CEO Selection and Transition Plan · CEO Selection and Transition Plan Schedule and Prime Agenda...

MAY 2018

© Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE)

SHARE YOUR NEWS!

If you would like to contribute to future issues of PIRE News, please send your stories and/or announcements to [email protected]

COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS

Feedback on PIRE News articles and format is vital to the editorial staff in planning future issues. If you have any questions or comments please email [email protected]

COVER 2

CEO Selection and Transition Plan

The Board would like to share the outline of events that will lead up to the development of a job description and recruitment of the next CEO in 2019. The near-term goal of the Board is to create opportunities to listen to staff regarding what PIRE will become in the coming years and the role of the leadership for the next CEO.

SPOTLIGHT 4

Anonymous Student Survey in Rural Communities: Lessons Learned from the Field

APIS Announces Website Redesign and Annual Update of Alcohol and Recreational Cannabis Policy Information

ANNOUNCEMENTS 11

GAO Report on the National Roadside Survey

The Cost and Consequences of Sexual Violence in California

COVER

CEO Selection and Transition Plan

In the January 2018 PIRE News, Bernie Murphy announced his retirement from his position as CEO to be in early 2020. http://www.pire.org/PIRENews/PIRE_News_Jan18/Home.html

In the same PIRE News, the Chair of the Board, Dick Clayton, also wrote in his column,

“During 2018, the principal goal of the Board is to facilitate a process by which PIRE engages in a robust and critical visioning process to serve as a crucial foundation for thinking about what PIRE has been, what it is now, and what it should be and will be going forward.”

At the April Board meeting, that process started, as the Board discussed the schedule of events for the selection and transition of the CEO. The Board would like to share the outline of events that will lead up to the development of a job description and recruitment of the next CEO in 2019. The near-term goal of the Board is to create opportunities to listen to staff regarding what PIRE will become in the coming years and the role of the leadership for the next CEO. The Board welcomes your feedback and looks forward to your participation in this process. To view the plan and submit feedback please visit: https://pire.sharepoint.com/sites/CEOSelectionandTransitionPlan2018.

2PIRE News - May 2018


4.23.18

CEO Selection and Transition Plan Schedule and Prime Agenda

December 2017 Board Meeting: CEO announces retirement plans to the Board – January 2018 PIRE News.

April 24-25 Board Meeting: Kick-off CEO Transition Plan ➢ Status of PIRE; defining the role of the PIRE CEO. ➢ Review plan, roles and assignments for Governance and CEO Search

Committee. May 7, 2018: Feedback from BODs on Selection and Transition Plan/Discussion Questions

May 7, 2018: Contact Center Directors on planning All staff discussion meeting(s.)

June 5-6: Implement Discussion Group Questions with Center Directors

July 24-25 Board Meeting: Berkeley Meeting at Prevention Research Center ➢ Continued learning: Status of PIRE Strengths, Challenges, Threats

and Opportunities –defining the role of the CEO. ➢ Presents plan for Staff inclusion; recruitment; selection process;

Search Committee reviewed/approved by the Board. ➢ Discussion of themes, observations and emerging priorities for the

CEO recruitment. Concepts summarized at meeting. August 2018: Governance Committee reviews PRC’s Discussion meeting

August 2018: Schedule discussion groups across all Centers

December 4-5 Board Meeting: Year-end review completed –priorities for CEO recruitment defined.

➢ Draft document for Board review; prepared by Governance. ➢ PIRE Staff input shared and discussed. ➢ Critical elements of Job Description articulated.

April 2019 Board Meeting: Description and Announcement finalized

➢ Draft Job Description prepared by Governance ➢ Recruitment and selection process prepared by Governance;

reviewed and approved. May-June 2019: Job posted externally & internal

➢ Search committee - reviews applications – screening process. September/October 2019: Interview candidates

➢ Selection process announced and implemented. December 2019 Board Meeting: CEO transition meeting.

April 2020 Board Meeting: New CEO leading PIRE; first Board meeting.

we learned what we hope can serve as a cautionary tale for other investigators.

