The Spring Branch Coalition of The Coalition of Behavioral Health Services
Drug Free Communities Grant
Project Director: Dr. Sandy Olson, Ph.D
Evaluation Firm: Knowledge Informatics and Research Services
Lead Evaluator: J. Valdez
CONNECTING COMMUNITIES THAT CARE
FOR SPRING BRANCH
EVALUATION RELATIONSHIP TO DFC GOAL
EVALUATION PROCESS DIAGRAM
• Where
• Who
• What
Define
Assess
• Setting
• Resources
• Progress
Report
• Collecting Data
• Information
Sharing
• Activity Actions
Plan
• Findings
• Status
• Next Steps
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Source: COMET Reporting System Logic Model
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE

The Spring Branch Community, specifically the north of I-10 side.

Adolescents, specifically those ages 12-17 and in Grades 6
through 12.

Hispanics and those of low socioeconomic status.
Source: COMET Reporting System Logic Model
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
CDFSB – (N=11) Locally Developed Community Stakeholder Survey
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS
Measure
Past 30-Day Use
Substance
Alcohol
Marijuana
Tobacco
Grade (7)
16.9
4.0
4.8
Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12)
22.4
29.4
34.2
38.0
45.2
5.7
9.8
12.7
14.2
15.3
6.4
10.7
15.6
19.0
24.0
Past 30-Day Use
50.0
45.2
45.0
38.0
40.0
34.2
35.0
29.4
30.0
20.0
24.0
22.4
25.0
19.0
16.9
15.3
12.7 14.2
15.0
5.7
10.0
9.8
6.4
10.7
4.8
4.0
5.0
15.6
0.0
Alcohol
Grade (7)
Marijuana
Grade (8)
Past 30-Day Use
% of People Who Used
Sample Size
Grade (9)
Tobacco
Grade (10)
Alcohol
Grade (11)
Tobacco
Grade (12)
Marijuana
34.0%
14.4%
13.8%
647690
275434
260714
Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS
Measure
Age of Onset (yrs old)
Substance
Alcohol
Marijuana
Tobacco
Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12)
10.6
11.2
11.9
12.6
13.3
13.9
11.6
12.2
12.9
13.5
14.4
14.8
11.5
12.2
12.9
13.6
14.5
12.9
Age of Onset (yrs old)
18.0
17.0
16.0
13.3 13.9
14.0
12.9
12.9
12.9
11.6 12.2
11.2 11.9
12.0
13.6
13.5
12.6
13.0
11.0
14.5
14.4 14.8
15.0
11.5 12.2
10.6
10.0
Alcohol
Grade (7)
Marijuana
Grade (8)
Age of Onset
Average Age of Onset
% of People Who Used
Sample Size
Grade (9)
Tobacco
Grade (10)
Grade (11)
Alcohol
Grade (12)
Tobacco
Marijuana
12.6
12.9
13.6
20.6%
28.3%
22.0%
951901
588185
444706
Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS
Measure
Perception of Parental Disapproval
Substance
Alcohol
Marijuana
Tobacco
Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12)
88.8
84.1
76.8
71.0
67.6
65.0
86.5
87.6
87.6
86.1
86.2
85.4
87.2
87.0
85.1
83.6
80.9
75.6
Perception of Parental Disapproval
100.0
90.0
80.0
88.8
84.1
86.5
76.8
71.0
87.6 87.6
86.1
86.2
85.4
87.2
87.0
85.1
83.6
80.9
75.6
67.6
65.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Alcohol
Grade (7)
Marijuana
Grade (8)
Grade (9)
Perception of Parental Disapproval
% of People Who Used
Sample Size
Grade (10)
Alcohol
Tobacco
Grade (11)
Tobacco
Grade (12)
Marijuana
78.23%
83.57%
86.50%
1371000
1468000
1514812
Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS
Measure
Perception of Risk
Substance
Alcohol
Marijuana
Tobacco
Grade (7) Grade (8) Grade (9) Grade (10) Grade (11) Grade (12)
80.9
75.3
74.1
75.4
76.2
77.8
88.8
84.1
76.8
71.0
67.6
65.0
88.4
83.1
77.8
73.1
70.1
66.9
Perception of Risk
100.0
90.0
80.0
88.8 84.1
80.9 75.3 74.1 75.4 76.2 77.8
88.4 83.1
77.8 73.1 70.1 66.9
76.8 71.0
67.6 65.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Alcohol
Grade (7)
Marijuana
Grade (8)
Perception of Risk
% of People Who Used
Sample Size
Grade (9)
Tobacco
Grade (10)
Alcohol
Grade (11)
Grade (12)
Tobacco
Marijuana
76.5%
77.0%
75.9%
1276000
1299000
1222000
Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS

Remember this speaks of Region 6 Schools and without a power
analysis it, we can not say much statistically. But we can use this
as a baseline expectation.

We should expect alcohol to be the most used substance for kids as young as 10
yrs old and very likely about a 1/3 of kids 15 or older will likely be using alcohol.

Parents are delivering the message of their disapproval, but are becoming
complacent or burning-out on stating their disapproval as children grow older,
concerning alcohol.


The substance use is harmful message is out there to about ¾ of kids
grades 7-12, but parental fatigue for stating their disapproval, risk taking is
being sought by younger children, and counter message experience is
causing the harm message to wane in terms of impact.
Justifies efforts that go beyond the conventional “deliver the message of harm”
approach, and should also be augmented by efforts derived by strategies that can
impact the environment.
Source: 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12
Use
Tobacco
Genders
Grades
Use
Alcohol
Genders
Grades
Use
Marijuana
Genders
Grades
All
M
F
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
All
M
F
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
All
M
F
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
Spring Branch ISD
Survey
Local
VI
Region
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
12
275434
394
5
18019123
7
21120567
1
1
6713221
3
6317628
2
7329471
1
6542968
3
5952332
0
5866104
17
647690
993
5
106193
455
12
114216
535
2
1
109460
172
4
145083
162
4
190421
187
2
221510
166
4
246122
150
0
292756
148
8
260714
502
2
22917372
6
27018685
1
0
8610429
1
8114861
2
9325550
2
8333111
2
7537021
0
7439889
14.41
14.12 18.85
6.94
45.69 41.67
7.47
53.55 58.33
0.00
0.00 8.33
4.80
17.01 8.33
6.40
15.99 25.00
10.70
18.53 16.67
8.33
16.50 15.60
19.00
14.97 25.00
0.00
14.72 24.00
34.03
35.56 27.87
16.40
45.82 29.41
17.63
53.88 70.59
0.00
0.00 11.76
5.88
17.32 16.90
22.40
16.31 23.53
29.40
18.83 23.53
34.20
16.72 11.76
38.00
15.11 23.53
0.00
14.90 45.20
13.83
18.04 12.70
6.66
45.62 25.00
7.17
53.78 75.00
0.00
0.00 12.50
4.00
17.13 0.00
5.70
16.14 12.50
9.80
18.53 25.00
12.70
16.53 25.00
14.20
14.94 25.00
0.00
14.74 15.30
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
Local Survey
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
All
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All
Use Genders
Grades
Tobacco
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All
Use Genders
Grades
Alcohol
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12
Use Genders
Grades
Marijuana
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
Local Survey
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
All
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All
Use Genders
Grades
Tobacco
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All
Use Genders
Grades
Alcohol
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12
Use Genders
Grades
Marijuana
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
Local Survey
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
All
M
F G06G07G08G09G10G11G12 All
Use Genders
Grades
Tobacco
M
F G06G07G08G09G10G11G12 All M
Use Genders
Grades
Alcohol
F G06G07G08G09G10G11G12
Use Genders
Grades
Marijuana
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
