Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis

8/18/2019 Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis

1/74

1375 Sherman Street, Room 136, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3117 www.colorado.gov/marijuana

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap AnalysisExecutive SummaryOctober 7, 2014

Colorado was one of the first states to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use through the passage of aconstitutional amendment. While the State has implemented a robust legal and regulatory framework forthis new industry, marijuana use and possession remain illegal under federal law. With Colorado’s effortsbeing closely watched nationwide, strategic data collection and evaluation can provide valuable informationto state and federal policymakers as the state moves forward with the implementation of Amendment 64.

With this in mind, laws passed during the 2013 legislative session prioritized the collection and analysis ofdata across multiple levels of government and policy areas in order to identify the effects of marijuanalegalization on public health and public safety. This Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis report,prepared for the state by Rebound Solutions, (Report) assesses Colorado’s existing data managementcapabilities to meet legislative reporting requirements and identifies strategic priorities andrecommendations for continued and expanded data collection, management, and analysis.

Analysis of legislative requirements and research with key stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels– comprising subject-matter experts, law enforcement agents, nonprofits, and industry officials – yieldedinformation on what and how data is presently collected and what more is needed in order to meet thestate’s legislative requirements. For each legislative requirement, the state’s capability to collect data, aswell as the strategic value of collecting that information, was reviewed and scored.

Based on a number of factors including strategic value, cross-spectrum strategic value (i.e. meets multiplestate priorities), and alignment to federal priorities, the Report identified 15 high-priority recommendationsand corresponding actions for the state to pursue in the immediate and near-term futures.

Immediate Recommended Actions

• Continue existing efforts on data management/reporting;o Establish an enterprise-wide data reporting task force charged with building reports from

existing systems;

•

Decide on legislative actions related to school data and emergency room visits;• Modify TRAILS to capture relevant marijuana data;

• Modify FARS to better capture marijuana data;

• Continue to cooperate with border states to capture out-of-state diversion data; and

• Establish training requirements for recognizing and assessing DUIDs and school-based incidents.

Near-term (Next Two Years) Recommended Actions

• Integrate data management and reporting capabilities into the state infrastructure;

• Coordinate data collection methods to determine youth-usage information;

• Continue the development of cross-agency longitudinal reports;

• Procure and contract serves to modify core systems with school districts

• Procure and contract services to modify the All Payer Claims Database; and

• Procure and contract services for law enforcement, schools, and hospitals for identification ofmarijuana-related activities.

The key priority outlined in this report is to build data management capture and reporting capabilities acrossthe state that are supported by effective training and communication. This report is simply the first step inbuilding a robust data architecture that allows the state to not only understand the impact of legalizedrecreational marijuana but also to allow targeted investment in prevention, treatment, and publicawareness campaigns.

Office of Marijuana Coordination

1375 Sherman Street, Room 136

Denver, CO 80203


3/74

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

1



Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 3 Key Terms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Project .................................................................. 7

Our Approach ........................................................................................................................... 8

Stakeholder Interviews ............................................................................................................. 9

Structure of Our Findings ....................................................................................................... 10

Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories ...................................................... 11

Legislative Categories and Definitions ...................................................................................... 11

Understanding Scoring and Prioritization ...................................................................................... 12

Understanding the Capability and Valuation Scoring ................................................................ 12

Recommendation Prioritization .................................................................................................. 13

Collection Capability and Strategic Value ................................................................................. 14

Capability Assessment and Recommendation Summary ......................................................... 15

Marijuana-initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement ................................................................. 16

Marijuana Criminal Arrest Data .............................................................................................. 16

Comprehensive School Data .................................................................................................. 16

Drug Endangered Children - Specifically for Marijuana ......................................................... 17

Diversion to Minors ................................................................................................................. 17

Marijuana Related Traffic Accidents ...................................................................................... 18

Out-of-State Diversion ............................................................................................................ 18

Marijuana Site Operational Crime Statistics ........................................................................... 19

Marijuana Transfer Using Parcel Services ............................................................................. 19

Probation Infractions Related to Marijuana ............................................................................ 20

Data on Emergency Room Visits and Poison Control ........................................................... 20

Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation ................................................................................................ 20

Organized Crime / Money Laundering ................................................................................... 21

Marijuana Patterns of Use and Health Effects ....................................................................... 21 Enterprise Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 22

Streamline Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 22

Data Advisory Board .................................................................................................................. 23

Clarity of Statutory Definitions ................................................................................................... 24

Supplemental Recommendations .................................................................................................. 25

Priority Areas ............................................................................................................................. 25


4/74


2



Youth Use and Prevalence ..................................................................................................... 25

Behavioral Health Treatment Needs ...................................................................................... 25

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) ......................................................................... 26

Local level impacts for jurisdictions allowing and not allowing retail sales ............................ 26

Multi-state comparison ........................................................................................................... 27 Additional Findings from Stakeholder Interviews beyond the Statutory Requirements and Priority Areas: ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Hash Oil Explosions ............................................................................................................... 27

Edibles .................................................................................................................................... 28

Strategic Roadmap and Planning .................................................................................................. 29

