the information and skills necessary
to prevent the problem. All members of the population are seen to share
the same general risk for substance abuse, although risk levels may vary
greatly between individuals. Universal prevention programs are delivered
to large groups without any prior screening for substance abuse risk.
The entire population is assessed as at risk for substance abuse and
capable of benefiting from prevention programs.

**[Selective]{.underline}**

Selective prevention strategies focus on subsets of the total population
that are deemed to be exposed to greater levels of risk for substance
abuse by virtue of their membership in a particular population
segment---for example, children of adult alcoholics, students who are
failing academically or who are exposed to other risk factors. Risk
groups may be identified on the basis of biological, psychological,
social, or environmental risk factors known to be associated with
substance abuse (IOM 1994) and focused subgroups may be defined by age,
gender, and family history, place of residence such as high drug-use or
low-income neighborhoods and victimization by physical and/or sexual
abuse. Selective prevention focuses on the entire subgroup regardless of
the degree of risk of any individual within the group. One individual in
the subgroup may be at low personal risk for substance abuse, while
another person in the same subgroup may already be abusing substances.
The selective prevention program is presented to the entire subgroup
because the subgroup as a whole is at higher risk for substance abuse
than the general population.

An individual's personal risk is not specifically assessed or identified
and is based solely on a presumption given his or her membership in the
higher risk subgroup.

**[Indicated]{.underline}**

Indicated prevention strategies are designed to prevent the onset of
substance abuse in individuals who do not meet DSM-IV criteria for
addiction, but who are showing early danger signs, such as falling
grades and consumption of alcohol and other gateway drugs. The mission
of indicated prevention is to identify individuals who are exhibiting
early signs of substance abuse and other problem behaviors associated
with substance abuse and to focus on them with special programs. The
individuals are exhibiting substance abuse-like behavior, but at a
sub-clinical level (IOM 1994).

**Below are some examples of universal, selective, and indicated
strategies that NIDA has shown can be effective in reducing substance
abuse when implemented in schools, families, or communities. ???**

![](media/image2.png){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="7.589583333333334in"}