Local Survey
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
All
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All
Use Genders
Grades
Tobacco
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12 All
Use Genders
Grades
Alcohol
M
F G06 G07 G08 G09 G10 G11 G12
Use Genders
Grades
Marijuana
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
Use
Marijuana
Genders
Grades
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Age of Onset
83.57
45.52
57.14
23.81
87.20
87.00
85.10
83.60
80.90
75.60
78.23
45.71
57.14
22.86
83.20
81.70
78.50
76.60
75.00
73.10
86.50
45.56
66.67
16.67
87.60
87.60
86.10
86.20
85.40
85.80
Problem Level
Grades
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Perception of Parental Disapproval
Alcohol
Genders
76.95
45.80
53.92
29.63
88.40
83.10
77.80
73.10
70.10
66.90
76.50
45.90
55.26
21.05
80.90
75.30
74.10
75.40
76.20
77.80
75.93
47.50
54.00
25.00
88.80
84.10
76.80
71.00
67.60
65.00
Problem Level
Use
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Local Survey
Region VI
Perception of Risk
Grades
18.85
45.69
58.33
8.33
17.01
25.00
18.53
16.50
25.00
24.00
35.56
45.82
70.59
11.76
17.32
23.53
29.40
34.20
38.00
45.20
18.04
45.62
75.00
12.50
17.13
16.14
25.00
25.00
25.00
15.30
Problem Level
Tobacco
Genders
All
M
F
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
All
M
F
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
All
M
F
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
Use Past 30-days
Use
Problem Level
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
63.00
45.04
61.11
22.22
16.39
19.90
26.60
33.10
36.60
43.40
86.59
45.54
56.67
23.33
16.99
26.67
19.30
24.10
27.90
34.00
99.99
47.06
53.50
17.65
16.78
23.53
18.36
16.12
35.29
14.53
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
Variable
Row Labels
Alcohol
Genders
F
M
Grades
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
Marijuana
Genders
F
M
Grades
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
Tobacco
Genders
F
M
Grades
G06
G07
G08
G09
G10
G11
G12
(All)
Local Survey
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
2.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
10.00
11.00
13.00
15.00
16.00
14.00
1.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
7.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
7.00
8.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
8.00
9.00
12.00
17.00
4.00
1.00
5.00
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Ranking for Geographical Priority Targeting
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 – DEFINE
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
M
Local Survey
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
G11
F
Spring Branch ISD
G10
Region VI
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
2.00
G07
4.00
Local Survey
6.00
Region VI
G06
Spring Branch ISD
M
8.00
Spring Branch ISD
Local Survey
F
10.00
Local Survey
12.00
Spring Branch ISD
Region VI
14.00
Region VI
16.00
Region VI
Region VI
18.00
Region VI
Local Survey
20.00
Genders
Grades
Alcohol
Genders
Grades
Marijuana
Genders
G12
G11
G10
G09
G08
G07
G06
G12
G09
G08
M
F
G12
G11
G10
G09
G08
G07
G06
0.00
Grades
Tobacco
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12 1
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey 2
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 – ASSESS

