Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2010

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2012

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2009

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Department of Human Services Proposal for State Mental Health Institute Closure and Consolidation, December 15, 2009

The Department’s recommendation for closure and consolidation is based on an analysis of the existing programs, persons served, physical plant costs, expenses and renovation/infrastructure costs for relocation, and review of the draft report from the MHI Task Force. Further detail surrounding the analysis used to drive the recommendation is found under the Recommendations section, beginning on page 12 of this report. In response to the legislative requirement to recommend closure and consolidation of an MHI, the Department recommends the closure of the Mount Pleasant Mental Health Institute with consolidation of its programs and operational beds at the Independence Mental Health Institute. With this recommendation, Independence MHI will add beds to accommodate the 15 adult psychiatric beds, 14 dual diagnosis beds, and 50 substance abuse treatment beds now located at the Mount Pleasant MHI. This relocation will take an estimated six months from the time statutory authority and corresponding appropriations are received.

Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy Five-Year Strategic Plan July 1, 2003-June 30, 2008

The Office of the Drug Policy Coordinator is established in Chapter 80E of the Code of Iowa. The Coordinator directs the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy; coordinates and monitors all statewide counter-drug efforts, substance abuse treatment grants and programs, and substance abuse prevention and education programs; and engages in other related activities involving the Departments of public safety, corrections, education, public health, and human services. The coordinator assists in the development of local and community strategies to fight substance abuse, including local law enforcement, education, and treatment activities. The Drug Policy Coordinator serves as chairperson to the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The council includes the directors of the departments of corrections, education, public health, public safety, human services, division of criminal and juvenile justice planning, and human rights. The Council also consists of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, substance abuse prevention specialist, substance abuse treatment program director, judge, and one representative each from the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, the Iowa State Police Association, and the Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies’ Association. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The council makes policy recommendations related to substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment, and drug enforcement. The Council and the Coordinator oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive State of Iowa Drug Control Strategy. The Office of Drug Control Policy administers federal grant programs to improve the criminal justice system by supporting drug enforcement, substance abuse prevention and offender treatment programs across the state. The ODCP prepares and submits the Iowa Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy to the U.S. Department of Justice, with recommendations from the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The ODCP also provides program and fiscal technical assistance to state and local agencies, as well as program evaluation and grants management.

Evaluation Gives STAR High Marks, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, February 2010

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently released an evaluation of the intensive substance abuse treatment program at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW) – STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery). STAR is a licensed inpatient program utilizing a genderbased therapeutic community model (TC).

Drug Court Evaluation Documents Program's Success, Data Download, Iowa Department of Corrections, August 2009

The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) recently released its study of Iowa’s six adult drug courts, all of which are administered by community corrections agencies. Making heavy use of DOC’s ICON data base, CJJP examined completion rates, recidivism and substance abuse treatment. CJJP also compared drug court results with those of a group of offenders who were screened and declined or were rejected by drug court in 2003 (referred) and a sample of offenders starting probation in 2003 (probationers). CJJP tracked the offenders for approximately three years.

Iowa Drug Control Strategy, 2013

The Governor’s Office of Drug Policy Control offers the 2013 Drug Control Strategy pursuant to Iowa Code §80E.1. The purpose of the strategy is to describe the activities of the office and other state departments related to drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment and prevention. This report also highlights trends in respect to substance abuse within the state and sets out innovative approaches to reduce drug abuse and its associated damage to society. Finally, the Strategy shows the state funding levels for the various agencies working in this area, as divided among the three areas of emphasis: prevention, treatment and enforcement.

Effectiveness of a brief integrative multiple substance use intervention among young men with and without booster sessions.

Brief interventions (BI) commonly employ screening and target a single substance. Multi-substance interventions are a more adequate reflection of risk behaviors in adolescents and young adults. Systematic screening complicates BI in many settings. The effectiveness of a voluntary multi-substance intervention among 19-year-old men and the incremental impact of booster sessions were analyzed. Participants were enrolled during mandatory army conscription in Switzerland. Compared with 461 controls, 392 BI subjects showed reduced substance use on 10 of 12 measures (4 tobacco, 4 cannabis, and 2 alcohol measures). Between-group effects were small and non-significant (except for cannabis use prevalence). Three-month booster sessions were not effective and even contraindicated. The usefulness of targeting multi-substances during BIs without prior screening depends on the value of small effects. The addition of booster sessions was not effective and therefore is not recommended.