SPOTLIGHT

Anonymous Student Survey in Rural Communities: Lessons Learned from the Field

by Kathy AtwoodResearch ScientistLouisville Center

I wanted to share our team’s experience with a school-based, anonymous student survey on alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use that was part of the Partnership for Success (PFS) evaluation in rural counties in a southern state. Why you ask? Despite our efforts, we ran into issues and thought it would be useful to offer lessons learned, in the hopes that others can avoid these pitfalls in the future.

Our goal was to establish an annual anonymous student survey of 9 graders to track alcohol and drug use attitudes and behaviors over time. We piloted the stud%nt survey in our PFS counties in preparation for a larger statewide survey to be scheduled in the future.

We modeled our data collection protocols after PIRE protocols used for other statewide surveys, relying on an opt-out approach to notifying parents (meaning that parents are sent information about the survey but only sign the opt-out form if they refuse to have their child participate), and we requested a waiver of informed consent from the PIRE IRB. We developed detailed training manuals for the school point of contact (POC) and for the county-level coordinators who oversaw data collection in each county. The county coordinators were affiliated with the agencies that held PFS subcontracts. They were invested in obtaining the data for prevention planning and were CITI (Collaborative IRB Training Initiative) trained. The manuals included a step-by-step process, timelines, definitions of terms, and reporting sheets due at different points in the process. These forms tracked: (1) teacher signatures, confirming that they were trained in our protocols, and signed pledges of confidentiality; (2) the number of surveys needed; (3) the number of surveys completed; (4) whether the consent protocol steps were followed (laying out a step-by-step checklist including guidance on accommodations for those who refuse the survey); and (5) the number of parent refusals, among other process indicators to ensure the opt-out process was followed. We asked that signed opt-out forms remain at the school to prevent PIRE from having access to the names of respondents. The survey was targeted to 9 grade classrooms. All surveys were shipped to our vendor for scanning, and we received the deidentified data file.

During the school recruitment process, five of our 22 schools required an active consent process, whereby parents signed the consent form indicating whether they consented or declined participation. We amended

th

th


our PIRE IRB package for the schools that chose active consent. Revisions included changes to the guidance manual and tracking forms, and we had the school POC sign a form indicating which protocol he or she required (active consent or opt out). We retrained coordinators on the new protocol. We had two county coordinators leave their agencies and conducted re-trainings. The county coordinators trained the school staff and POC at each of the five schools. We had frequent phone and email communications with the coordinators. County coordinators conducted site check-ins at schools.

Seems straightforward, right? What could go wrong?

All tracking forms were returned to PIRE. However, once we received the data, we found that at four of our five active county schools, some students reported being outside of the grade range. (1) At one school, all respondents self-reported being in the 10 to 12 grade (n=101 students), and (2) at three of the remaining active consent schools, n=14, n=4, and n=3 students self-reported being out of grade range. What happened? After calls and site visits, we learned what we hope can serve as a cautionary tale for other investigators.

At the first school, where all students in the self-report survey indicated that they were in the 10 to 12grade rather than 9 grade, we learned that the principal thought that the definition of active consent was “passive consent” and instructed parents to send back a signed form only if they didn’t want their child to participate. When the county coordinator tried to check in, the principal insisted that he had reviewed the protocols and was doing fine with the process. But even if he did pursue the wrong protocol, why did all students self-report to be out of grade range? The principal reported that he held two meetings with 9graders about the survey and insisted the classrooms targeted were strictly 9 grade classes. The teachers concurred. What happened? Was it a prank? Was the school survey given to the wrong students and their parents never received any information about the survey? To be honest, we don’t know. All schools we met with explained that in 2017, the state changed credit requirements and some students were now officially in the 9 grade but may have self-reported being in an upper grade. We set aside the data, along with any data outside of the 9 grade across schools.

At the other three schools where some students reported being out of grade range, we asked to see the signed parental consents during site visits. At the school with 14 students out of grade range, the school provided documentation of signed consent forms. At the remaining two schools, school staff explained that they sent the signed forms back to the vendor. The vendor received consent forms from one of the two schools in question, and at the time, we instructed them to set the consent forms aside since we did not want to have access to them. The vendor did not recall if they had received consent forms from the second school or if they simply destroyed them once they knew PIRE did not want to keep consent forms.