Remember this analysis assumes establishment of problem issues at
Region 6, SBISD Schools, and Community Area Surveyed and without a
power analysis it, we can not say much statistically. But we can use this
as a baseline expectation.

Augments efforts that utilize limited resources through the efficient implementation
of strategies that can most impact the environment in which the highest
concentration of problem issue is contained.

Coalition (Local level) efforts should try prevention activities that target Eleventh Grade
Females use of Marijuana, Seventh Grade females use of Tobacco and Alcohol, followed
by female of all grade use of all three substance.

Coalition Partner Network (SBISD level) efforts should try assisting or promoting activity
and time targeting risk and protective factors for Males use of Alcohol and Marijuana,
specifically those in the Seventh and Ninth grades.

Coalition Policy (Regional Level) efforts should try targeting efforts to pass policy
preventing adolescents of post driving age and alcohol issues.
Source: Region VI - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12
Spring Branch ISD - 2008 Texas School Survey of Substance Use: Grade 7-12
CDFSB – (N=66 ) Locally Adapted CTC 2002 Student Substance Use Survey
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 1 - DEFINE
Atascocita
c/c/ c/
£
¤
c/cc// c/ c/c/
c/ c/
/c c/
c/
/
c/ / c
c/c/c/ c/
/
c/ /
/ c//cc/c c/
c
c/ c// cc/
c
c/c/
c
c/c/
c/
c// cc/c// c/cc// c// c/c///c/ c/ c/ c/
/
c cc/
c cc/
c/
c/
c/c/ cc/c// c/ c/
c//
c/ c/c/c/c/c/ c/ cc//c/cc/ c/c/c/c/ c/cc// ccc/// c/c/c/cc/c/c// cc//c/c/c/c/ c/ c/ c/
/
c/ c/
c/ cc/
cc//
/
c/cc// cc/
c/
c/
cc//
c// c/ c/
/ /
cc//
c/ / c c/c
cc/ c/ c/ c/
c/ ccc//c/c/ c/
cc//
c/
c/
c//
c/
c c/ c/ c/
c/
c/
/c
Clay
U
V
548
£
¤
59
290
Hammerly
610
Lo
Campbell
§
¨¦
int
ng Po
Galena Park
Bunker Hill
Gessner
U
V
225
§
¨¦
10
gle
Katy
370 740
1,480
Hedwig Village
Antoine
B in
Gessner
0
South Houston
c/
Spring Valley
Old Katy
Hunters Creek Village
c/ /
c/
cc/
/c c/
2,220
2,960
521
ste
ad
c/
c/
11th
§
¨¦
610
Katy
c/ c/
Old Katy
Substance Related Crimes
Meters
U
V
0
550 1,100
2,200
3,300
4,400
Meters
TABC Licensed Sites Shown Census Tracts by within Super-Neighborhood
8
Friendswood
Blalock
2.7 - 3.4
Old Katy
§
¨¦
Katy
10
Bin
Hedwig Village
gle
Hunters Creek Village
Ella
Wat
onga
J es
Dacoma
ter
18th
mp
ste
Silber
ad
Ella
He
c0
11th
§
¨¦
610
Katy
c0
Old Katy
W
Memorial
r
Me
ck
Memorial
mo
Ro
Piney Point Village
Bunker Hill Village
O
Sheet No. 1
Crime and TABC Sites
34th
y
Geographical Analysis of Target Area
Point
Campbell
Long
1.9 - 2.6
4.3 - 5
cc00
cc00
cc00 0
c0
c
0
ccc0
0
0
0 c0c0 c0c0
c0 c0c0 c0cc00 c0ccc0
0
cc0
0
c0 0
cc0
0
0 c0 cc00 cc0
c
cc0
Hilshire Village
Spring Valley
cc0
0
c0
c0
c0
c00
c0 c0ccc00cc00c0
ne
3.929% - 7.908%
1 - 1.8
3.5 - 4.2
r
im
2.073% - 3.928%
cc0
c00
cc00
ste
Long Point
Gessner
1.074% - 2.072%
Miles
Wilcrest
Substance Crime
Houston
Narcotics Crime Heatmap
Kirkwood
TABC Sites
Hammerly
Je
34th
Post Oak
0.4% - 1.073%
c/
7.5
Dairy Ashford
0.002% - 0.399%
5
C
Mangum
Narcotic Crime Rate c0
0 1.25 2.5
T
TC
77055
ccc000
Antoine
6
Brittmoore
U
V
77080
c0
c0
c0c0ccc0
0c0c00c0
c0
c00
cc0
0
cc0 c0
U
V
Pearland
290
Antoine
Addicks Dam
Missouri City
43rd
£
¤
c0
Rosslyn
Gessner
45
Sugar Land
c0
c0cc00c0
Clay
§
¨¦
35
Wirt
U
V
8
U
V
Wirt
90
Bingle
Eldridge
£
¤
Clay
Voss
288
Ch
Spring Branch
3
Bunker Hill