Evaluation de la phase pilote du Dispositif cantonal d'indication et de suivi des personnes toxicodépendantes (DCIST)

Le Dispositif Cantonal d'Indication et de Suivi des personnes Toxicodépendantes (DCIST) s'inscrit dans l'axe numéro 1 de la politique vaudoise concernant la prévention et la lutte contre la toxicodépendance qui vise l'amélioration de l'adéquation entre l'offre de prestations et les besoins des usagers ainsi que dans le Plan Stratégique Vaudois 2011 établi dans le cadre de la reprise par le canton de Vaud des tâches de la Confédération. Le DCIST est un processus organisationnel de travail en réseau appuyé sur des outils standardisés d'évaluation des conditions de vie et de consommation des personnes toxicodépendantes qui a pour objectifs :1. d'ajuster au mieux les prestations proposées au regard des besoins rencontrés par les personnes toxicodépendantes;2. de développer un réseau de soins coordonné : a. améliorer l'efficacité de la prise en charge des personnes toxicodépendantes;b. favoriser le suivi et le maintien de ces personnes dans le réseau social et médical;c. favoriser le continuum dans la prise en charge médicosociale (des structures généralistes, de première ligne, aux institutions résidentielles spécialisées).Le DCIST a donc pour but de renforcer le rôle du canton de Vaud dans le pilotage et la planification des prestations dans le domaine de l'aide aux personnes concernées par la toxicodépendance. Il est indiqué et nécessaire pour toute personne souhaitant entrer dans une structure résidentielle pour des problèmes de toxicodépendance, avec ou sans problématique d'alcool associée.La mise en place du dispositif a été pilotée par les instances suivantes qui se sont réunies à intervalles réguliers : la cellule de projet (les responsables des deux services concernés - SSP et SPASa) et le/la chef-fe de projetb), le groupe de travail (GT) et ses différents sous-groupes et finalement le comité de pilotage (CoPil). Ces deux derniers groupes rassemblaient des professionnels représentatifs des différents secteurs concernés par le DCIST.La phase pilote du DCIST a duré du 1er octobre 2010 au 31 mars 2011. L'objectif de cette phase était d'éprouver les outils, la structure ainsi que les procédures élaborées et d'effectuer les ajustements nécessaires.Durant cette phase pilote, des formations sur la façon d'utiliser les outils du DCIST ont été dispensées aux personnes chargées d'indication dans les structures ou à d'autres collaborateurs intéressés.Des plateformes d'échange ont réuni les personnes concernées des différentes structures (centres d'indication, établissements socio-éducatifs [ESE]) et les responsables du projet. Ces réunions ont permis de faire émerger et d'échanger les points de vue sur les problèmes rencontrés et de discuter de solutions communes. [Auteurs, p. 5]

Statewide Process and Comparative Outcomes Study of 2003 Iowa Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts, August 2009

A statewide evaluation of the six adult and three juvenile drug courts in operation during calendar year 2003 was conducted. Completion rates, recidivism, substance abuse treatment, and supervision and placement (juveniles only) costs were examined by model (Judge and Community Panel) and by Judicial District. In addition, adult drug court participants were compared with a group of offenders who were screened and declined or were rejected by drug court in 2003 (referred) and a sample of offenders starting probation in 2003 (probationer). The adult participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through December 31, 2007. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of almost 3 years (2.9) for drug court participants. For the juvenile portion, drug court participants were compared with a group matched on several demographic and offense variables (Matched Comparison group) and juveniles referred to drug court who did not enter the program (Referred Comparison group). The juvenile participant and comparison groups were tracked from their entry into drug court, or the study, through approximately 16 quarters after program discharge with an end date of December 31, 2007.