It must be obvious by now that several things went wrong with our active consent process. For starters, one school did not understand what active consent meant and was resistant to technical assistance. Two schools did not keep the consent forms on file and reported sending them back to the vendor, although the vendor has record of receiving only one school’s forms. On our end, we did not plan for cases where children self-reported being outside the 9 grade, we did not ask the vendor to send the consent forms back to the schools, and we did not act fast enough to resolve the issue when it was discovered.

This experience has led our team to revisit how one ensures adherence to active consent protocols when the standard of practice for student surveys tends to be an opt-out process where a waiver of documentation of informed consent must be granted by the IRB.

th th

th th

th

th

th

th

th

th


We humbly recommend that investigators consider the following strategies when implementing active consent protocols for anonymous student surveys.

1. Develop guidance documents that arestraightforward with visuals that clearly define theconsent process.

2. Reduce the number of reporting forms. Thisbecomes overwhelming and may be completedpost hoc, reducing validity.

3. Plan for staff turnover and build in retraining.

4. Do not assume schools remember the eligibilitycriteria and what active consent means, despitehow often it is stated and defined in theprocedures.

5. Require that copies of all signed consent forms be returned to PIRE (regardless ofwhether they are signed opt-out forms or signed active consent forms).

6. Build in webinars or phone trainings with the teachers to reinforce the trainingprovided by the county coordinators. Require that schools allow county coordinatorsto conduct spot checks on the data collection process.

7. If you see very high participation rates in active consent schools, be skeptical; well-financed studies report at best 85% participation for passive consent and 40% to70% for active consent (Esbensen et al., 1996).

It is important to also weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the active consent process when deciding on the best approach. Active consent policies tend to result in lower participation rates ranging from 40% to 67% (Esbensen et al., 1996) and are reported to introduce selection bias (Ruiz-Canela et al., 2013; Shaw et al., 2015). Students who return written parental permission are more likely to be female, live in two-parent families, and have parents with higher educational attainment, and they are less likely to be from racial or ethnic minority backgrounds (Anderman et al., 1995; Dent et al., 1993; Esbensen et al., 1999; Pokorny et al., 2001). Non-participants also differ on reports of risky behavior (Anderman et al., 1995; Dent et al., 1993; Esbensen et al., 1999; Ruiz-Canela et al., 2013). In contrast, the opt-out procedure has been found in many studies to result in 80% participation with non-participation due to absenteeism, rather than parent or student refusal (Esbensen et al., 1996; McMorris et al., 2004; Weeks et al., 1995). In a study comparing active and opt-out schools, Eaton and colleagues found that 86% of opt-out schools reported 85% or higher acceptance rate. In contrast only 34% of active consent schools reported participation rates of 85% or higher (Eaton et al., 2004).

Rural schools in low-income communities are awe-inspiring places with dedicated, overworked staff. Make the process as simple as possible. Strictly monitor whatever protocol you implement so that underrepresented populations are protected and findings can be shared with the dedicated communities that care for them.


References

Anderman, C., Cheadle, A., Curry, S., Diehr, P., Shultz, L., & Wagner, E. (1995). Selection bias related to parental consent in school-based survey research. Evaluation Review, 19(6), 663-674.

Dent, C. W., Galaif, J., Sussman, S., Stacy, A., Burtun, D., & Flay, B. R. (1993). Demographic, psychosocial and behavioral differences in samples of actively and passively consented adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 18(1), 51-56.

Eaton, D. K., Lowry, R., Brener, N. D., Grunbaum, J. A., & Kann, L. (2004). Passive versus active parental permission in school-based survey research: Does the type of permission affect prevalence estimates of risk behaviors? Evaluation Review, 28(6), 564-577.

Ellickson, P. L., & Hawes, J. A. (1989). An assessment of active versus passive methods for obtaining parental consent. Evaluation Review, 13(1), 45-55.

Esbensen, F. A., Piper Deschenes, E., Vogel, R. E., West, J., Arboit, K., & Harris, L. (1996). Active parental consent in school-based research: An examination of ethical and methodological issues. Evaluation Review, 20(6), 737-753.