U
V
U
V
r
Memorial
Voss
Pasadena
mp
Hilshire Village
Blalock
225
Bellaire
Stafford
ste
18th
He
Post Oak
U
V
West University Place
Je
Silber
Jacinto City
527
r
10
U
V
TC
Long Point
§
¨¦
Houston
Dacoma
Mangum
Cloverleaf
ste
90
Je
£
¤
TC
£
¤
34th
Houston
Wirt
261
Rosslyn
U
V
43rd
290
Wat
onga
8
Antoine
U
V
Wirt
249
Bingle
Aldine
U
V
Credits
Drawn By: James Valdez
Project Name: Drug Free Coalition
DFC0
Date: 05/11/2009
ial L
oop
ash
ing
ton
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 2 - ASSESS
Atascocita
10
Jacinto City
§
¨¦
Blalock
Old Katy
10
KatyKaty
Katy
0
355 710
1,420
2,130
Voss
a
onga
Wato
ng
Silber
Old Katy
Memorial
Memorial
Meters
0
500 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Meters
TABC Licensed Sites Shown Census Tracts by within Super-Neighborhood
U
V
U
V
11th
11th
610
Substance Related Crimes (2005 - 2009) Heatmap
2,840
521
3
288
£
¤
90
6
a
0
c0
0
c0
c00
cc
c
0
cc00
cc0
Dacoma
ad
Silber
Wirt
Silber
Wirt
Campbell
Campbell
r
m18th
ps
tea
d
c0
Blalock
r
§
¨¦
11th
610
Antoine
Wirt
c0
Wa
sh
Memorial
Memorial
r
mo
Me
Project Name: Drug Free Coalition
DFC0
Date: 05/11/2009
o op
Me m
l
k
Credits
Drawn By: James Valdez
L
ial
ia
or
oc
Sheet No. 1
ste
Old Katy
Old Katy
R
O
Je
Ch
ck
Hunters
Hunters Creek
Creek Village
Village
Hunters Creek Village
Piney
Piney Point
Point Village
Village
Piney Point Village
Antoine
Wirt
Voss
Voss
Blalock
Gessner
Gessner
Wilcrest
Wilcrest
gle
Ro
Bunker
Bunker Hill
Hill Village
Village
Bunker Hill Village
Bin
Bin
gle
y
Memorial
ste
ste
He
18th
610
Katy
Hedwig
Hedwig Village
Village
Hedwig Village
Memorial
mp
y
ne
Crime and TABC Sites
Katy
Katy
10
Je
Dacoma
Long Point
im
Geo-Analysis of DFC Target Area
- Spring Branch
Old Katy
§
¨¦
ne
4.3 - 5
Katy
10
im
3.929% - 7.908%
3.5 - 4.2
§
¨¦
onga
cc00
00
0
cc
00
c
0 0c
0
cc0c0 cc
c0
00
c
0
0
00
c
c
c
0
c0c0c0cc00
c
0
0
00
0
c
c
c
c c0 c cc0
00 ccc
0
c0 c c0
0
c
c
0
c0
c0
0
c
c
0
0cc0
0
00 cc
00cc0
0c0c0
0c0
c0c0 c0c0c0
c
c0
c0c0
cc
c0c
c0 c0
0
0 c0c
c0
c
cc0
0
0
c0
c0
c0c0
c
c0 c0
c
0
0
c0
0 c0 c
c0 c0 cc0
c0 c0
cc0 cc
00 c0
c0
Hilshire
Hilshire Village
Village
Hilshire Village
Spring
Spring Valley
Valley
0
Spring Valley
c
c0
¨¦
c
0§
0
c0
0
0 cc0
c
c
0
0
c
c
c0
Ch
2.073% - 3.928%
Old Katy
Kirkwood
2.7 - 3.4
Point
TC
Post Oak
1.074% - 2.072%
Long
r
Post Oak
1.9 - 2.6
Point
Bunker Hill
0.4% - 1.073%
Long
ste
34th
Long Point
1 - 1.8
Je
34th
He
Substance Crime
C
Wat
Wato
ng
Gessner
Gessner
Addicks Dam
Narcotics Crime Intensity
0
ccc000 c
0
c0
c
Houston
Houston
Houston
Hammerly
Hammerly
Miles
Dairy Ashford
c/
7.5
43rd
T
c
Mangum
0.002% - 0.399%
TABC Sites
5
290
Mangum
Narcotic Crime Ratec0
0 1.25 2.5
Brittmoore
77055
£
¤
TC
77080
8
8
290
Ella
U
V
U
V
U
V
£
¤
Antoine
Friendswood
Addicks Dam
Pearland
c0
c0
c00
0
c
0 cc0
c0
c
0
0 cc0
c0
c
c0 c0
43rd
0
c 0
c0 0 c c0
Rosslyn
Missouri City
c0
c0 cc00c0
00c0
c0cc
0
c
cc00c0000c0
cc00
ccc0
00
cc0
0c
c
c0
c0
c
0
c
Antoine
Clay
Clay
Bingle
45
Bingle
§
¨¦
35
Sugar Land
Brittmoore
U
V
8
U
V
Eldridge
Clay
Bunker Hill
Spring Branch
gle
Hunters
Village
HuntersCreek
Creek Village
Voss
Gessner
Hedwig
Village
Hedwig
Village
South Houston
U
V
18th
18th
ad
Old Katy
Katy
10
Bin
Gessner
Pasadena
ste
610
Antoine
Old Katy
mp
ad
Hilshire Village
Hilshire Village
Spring
SpringValley
Valley
Antoine
Bellaire
Bunker Hill
225
ste
Post Oak
Bunker Hill
Gessner
U
V
He
mp
Post Oak
Blalock
225
ster
Silber
Point
U
V
Je
Point
Wirt
Wirt
Long
Galena Park
t
Wirt
Poin
Houston