Prioritization Summary of Recommendations ........................................................................... 29

Enterprise Recommendations ................................................................................................... 30

High Priority Legislative Data Collection Requirements. ........................................................... 32

Lower Priority Legislative Data Collection Requirements: ........................................................ 34

Implementation Planning ........................................................................................................... 35

Level of Effort, Risks and Costs Scoring ................................................................................... 35

Summary Scorecard of the High Priority Recommendations .................................................... 36

Risk and Level of Effort Details for High Priority Recommendations ........................................ 37

Implementation Considerations ................................................................................................. 39

Cost Summary Details for High Priority Recommendations ...................................................... 40

Appendix A: Discovery Process Stakeholder Interviews ............................................................... 42

Appendix B: Discovery Process Stakeholder Questions ............................................................... 46

Appendix C: Data Gap Analysis .................................................................................................... 47

Appendix D: Recommendations by Category ............................................................................... 50 Appendix E: 2006-2008 Data Capabilities ..................................................................................... 55

Appendix F: “As Is” Data Flows ..................................................................................................... 58

Appendix G: ONDCP Performance Management Guidelines ....................................................... 71


5/74


3



Acknowledgements

This report was produced by Rebound Solutions with support from The KeystoneCenter and the Center for Research Strategies. Our team wants to thank bothstate and local officials for their support in the production of this report.


6/74


4



Key Terms and Abbreviations

The following terms and acronyms are used in this document.

Term / Abbreviation Definition

Amendment 64 The constitutional amendment that legalized the recreationaluse of marijuana in Colorado.

CDE Colorado Department of Education

CDHPE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

CDHS Colorado Department of Human Services

CCIS Colorado Crime Information System

DOJ US Department of Justice

HCPF Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing

NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System

OIT Governor’s Office of information Technology ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

Youth / Under-agePeople under the age of 21 who are restricted from purchasing,possessing, or using recreational marijuana.


7/74


5



Introduction

Colorado is one of the first states to legalize recreational marijuana through aconstitutional amendment (Amendment 64) in 2012 and has recentlyimplemented a regulatory and legal framework. Colorado has established clearpriorities since the passage of the constitutional amendment even thoughrecreational marijuana is still considered illegal by federal standards. Thesepriorities in Colorado are aligned to the U.S. Department of Justice and include:

1. Promote the health, safety, and well-being of Colorado’s youth. Specificallybuild measures and systems to protect diversion of recreational marijuanato under-age youth (defined as under the age of 21).

2. Prevent criminal diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal understate law in some form to other states.

3. Prevent drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse publichealth consequences associated with marijuana use.

4. Prevent revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminalenterprises, gangs, and cartels or for being used as a cover for othercriminal activities.

5. Prevent violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distributionof marijuana.

6. Prevent the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant publicsafety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on publiclands.

7. Prevent marijuana possession or use on federal property.

In order to ensure these priorities are met, revenue from recreational marijuana

directly supports the necessary costs of a rigorous regulatory framework. Costsinclude supports for law enforcement, educational outreach programming, publichealth and awareness campaigns, and other programmatic investments to helpmeet these priorities. As part of this framework, Colorado requires a highly robustdata management system that can both capture relevant information and providethe necessary analytical capabilities to measure the effectiveness of theseinvestments. Colorado’s goal is to build a data management system which alsoincorporates a performance management capability that allows for the specifictargeting of funding, supports and understanding of the system’s effectiveness inprotecting youth, public health and public safety. This basic concept ofeffectively leveraging data is illustrated in the Figure 1.0 below:


8/74


6



Figure 1.0: The value of data collection

The ability to address the key questions above first depends on identification ofnecessary data across the State. These data can be used to establish theoperational baselines that address the basic questions on the left side of theillustration in Figure 1.0. With established baselines, the State can then analyzethe data to determine where there is need and evaluate if investments aremaking an impact on the baselines. Figure 1.1 better illustrates this examplewith protecting youth, Colorado’s top strategic priority.

Figure 1.1: Baseline, Prioritization and Selection


9/74


7



As part of Colorado’s vision to build a longer term and highly effectiveperformance management system based upon best practice data governance,analysis and reporting capabilities, the Colorado General Assembly enactedlegislation (SB 13-283) to provide specific implementation requirements following

the passage of Amendment 64.

C.R.S. 24-33.5-516 – Study Marijuana Implementation and 25.1.5-111 – Monitor Health Effects of Marijuana require data reporting by Coloradoagencies.

! C.R.S.24-33.5-516 requires the Colorado Department of PublicSafety, Division of Criminal Justice to gather data over the two yearperiod beginning January 1, 2006, and over the two year periodbeginning January 1, 2014.

! C.R.S. 25.1.5-111 requires reporting by the Colorado Departmentof Public Health and Environment on January 31, 2015 and every

two year period thereafter focused on marijuana usage. Reporting requirements are subject to appropriations made to the

departments through C.R.S. 12-43.3-501.

These legislative requirements support Colorado’s goal of being a national leaderby establishing a rigorous regulatory framework for the legalization ofrecreational marijuana. At the foundation of this goal is the development of thenecessary data management systems that can provide invaluable inputs intopublic policy decisions and the overall effectiveness and impacts of thosedecisions.