Esbensen, F. A., Melde, C., Taylor, T. J., & Peterson, D. (2008). Active parental consent in school-based research: How much is enough and how do we get it? Evaluation Review, 32(4), 335-362.

Esbensen, F. A., Miller, M. H., Taylor, T., He, N., & Freng, A. (1999). Differential attrition rates and active parental consent. Evaluation Review, 23(3), 316-335.

McMorris, B. J., Clements, J., Evans-Whipp, T., Gangnes, D., Bond, L., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). A comparison of methods to obtain active parental consent for an international student survey. Evaluation Review, 28(1), 64-83.

Pokorny, S. B., Jason, L. A., Schoeny, M. E., Townsend, S. M., & Curie, C. J. (2001). Do participation rates change when active consent procedures replace passive consent. Evaluation Review, 25(5), 567-580.

Ruiz-Canela, M., Lopez-del Burgo, C., Carlos, S., Calatrava, M., Beltramo, C., Osorio, A., & de Irala, J. (2013). Observational research with adolescents: A framework for the management of the parental permission. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(1), 3-9.

Shaw, T., Cross, D., Thomas, L. T., & Zubrick, S. R. (2015). Bias in student survey findings from active parental consent procedures. British Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 229-243.

Weeks, K., Levy, S. R., Zhu, C., Perhats, C., Handler, A., & Flay, B. R. (1995). Impact of a school-based AIDS prevention program on young adolescents' self-efficacy skills. Health Education Research, 10(3), 329-344.


The redesigned APIS website

SPOTLIGHT

APIS Announces Website Redesign and Annual Update of Alcohol and Recreational Cannabis Policy Information

Website Redesign

The Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), a project of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), has completed a major redesign of its public website. The design and structure of the site was revised to improve security, enhance usability, and improve access to APIS data. Major improvements include the following.

• New left-side and header menus;• A revised Policy Changes at a

Glance section allowing users to view policy changes by topic, jurisdiction, or year;

• Improved graphics; and• Map and chart “table views” allowing users to view and export map and chart data in table form.

Update of APIS Policy Topics

APIS has also completed its latest annual update of State-by-State alcohol and recreational cannabis policies.

This update reports on substantive changes in State alcohol and recreational cannabis policy statutes and regulations that occurred though January 1, 2017.

Highlights relating to the annual update include the following:

Underage Drinking:

• Tennessee made two changes to its Blood Alcohol Concentration Limits law pertaining to minors:◦ The upper age limit applicable to the 0.02 BAC Limit law was reduced from 21 to 18 years of

age, effective July 1, 2016;◦ The upper age limit applicable to the 0.02 BAC Limit law was increased from 18 to 21 years of

age effective September 19, 2016. Thus, the BAC Limit of 0.08 was applicable to drivers atleast 18 years of age for the period July 1, 2016 through September 18, 2016.


• Connecticut added a requirement to its Age of Seller–Off-Premises law to require a manager orsupervisor to be present when an underage person sells alcohol.

• Nebraska reduced its minimum age to sell beer, wine, and distilled spirits off-premises from 19 to16.

• Indiana added a provision to its False Identification law allowing retailers to seize apparently falseIDs.

Retail Sales:

• Colorado added a Mandatory Training requirement for Licensees, Managers, and Server-Sellers toits Beverage Service Training law.

• Pennsylvania amended its Beverage Service Training law to require training by Servers/Sellers.

Taxation

• Kentucky decreased the Wholesale Tax Rate for Beer and Wine. Each decreased from 10.75 to10.50 percent.

• Louisiana increased the Specific Excise Tax Rates on Beer, Wine, and Distilled Spirits.◦ For Beer, the Specific Excise Rate went from $0.32 to $0.40 per gallon.◦ For Wine, the Specific Excise Rates went from $0.11 to $0.76 per gallon, and for Wine with an

alcohol content of 6% or less, the rate increased from $0.32 to $0.40 per gallon.◦ For Distilled Spirits, the Specific Excise Rate increased from $2.50 to $3.03 per gallon.

Pregnancy and Alcohol

• Louisiana added data gathering as a specified purpose of its Mandatory Reporting Requirementslaw.

• New York added data gathering as a specified purpose of its Mandatory Reporting Requirementslaw.