Dacoma
Long
Point
Long
Wirt
Long
TC
Dacoma
Campbell
610
Stafford
Wat
Hammerly
He
§
¨¦
West University Place
Houston
Houston
er
§
¨¦
r
34th
Mangum
Cloverleaf
ste
ster
90
Je
Je
£
¤
C
TC
Hammerly
34th
Antoine
59
290
T
Jest
£
¤
£
¤
43rd
290
TC
548
43rd
290
Rosslyn
U
V
// /
c/cc/c /c//c/ / //
£
¤
£
¤
/
c//ccc/c c/c
c
/
c c/c/ / c/c
c c/c
/
c
/
c/
/
c
c
/
c
c
c//
c/c/c/c//cc///c/ c/
c/c/c/cc// c/c/c/
c////
c
c
/
/
c
cc
/cc/cc// c
// c/ccc
//
c
/
cc
c
/
/
c
c
/
////
ccc
cc
c/
/
c
/
c/c//c/c///c/ c//c//c// c/ // / / / c/c/c/c/c/
/
c
c
c
c
/
/
/
c
c
/
c
/
c
c
c
c
c
cc
/c
c// cc/cc
//cc//
///c c/ c/
c
c/c/c
/cc//
/cc
c
c
//c//c/
/
/
c
/
/
c
/
c
/
c
c/
ccc
/c/c// / / /// / c/c
c///////cc//c/c/c
//c/
/c/c/c/c
cc/ c
///cc/c//c/ c/c/cc/c/c//cc/c/c/c
c/c
c/c
c/c
//c//cc//cc
c/c
c/c
c///c
c//c
c//c
c/c
c/ c c/cc//ccc
cc
c/// cc
c//c/c
c//cc// c/ c/ cc
c
// cccc
c/
c// cc
c
c/c/ c
/
c
c
///
cc
/
cc
// /
/ // c/c
//
c/c
cc
cc/c
c cc
c/ c
//
c/ c
//
/c/
cc
c
§
§
¦
¨
¨¦
/ c//
c/c/
cc/ c
§
¨¦
c/c/c/c/
c/ c
c// c/
Rosslyn
U
V
261
c//
cc//
c
c
c//
cc//
/
c
c/
Antoine
8
Bingle
U
V
Campbell
249
Gessner
U
V
Bingle
Clay
Aldine
45
Mangum
/
c/ c
c
///
c
c// c/ c/
c
cc/// c/
/ c//c/c/c/
c/ / c/ c/ c/ c/ c
///c//c/c//c
/
c// c/
c
/
cc// c/cc
/
c cccccc/c
cc/
/ c/
c/ c/ c/
/ c
c// c/ c/ / c/ c/ c
c c/ c
/ c/
c/ c/ c
c/ c/
Clay
§
¨¦
ing
ton