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Project

In order to start the development of this data management capture and reportingcapability, the first step is to catalog the data management systems in Coloradotoday. The priority areas for assessment are the reporting requirements in theaforementioned legislation (C.R.S §24-33.5-516 and C.R.S. §25-1.5-111).Through a competitive selection process, Rebound Solutions in partnership withthe Center for Research Strategies and the Keystone Center was selected toprovide a detailed assessment in an accelerated timeframe on the ability of theState to collect critical marijuana-related data, identify key gaps, and providerecommendations to State leadership to mitigate these gaps.

Building on the existing work of State personnel, this report provides the followinginformation:

Understanding the legislative requirements for recreational marijuanareporting.

Understanding the existing data management capabilities within the Stateof Colorado.


10/74


8



Identifying strategic priorities and recommendations for improving theState’s data management capabilities.

This document is designed to drive strategic decisions for prioritizing investmentsin data collection and reporting. In this regard, the report provides a high-level

roadmap for Colorado organized by high-priority recommendations. Eachrecommendation includes a timeline for implementation, high level costestimation, and a risk assessment associated with implementation. It’s importantto understand this report doesn’t dive into the various public policy positions onmarijuana but focuses instead on building a vigorous and sustainable datareporting system that will provide public policy makers with valuable informationfor making decisions and investments related to recreational marijuana.

Our Approach

The approach for producing this report focused on interviewing key stakeholders

across the State that represented leadership focused on the strategic prioritiesaround protecting youth, health, and public safety. We interviewed leaders ofState departments, State data subject matter experts, law enforcement officials,nonprofit organizations, and marijuana industry officials in order to provide aholistic report that identifies what is collected today, how it is collected, and whatis needed to address the strategic priorities for the State.

From a strategic perspective, this can be summarized by figure 1.2

Figure 1.2 Strategic Project Approach

The Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis project was conducted over anine week period in June and July 2014 using the following approach to discoverdata collection requirements and capabilities through interviews, research, and


11/74


9



analysis and develop strategic recommendations for data collection andreporting. Figure 1.3 illustrates the technical approach for this project.

Figure 1.3 Technical Project Approach

Stakeholder Interviews

In order to examine state agency readiness to collect data and report on trends inresponse to the legalization of adult-use marijuana and conduct a comprehensivedata discovery and gap analysis, the project team met with a variety ofdepartmental and external subject matter experts in order to:

Elicit a better understanding of agency use of data in existing reporting. Gather information on requirements for data collection within each agency

or external organization. Initially identify and document “as-is” data collection and reporting

capabilities in agencies, and readiness for statutory reportingrequirements.

The project team met with representatives specifically identified in the followingagencies and reached out to a number of additional departmental and subjectmatter experts recommended during the discovery, interview and evaluationprocess. A list of stakeholders interviewed is included in Appendix A. A list ofinterview questions is provided in Appendix B.

Colorado Department of Public Safety/CDPS, including the Division ofCriminal Justice/DCJ

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment/CDPHE


12/74


10



Colorado Department of Revenue/DOR, including the MarijuanaEnforcement Division/MED

Governor’s Office of Information and Technology/OIT Colorado Department of Education/CDE Colorado Department of Human Services/CDHS, including the Office of

Behavioral Health and Office of Children, Youth, and Families Colorado Department of Transportation/CDOT Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police/CACP

In addition representatives from the following organizations were recommendedfor interviews and were contacted for information during the project.

Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Colorado Attorney General’s Office Colorado District Attorney’s Council Colorado Department of Agriculture Governor’s Office – OSPB, Legal, Policy, Office of Marijuana Coordination Colorado Department of Public Safety, including the Colorado Bureau of

Investigations/CBI Local Law Enforcement representatives

The project team developed a stakeholder engagement plan and was guided bya Project Governance Team comprised of agency representatives to provideoversight and assistance during the project timeframe. Members of the projectgovernance team were provided periodic status updates during the project andasked for individual clarification when questions arose.

Structure of Our Findings

This report is structured in the following manner.

1. Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories2. Understanding the Capability and Valuation Scoring3. Understanding Scoring and Prioritization4. Capability and Strategic Assessment5. Enterprise and Legislative Recommendations6. Data Management Strategic Recommendations

7. Supplemental Data Management Recommendations8. Implementation Planning


13/74


11



Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories

As outlined above, this report is based upon statutory requirements outlined inC.R.S §24-33.5-516 and C.R.S. §25-1.5-111. If possible within the budgetary andtime constraints of the project, the project team was also asked to expand the

scope of work to explore other areas where there are opportunities to collect andreport on data not identified in SB13-283 (see priority list, not including requiredareas C.R.S §24-33.5-516 and C.R.S. §25-1.5-111). These recommendationsare provided in the Supplemental Data Management Recommendations section.

Legislative Categories and Definitions

Table 1.1 lists the specific legislative categories that are frequently referencedthroughout this report as well as the definition for each category.