Alcohol Beverages Pricing

• Delaware and Virginia repealed the Free Beverage prohibitions in their Drink Specials laws.• Delaware altered its Wholesale Pricing law by repealing the Five-day Minimum Hold Period for

posted wholesale Beer, Wine, and Distilled Spirits prices.• Michigan reduced the Minimum Hold Period for posted wholesale Beer prices from 180 days to 90

days.

Alcohol Control Systems

• Ohio made two changes to its Alcohol Control System laws:◦ Beer containing more than 12 percent ABV was added to the retail license distribution system.◦ Beer containing more than 12 percent ABV was added to the wholesale license distribution

system.• Pennsylvania added wine between 0.50 percent ABV and 24 percent (undefined) to its retail license

distribution system.

Recreational Cannabis Policy

• Alaska altered provisions of its Recreational Use of Cannabis laws as follows:◦ Retail Sales for On-Premises Consumption and Pricing Controls were added.


◦ Cultivation Restrictions were added.◦ An additional $15 per ounce “remainder of plant” producer-level Tax was added.

• In California, Recreational Use of Cannabis was legalized and related provisions to implement thelaw were added. Additionally, the low end of the range applicable to Cultivation Restrictions wasreduced from <=5,000 square feet to 501 square feet.

• In Massachusetts, Recreational Use of Cannabis was legalized and related provisions to implementthe law were added.

• In Nevada, Recreational Use of Cannabis was legalized and related provisions to implement the lawwere added.

• In Oregon, two changes were made to the State’s Recreational Use of Cannabis laws:◦ The number of license types applicable to Cultivation Restrictions increased from 4 to 8.◦ The low end of the range applicable to Cultivation Restrictions was reduced from <=5,000

square feet to <=625 square feet.

These and other changes to current APIS policy topics are now posted to the site found at: https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/ . Many are consistent with the goal of reducing underage drinking and cannabis use and its consequences, as well as the goal of reducing alcohol and cannabis-related death and injury in the general population.

This project is funded with Federal funds from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. HHSN275201800002C.



ANNOUNCEMENTS


by Anthony RamirezProgram Director Calverton Center

Since 1973, the National Roadside Survey (NRS) has estimated alcohol and drug use by drivers on the nation's roadways. The NRS has occurred in 1973, 1986, 1996, 2007, and 2013-2014. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has funded most NRSs including the last three. The two most recent surveys, led by PIRE, provided information on drivers testing positive for alcohol and illegal, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs. Before 2007, alcohol-impaired driving was the sole focus of the NRS. For decades, Federal lawmakers have used the results of the NRS to inform policy, and in recent years, the roadside survey has been used at the state level for policy making as well.

During the 2013-2014 NRS, the U.S. Congress requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the survey methodology and report their findings to the Senate and House Appropriations Committees. Although all participation was voluntary and anonymous, the request was prompted by public complaints to Congress regarding the methods used during the NRS. There was also discussion that funding for these types of roadside surveys could end.

From October 2017 to March 2018, the GAO conducted a performance audit and submitted their findings to both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees in March 2018. In general, the GAO found that the NRS methodology is designed to safeguard voluntary participation and anonymity and reported that the stakeholders they spoke with stressed the value of NRS data. A link to the GAO’s report is here: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-328R

Overall, this is a positive finding that will hopefully allow researchers to continue to use roadside surveys to estimate alcohol and drug use by drivers.




In February 2018, the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA) released a report—The Cost and Consequences of Sexual Violence in California—written by Ted Miller, PhD., Deena Fulton, MPH, and David Lee, MPH, that shows the costs of sexual violence in California in 2012 was $140 billion including both tangible and intangible costs. The costs are higher than reported in the 2017 article Lifetime Economic Burden of Rape Among U.S. Adults as the California analysis included the costs associated with children who experience sexual violence. To read the full report go to: http://www.calcasa.org/svcostreport/


CEO Selection and Transition Plan · CEO Selection and Transition Plan Schedule and Prime Agenda...

Documents

Transcript of CEO Selection and Transition Plan · CEO Selection and Transition Plan Schedule and Prime Agenda...