Process and Outcome Evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) Program, September, 2010

In July of 2009, the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) received Byrne Justice Assistance Grant/American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding from the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of the STAR (Sisters Together Achieving Recovery) program housed at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW) in Mitchellville, Iowa. The STAR Program is a licensed inpatient substance abuse treatment program that utilizes a Therapeutic Community model (TC). All offenders exiting the STAR program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2008 were included in the study (n=173). A comparison sample was drawn of offenders exiting the ICIW during the same release time frame with identified but untreated substance abuse needs (n= 173). March 31, 2010 was designated as the cut-off date for the study. This yielded an average post-program follow-up time of 3.1 years. The STAR group was further divided into two groups by time of program exit. Participants exiting the program between October 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were designated as STAR 1 (n=78) and those exiting the program between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2008 were designated as STAR 2 (n=95). In order to have comparable tracking time between STAR groups, tracking time for STAR 1 concluded July 31, 2008. This yielded an average post release follow-up time of 2.4 years for both groups. Demographic, Program, Intervention, and Outcome data were examined. Comparisons were made between groups as well as categories of participation.

Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy Five-Year Strategic Plan July 1, 2010-June 30, 2015

The Office of the Drug Policy Coordinator is established in Chapter 80E of the Code of Iowa. The Coordinator directs the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy; coordinates and monitors all statewide counter-drug efforts, substance abuse treatment grants and programs, and substance abuse prevention and education programs; and engages in other related activities involving the Departments of public safety, corrections, education, public health, and human services. The coordinator assists in the development of local and community strategies to fight substance abuse, including local law enforcement, education, and treatment activities. The Drug Policy Coordinator serves as chairperson to the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The council includes the directors of the departments of corrections, education, public health, public safety, human services, division of criminal and juvenile justice planning, and human rights. The Council also consists of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, substance abuse prevention specialist, substance abuse treatment program director, judge, and one representative each from the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, the Iowa State Police Association, and the Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies’ Association. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The council makes policy recommendations related to substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment, and drug enforcement. The Council and the Coordinator oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive State of Iowa Drug Control Strategy. The Office of Drug Control Policy administers federal grant programs to improve the criminal justice system by supporting drug enforcement, substance abuse prevention and offender treatment programs across the state. The ODCP prepares and submits the Iowa Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy to the U.S. Department of Justice, with recommendations from the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The ODCP also provides program and fiscal technical assistance to state and local agencies, as well as program evaluation and grants management.

Management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in drug substitution programs.

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, intravenous drug use (IDU) accounts for 80% of newly acquired hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. Early HCV treatment has the potential to interrupt the transmission chain and reduce morbidity/mortality due to decompensated liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Nevertheless, patients in drug substitution programs are often insufficiently screened and treated. OBJECTIVE/METHODS: With the aim to improve HCV management in IDUs, we conducted a cross sectional chart review in three opioid substitution programs in St. Gallen (125 methadone and 71 heroin recipients). Results were compared with another heroin substitution program in Bern (202 patients) and SCCS/SHCS data. RESULTS: Among the methadone/heroin recipients in St. Gallen, diagnostic workup of HCV was better than expected: HCV/HIV-status was unknown in only 1% (2/196), HCV RNA was not performed in 9% (13/146) of anti-HCV-positives and the genotype missing in 15% (12/78) of HCV RNA-positives. In those without spontaneous clearance (two thirds), HCV treatment uptake was 23% (21/91) (HIV-: 29% (20/68), HIV+: 4% (1/23)), which was lower than in methadone/heroin recipients and particularly non-IDUs within the SCCS/SHCS, but higher than in the, mainly psychiatrically focussed, heroin substitution program in Bern (8%). Sustained virological response (SVR) rates were comparable in all settings (overall: 50%, genotype 1: 35-40%, genotype 3: two thirds). In St. Gallen, the median delay from the estimated date of infection (IDU start) to first diagnosis was 10 years and to treatment was another 7.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Future efforts need to focus on earlier HCV diagnosis and improvement of treatment uptake among patients in drug substitution programs, particularly if patients are HIV-co-infected. New potent drugs might facilitate the decision to initiate treatment.