Table 1.1

Statutory Category Statutory Definition

Marijuana-Initiated Contacts byLaw Enforcement

Marijuana-initiated contacts by law enforcement, brokendown by judicial district and by race and ethnicity

Marijuana Criminal Arrest DataMarijuana arrest data, including amounts of marijuana witheach arrest, broken down by judicial district and by race andethnicity

Comprehensive School Data

Comprehensive school data, both statewide and by individualschool, including suspensions, expulsions, and police

referrals related to drug use and sales, broken down byspecific drug categories

Drug Endangered ChildrenData related to drug-endangered children, specifically formarijuana

Diversion to MinorsDiversion of marijuana to persons under twenty-one years ofage

Marijuana Related TrafficAccidents

Traffic accidents, including fatalities and serious injuriesrelated to being under the influence of marijuana

Out-of-State Diversion Diversion of marijuana out of Colorado

Marijuana Site OperationalCrime Statistics

Crime occurring in and relating to the operation of marijuanaestablishments

Marijuana Transfer UsingParcel Services

Utilization of parcel services for the transfer of marijuana

Probation Data Probation data

Data on Emergency RoomVisits and Poison Control

Data on emergency room visits related to the use ofmarijuana and the outcomes of those visits, includinginformation from Colorado Poison Control Center


14/74


12



Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Outdoor marijuana cultivation facilities

Money LaunderingMoney laundering relating to both licensed and unlicensedmarijuana

Organized Crime The role of organized crime in marijuana

Monitor Health Effects ofMarijuana (CDPHE)

Monitor changes in drug use patterns, broken down by raceand ethnicity, and the emerging science and medicalinformation relevant to the health effects associated withmarijuana use.

The Department shall appoint a panel of health careprofessionals with expertise in cannabinoid physiology tomonitor the relevant information. The panel shall provide areport by January 31, 2015, and every two years thereafter tothe State Board of Health, the Department of Revenue, andthe general assembly. The Department shall make the reportavailable on its web site.The panel shall establish criteria for studies to be reviewed,reviewing studies and other data, and making

recommendations, as appropriate, for policies intended toprotect consumers of marijuana or marijuana products to thegeneral public.

The Department may collect Colorado-specific data thatreports adverse health events involving marijuana use fromthe all-payer claims database, hospital discharge data, andbehavioral risk factors.

Understanding Scoring and Prioritization

The section explains the scoring used for data system maturity (capability),strategic value, and the overall prioritization of the recommendations.

Understanding the Capability and Valuation Scoring

The first critical assignment for this report was to score the ability of the state’scurrent capability to actually collect required data. In addition, we also scored thestrategic value of gathering these data. Figure 1.4 defines the score criteria forboth the capability and strategic value of the data types.


15/74


13



Figure 1.4 Collection capability and Strategic Value Scoring Criteria

Low Medium High

CollectionCapability

No consistent

capability to collectand report the datarequested.

Limited and

inconsistent capabilityto collect and reportthe data requested.

Sufficient capability to

collect and report datarequested.

Strategic Value

Very low return on theinvestment.

The collection of thesedata has very littlestrategic value inproviding baseline orevaluative capabilities.

Value in the data.

Collection of thesedata can be used toestablish a baseline.

These data may beable to be used forlongitudinal, analyticaland or predictive

modeling.

Instrumental inestablishing publicpolicy.

These data can beused to target specificpopulations andbehaviors.

These data can belongitudinally

leveraged.

Recommendation Prioritization

For the specific legislatively required data elements and the specific primaryimpact of the data on Colorado’s strategic protection areas, we have defined theprioritization of recommendations based upon the following criteria:

Strategic value. The value of the data collection is scored as High. These dataare critical for setting a baseline, building evaluative, predictive, or longitudinal

analysis. Cross spectrum strategic value. Data that can be used across the three

primary objectives to protect kids, health, and public safety. Federal impact. The data are helpful in showing how Colorado’s efforts to

mitigate the impacts from Recreational Marijuana. Specific impact. The data are potentially lifesaving in nature. This information

can be used to dramatically protect kids and the community. Dependency. The data are a critical or fundamental requirement for performing

analysis.


16/74


14



Capability and Strategic Assessment

This section provides a summary of the existing capability to collect data and theassociated strategic value for the collection and management of these dataindicators. This section also provides details about the existing capabilities to

support the scoring.

Collection Capability and Strategic Value

Table 1.2 provides the summary scoring of the S tate’s collection capabilities andthe strategic value of the collection. This is organized by the statutory categoriesand also highlights the primary strategic objective for the collection.