Spring Branch
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 3 - PLAN
PermitNbr
ExpiresOn
575258
04/28/09
427727
03/04/09
685147
02/25/09
686933
03/16/09
446328
02/14/09
555890
04/13/09
512590
04/16/09
487921
02/08/09
465748
01/27/09
575254
03/09/09
466970
02/15/09
574646
03/20/09
657866
04/22/09
304409
01/17/09
292614
03/31/09
688955
04/02/09
685726
03/03/09
555944
04/15/09
622036
03/12/09
685683
03/02/09
LicenseType
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
LIQUOR
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
BEER
LIQUOR
BEER
BEER
SiteName
ANTOINE CITGO MINI MART
PACO'S GAMES
AMIGO'S GROCERY #2
LUCKY 7
CITGO HANDI PLUS #62
AMIGOS SEAFOOD BUFFET
TELOLOAPAN MEAT MARKET #4
BILLARES SALAMANCA
STOP THEN BUY
DISCOUNT BEER AND TOBACCO
M & R MARKET
EL FIESTA NITE CLUB
CINDY'S NIGHT CLUB
T & T FOOD MART
ADREST INC. 63801
KEMPWOOD FOOD MART
TAQUERIA LATINO EL JUNIOR
THE EVENTS COMPANY
H & H ICEHOUSE
ROZ FOOD MART #21
SiteLoc
2099 ANTOINE
3106 BLALOCK
1925 CAMPBELL ROAD
3231 CAMPBELL ROAD
9505 CLAY ROAD
2557 GESSNER DRIVE
8514 HAMMERLY
7810 HAMMERLY 'C'
8606 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD
9476 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD
8788 HAMMERLY BOULEVARD 'A'
11410 HEMPSTEAD HWY
11204 HEMPSTEAD ROAD
4005 HOLLISTER
8155 KATY FREEWAY
9492 KEMPWOOD DRIVE
7523 LONG POINT ROAD SUITE 400
7310 OLD KATY ROAD
1109 SILBER ROAD
1406 WIRT ROAD
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT
•
•
Web based system designed to help your
Coalition use SAMHSA's Strategic Prevention
Framework (SPF)
5 SPF steps
o
o
o
o
o
•
•
Assessment
Capacity
Planning
Implementation
Evaluation
Required progress reports submitted through
COMET
Manages your Coalition more effectively
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT
•
Target Risk Factors
• Community
• Factors in the community that fosters drug use
• Family
• Factors in the home that fosters drug use
• School
• Factors in school that fosters drug use
• Peer- Individual
• Factors dealing with friends and peers of the child
• Target Risk Factors
• Community
• Factors in the community that fosters drug use
• Family
• Factors in the home that fosters drug use
• School
• Factors in school that fosters drug use
• Peer- Individual
• Factors dealing with friends and peers of the child
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT
•
Coalition Activities
o Needs Assessment
 Needs of the grant
o Community Assessment
 Overall look at the community
o Community Events and Meetings
 Any event that helps solve the problem
o Coalition Meetings
 This meeting today, discussion of grant
o Coalition Evaluation Meetings
 Evaluation of efforts in community
o Collection of Baseline Data
 Collection of data in community for evaluation
o Legislative Issues
 Issues brought to State House floor for next season
EVALUATION PROCESS STEP 4 - REPORT
•
Risk and protective factors
o Keeping in line with coalition factors and those in the
narrative
o Combining factors that overlap
•
Assessment activities
o Knowing what activities that have been done by the
coalition and what activities are planned for the future
o Also which activities are improving the community and
which are not working or negatively impacting the
community