Table 1.2 Summary Scoring

Statutory

Category

Primary Strategic

Impact

Capability to

Collect Today

Strategic

Value

Marijuana-initiatedContacts by LawEnforcement

Public Safety Low Medium

Marijuana CriminalArrest Data

Public Safety Medium High

ComprehensiveSchool Data

Protecting Youth Low High

Drug EndangeredChildren Protecting Youth Low High

Diversion to Minors Protecting Youth Medium High

Marijuana RelatedTraffic Accidents


Out-of-StateDiversion


Marijuana Site

Operational CrimeStatistics


Marijuana TransferUsing ParcelServices

Public Safety Medium Medium

ProbationInfractions Relatedto Marijuana

Public Safety Medium Low


17/74


15



StatutoryCategory

Primary StrategicImpact

Capability toCollect Today

StrategicValue

Data on EmergencyRoom Visits and

Poison Control

Public Health Medium High

Outdoor MarijuanaCultivation

Public Safety Medium Medium

Organized Crime /Money Laundering


Marijuana Patternsof Use and HealthEffects by County

Public Health Low High

Marijuana Patterns

of Use and HealthEffects byRace / Ethnicity

Public Health High High

Medical Research Public Health High High

Adverse HealthImpacts

Public Health Medium High

Capability Assessment and Recommendation Summary

Colorado’s efforts are being closely watched across the nation. Data can providevaluable information for the State as it moves forward. The following sectionsassess the current data management and reporting capabilities for the State ofColorado and make recommendations around current and future data needs.Appendices C and D provide an overview of the data capability, gaps andrecommendations.

In most data categories for the 2006-2008 and 2014-2016 legislative reportingtimeframes, information can be collected as required in legislation but the dataavailable will only be for drug categories in general, not broken down specifically

for marijuana. Even if marijuana categories were developed for collection andreporting for the 2014-2016 timeframe, the data would not be comparable to theprevious reporting period. Appendix E provides detail on marijuana dataindicators that are available for the 2006 to 2008 time period.

Based on the results as shown in Table 1.2 regarding Colorado’s capability tocollect the statutorily required data, the State currently has a medium to lowcapability for most indicators. The only exceptions relate to information regarding


18/74


16



marijuana patterns of use and health effects as well as the current investment inaggregating medical research findings.

Marijuana-initiated Contacts by Law EnforcementThere is not a current capability in Colorado to collect marijuana-initiated

contacts by law enforcement. The recommendation of the Amendment 64 TaskForce included use of the term “marijuana related” incidents but the legislativelanguage in SB 13-283 refers to “marijuana initiated contacts” which is not a termor definition typically used in law enforcement. Since implementation of

Amendment 64, some local law enforcement agencies and the Colorado StatePatrol have created reports or modified records management systems to enablea minimal capability to identify and track marijuana related incidents. This datacollection is limited by several factors including the lack of a clear definition of“marijuana-initiated contacts,” a lack of local or statewide reporting systems tocapture an “initiated” incident, and a lack of uniform and consistent reporting thatwould allow for comparison of information. The recommendation around this

specific provision would be to convene local law enforcement officials to betterdetermine tracking of a marijuana related incident including methods to uniformlyidentify an incident and to specifically capture data. Alternatively, we recommendstriking it as a data collection point and using the predictive, longitudinal dataanalysis recommended in the local level impacts section of this report to analyzecrime and disorder data. Either action will require modification to the existinglegislation.

Marijuana Criminal Arrest DataThe capability in the State to collect marijuana criminal arrest data is limited.Currently, incident and arrest data from NIBRS are broken down by race into fivelevels of marijuana drug offenses. NIBRS, though, is unable to report data byethnicity, amounts or arrests by judicial district. We recommend convening lawenforcement officials to determine the level of detail required and the mostefficient means of capturing data related to amounts and whether this is anecessary data element for analysis. Relative to judicial district reporting, werecommend changing this requirement. We suggest using the CCIS OIR datafield which provides municipal and county information. However, if the Statewishes to access judicial district information, this category would need to beadded into CCIS.

Comprehensive School Data

The capability in the State to collect comprehensive school data for marijuanause is very limited. Currently drug-related suspensions, expulsions, and policereferrals can be collected, but data are reported for all drugs and not brokendown specifically for marijuana. In addition, law enforcement referrals andstandards for reporting at the local school level are inconsistent leading to a lackof uniform reporting. Given the high priority of preventing youth from usingmarijuana, the recommendations would be that the State changes the existingschool district reporting to require the collection of information specific to


19/74


17



marijuana. This would require modification of the School Finance Act as well as arequirement that all school districts capture the requisite information. HB12-1345,the School Finance Act, also mandates that both local law enforcement anddistrict attorneys collect data on criminal justice contacts with students and toreport those data annually to the Colorado Department of Public Safety/Division

of Criminal Justice (DCJ). This legislation was originally passed to collect data onstudent race and ethnicity for school referrals to law enforcement. Currently,there is no required reporting by specific drug offense but these reports doprovide a means to include a marijuana data category. The legislation isscheduled to sunset in 2016. A need was also identified for additional school stafftrainings and resources to properly identify marijuana use.

Drug Endangered Children - Specifically for MarijuanaThe capability in the State to collect data on drug endangered children associated with marijuana is very limited. The State currently collects arrest datafor ‘reckless endangerment’ and data in TRAILS related to substance abuse/

neglect by parents and/or substance abuse by the youth and/ or drug exposedinfants. The challenge with the data is that this information is not specific tomarijuana and arrest data are not broken down by specific offense. Given thehigh priority of protecting youth, the recommendation is to modify TRAILS tocapture marijuana information. More statewide communication efforts are alsoneeded to educate stakeholders about the definition of drug endangeredchildren, recently defined in SB-13-278. From this work, identification of keyquestions could be determined which would identify useful data for futurecollection. Finally, there is a need for additional training and resources for humanservices staff to better identify and recognize caregivers who are under theinfluence of marijuana.

Diversion to MinorsThe capability in the State to collect data on diversion to minors is adequate,however, there are challenges. While the Department of Revenue has the abilityto track diversion through the point of sale and within the seed to sale trackingsystems for marijuana that comes from the regulated retail market, there are nospecific data collection tools that currently allow the State to track the diversion ofnon-recreational marijuana to youth outside the point of sale system. NIBRs isused to collect juvenile drug offense data but this information is not broken downby drug category nor specifically for marijuana and it does not capture how aminor obtained access. It also does not capture ethnicity. For youth between the

ages of 18 and 25, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)provides national and state-level data on the use of illicit drugs (including non-medical use of prescription drugs) and mental health in the United States.NSDUH is sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (SAMHSA), an agency of the U.S. Public Health Service inthe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Through theNSDUH, estimates are available regarding the proportion of young adults (18+,18-25 and 26+ years of age) who are using marijuana. While this data source

https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/homepage.cfm#%23https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/homepage.cfm#%23https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/homepage.cfm#%23https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/homepage.cfm#%23https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/homepage.cfm#%23https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/homepage.cfm#%23


20/74


18



provides ongoing information regarding marijuana use patterns, informationregarding how these young adults are obtaining or purchasing marijuana is notcurrently available. Given the high strategic value of this information,recommendations include modifying NIBRS to capture marijuana data for

juvenile drug offenses. We also recommend the longitudinal development of data

reporting to determine how overall diversion to minors is occurring using both thetransactional data reporting from law enforcement, school districts, and humanservices as well as the surveillance data collected by public health. CDPHE hasalready added questions to the Colorado YRBS/Healthy Kids Colorado surveydata. Additionally, some local school districts have expanded data collection tocapture information from all local schools and for a larger sampling of students.We would recommend a broad inventory be completed across Colorado toassess the current methods used to survey youth through both State and non-profit organization resources. In addition, we recommend placing a high priorityon expanding and encouraging broader, consistent participation of all schooldistricts and local schools across Colorado in the Healthy Kids Colorado survey

to improve the State’s ability to compare the results obtained with other states.This will provide better information for prevention efforts targeted toward youth.

Marijuana Related Traffic AccidentsThe capability in the State to collect data on marijuana related traffic accidents islimited. Data can be collected from several sources, including FARS, ColoradoState Patrol, NHTSA and DRE Annual Reports from the Colorado Department ofTransportation (CDOT). The challenges with the data are that reporting is notspecific to marijuana, there are not clear standards for reporting marijuanaimpairment, and there is not consistency or standardization in reporting fromlocal levels to the Colorado Department of Transportation. While fatality data

associated with marijuana use are available, there is limited information onaccidents not involving a fatality or serious injury. Given the high strategic valueof these data, recommendations would be to provide training for law enforcementand related stakeholders to ensure traffic accident reports and system reportingincludes more consistent use of marijuana drug codes that are entered throughFARS for fatality and serious injury reporting, and that CDPHE and its certifiedlaboratories have the data collection capabilities for reporting and compilinginformation related to DUID and DUO blood levels. This includes changes totoxicity reporting as recommended by the Colorado Association of Chiefs ofPolice (CACP). It is recommended that local law enforcement recordmanagement systems and CCIS be modified to include specific marijuana DUID-

related data categories. A need was also identified for additional training andresources to properly identify marijuana impairment.

Out-of-State DiversionThe capability in the State to collect data on out-of-state diversion is limited. Datacan be collected or is reported in federal data sets, EPIC seizure reports, U.S.Postal Service data and Rocky Mountain HIDTA reports. The challenges with thedata are that EPIC is a voluntary reporting system so data are not reported


21/74


19



consistently. While there is an ability to trace recreational marijuana through theseed to sale tracking and point of sale systems, the same capacity does not existfor the medical marijuana caregiver model and unregulated market. Mostdiversion is detected through investigations by federal, state, and/or localagencies outside of Colorado and there is no mechanism to capture that

diversion data. Given the high strategic value of these data, we recommend thatColorado law enforcement officials, led by the CBI Colorado Crime AnalysisInformation Center (CAIC), work with Border States through a study to determineand measure diversion from Colorado. This recommendation may requiredevelopment of voluntary agreements with Border States to adopt data captureand analysis methods for marijuana to be able to track this diversion activity, bestidentify patterns of occurrence and determine trends. There is precedent forColorado and surrounding states to work collaboratively on law enforcementanalysis projects as there has been recent work on tracking and analyzing multi-state auto theft data.

Marijuana Site Operational Crime StatisticsThe capability in the State to collect data on marijuana site operational crimestatistics is limited. Some local law enforcement record management systems in

jurisdictions where there are medical/retail marijuana outlets are flaggingmarijuana incidents. The Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR) MarijuanaEnforcement Division can capture some of these data where crimes have beenreported directly to DOR from the regulated market retail establishment. Thechallenges with the data are that there is not a statewide law enforcementreporting system and no uniformity in the data collection. Given the high strategicvalue of these data, recommendations are to assess criminal activities related to,within, or near marijuana site operations and to cross reference site (licensing

data) with criminal statistics just as law enforcement currently would report forother activities such as home burglaries or auto thefts. In order to fullyunderstand the impact, further data collection requirements may require amodification of the term “marijuana site operational crime statistics” in legislationto distinguish between crime occurring related to the regulated and unregulatedmarkets. This recommendation depends upon action taken regarding the“marijuana related incident” reporting in state law enforcement data systems.

Marijuana Transfer Using Parcel ServicesThe capability in the State to collect data on marijuana transfer using parcelservices is limited. This information is being collected and reported by the U.S.

Postal Service Inspection Division, as well as through EPIC and Rocky MountainHIDTA Reports. The challenges with the data are that EPIC is a voluntaryreporting system so data are not reported consistently and there is no datareporting system for private carriers. Given the low value of these data, there areno recommendations to enhance the current system. The State should continueto use the federal data set from the US Postal Service as the existing datasource for current needs.


22/74


20



Probation Infractions Related to MarijuanaThe capability in the State to collect data on probation infractions related tomarijuana is limited. This information is being collected through ICON/Eclipse,the judicial data reporting system for the State of Colorado. The challenges withthe data are that there is not a c lear definition of ‘probation data’ for marijuana

reporting in the legislation which has led to confusion about what needs to bereported. Currently ICON does not have a specific marijuana-related data field;consequently, references to marijuana are only present if marijuana is identifiedin the report notes and ICON does not have the ability to query these reports formarijuana data collection. Given the low priority value of these data, therecommendations are to better define the desired data needs and intent forcollection of this data for marijuana reporting, and if the State is interested inthese data for marijuana collection and assessment, to make system changes toensure that ICON/Eclipse can capture marijuana specific data for reporting.Based on the clarification of the need for this data set, using probation data toassess other research questions related to marijuana may be better addressed

through one-time, specific study inquiries.

Data on Emergency Room Visits and Poison ControlThe capability in the State to collect data on emergency room visits and PoisonControl is limited. These data are being collected through voluntary hospitalreports, and the national Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) which is alsovoluntary and no longer funded. The All Payer Claims Database collects claimsdata and has claim codes that are specific to marijuana but providers do notconsistently or uniformly code for marijuana. The challenges with the data are thevoluntary nature of data collection. According to a recent Office of National DrugControl Policy (ONDCP) report, there are efforts underway by SAMHSA, the

National Center for Health Statistics and the National Survey on Drug Use andHealth (NSDUH) to improve and transition data collection and reporting in 2015.CDPHE is also working with the Colorado Hospital Association to improve codingand the tracking of marijuana related admissions to emergency rooms. All thecurrently available data sets for adverse health effects are only availableretrospectively which greatly hinders the timely detection of adverse effects thatmay be related to contamination or poisoning. In order to fill these data gaps, theColorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has requestedfunding to increase data collection capacity through syndromic surveillance.Given the high strategic value of these data, the recommendations are tocontinue to improve and refine efforts to collect data through voluntary reporting

methods including the BRFSS, All Payer Claims Database, Hospital Dischargeand E.R. Data, and Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center data, includingrequiring hospital provider reporting of youth related marijuana admissions.Tracking of this information should be through the All Payer Claim Database.

Outdoor Marijuana CultivationThe capability in the State to collect data on outdoor marijuana cultivation isadequate but challenging. These data are being collected by local law


23/74


21



enforcement agencies that voluntary report this information within federal datasets (EPIC) and other federal collection sources (DEA, U.S. Forest Service,National Guard and Rocky Mountain HIDTA) but there is no statewide datasystem to capture local law enforcement outdoor cultivation seizures. Thisreporting provides information for outdoor cultivation that has been identified but

does not capture the unknown, unreported and unregulated cultivation. It isimportant to distinguish that there is a difference between illegal, unregulatedoutdoor cultivation and legal, regulated cultivation as there is some outdoorgrowing that occurs in the regulated market. There is no recommendation hereas existing data sources are based on federal data sets.

Organized Crime / Money LaunderingThe capability in the State to collect data on organized crime and moneylaundering is challenging. These data are being collected through state andfederal sources including NIBRS through CBI, the FBI, and the DEA. Thechallenge with the state NIBRS data is that money laundering is not broken down

by offense. This is a federal data source that comes from ongoing investigationsand intelligence gathering which would not be public data. The new regulationsColorado passed in HB 14-1398; Marijuana Financial Services Cooperatives thatcreate a bank co-op are intended to discourage potential illegal activity inColorado related to the regulated market. There is no recommendation here asthis is a federal data set.

Marijuana Patterns of Use and Health EffectsThe capability in the State to collect data on marijuana patterns of use and healtheffects is mixed. This information is being collected through a variety of state andfederal data sets including the National Survey on Drug Use and Health –

NSDUH (SAMSHA), the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS – known inColorado as the Healthy Kids Colorado survey), and Behavioral Risk FactorSurveillance System (BRFSS). Data collection capacity exists within CDPHE,CDHS through the Office of Behavioral Health DACODs system, and the RockyMountain Poison Control Center. Given the high value of these data, therecommendation is to continue to support existing surveillance and treatmentmanagement systems, encouraging current efforts already underway to expandmarijuana related tracking. Surveillance surveys are national data collectionsystems but Colorado specific questions can continue to be added as long asthere is funding. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) canserve as a way to capture use patterns for adults with treatment patterns being

derived from DACODs. Access and use of marijuana by youth can be monitoredthrough the Healthy Kids Colorado survey, with information reported by healthdistrict rather than by county. One legislative change can be to adjust therequired reporting such that it reflects current data collection protocols.


24/74


22



Enterprise Recommendations

In addition to the legislatively required data collection capabilities andrecommendations described above, we identified specific enterprise-widerecommendations that should be considered by the State that support improveddata collection at the State and local levels.

Streamline Data Collection

Currently the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice(CDPS/DCJ) has been designated as the primary agency responsible for thecollection and reporting for all of the recreational marijuana data requirements.While there has been great cooperation across state agencies to share data, thisstructure has significant constraints and inefficiencies. We believe this model isnot sustainable in the longer term for data collection as staff, agency and

administrative leadership changes.

This process results in:

Additional overhead in transmitting and sharing data between agencies. Potential issues with data ownership and compliance with data security /

privacy issues. Additional resources to manage data that are not directly understood or

relevant to the Public Safety Domain. Potential issues with the data comprehension or formatting, CDPS

becomes a broker between agencies and the data requests.

Limited formal accountability or requirement by other agencies to sharedata with CDPS.

As part of our recommendation on data collection and reporting, we believe thatrefining this process would result in much more optimized and efficient reporting.

Figure 1.5 Transitioning the Data Collection Processes and Systems

Figure 1.5 above illustrates the high level concept that shifts from a singleresponsible agency to a distributed / longitudinal structure. While we are not


25/74


23



making systemic or technology platform recommendations, streamlining theprocesses would result in:

Better communication, resource allocation, and reporting requirements. Better efficiency since it reduces overhead in transmitting and sharing

data. A higher level of sustainability since this model builds in redundancy. Higher impact as agencies can focus on their core competencies in terms

of data collection and reporting. Higher quality reports since report format and structure are predetermined

in advance. Development of longitudinal data sets that combine or join disparate data

sets across agencies.

Data Advisory Board

Support for the recommendation above, as marijuana regulation and oversightprogresses in the State, requires an entity to ensure alignment between strategyand direction. The entity has to be empowered and trusted to access andaccurately analyze data across agencies. The entity’s main function would be toorganize operational, financial, risk-management and reporting processes so thatthe Governor and Legislature receive the information needed and can meetColorado’s strategic objectives efficiently and effectively.

As a step toward creating such an entity, the recommendation is to create a dataadvisory board with the following responsibilities:

Overseeing the implementation of the recommendations for data collectionoutlined in this report.

Defining the research and evaluation questions related to marijuana andcoordinating efforts across agencies to answer those questions.

Providing oversight into the development of data reports which arestatutorily required.

Providing leadership and input into predictive and higher value datamanagement activities and initiatives.

Ensuring agency resources are available to support data reportingexpectations.

Establishing reporting frequency.

The membership of the data board should be made up of the following agenciesthat collect high value data: Department of Revenue (specifically MarijuanaEnforcement Division); Department of Public Health and Environment;Department of Human Services (specifically Office of Behavioral Health);Department of Public Safety; Division of Criminal Justice/DCJ; Governor’s Officeof Information and Technology/OIT; and Colorado Department of


26/74


24



Education/CDE. In addition to these agencies, membership should includerepresentatives from law enforcement associations, legislative representatives,IT/ data sharing experts from the community, and any other identified keystakeholders.

With a Data Advisory Board model, the state has a better ability to communicate,commit resources, define reporting requirements, and determine whether stateregulations and policies are meeting intended goals.

Clarity of Statutory Definitions

Table 1.3 outlines three recommendations to clarify existing legislativerequirements. By improving these requirements, data collection efforts will bemore effective and efficient.

Table 1.3 Legislative Definitions that require clarification

Data Reference inLegislation

Why an Issue? Potential Recommendations

Marijuana InitiatedContacts by lawenforcement by raceand ethnicity, and byjudicial district

Stakeholders not interpreting“marijuana initiated contacts”uniformly because the term is notclearly defined in legislation orpreviously used in law

enforcement data collection.No comprehensive system tocollect data.

From a statutory perspective,implement the data collectionrecommendations in this reportwhich provide more specificinformation on criminal activityrelated to marijuana. Based on

additional law enforcementfeedback, modify the statutelanguage from “initiated” to“related,” or strike as collectionmethod.

Data related to DrugEndangeredChildren, specificallyfor marijuana

Non-uniform interpretations of“drug endangered children” amonghuman services and lawenforcement. TRAILScaptures/reports by drug category,not by marijuana specifically.Reckless endangerment charge inNIBRS not defined by offense somarijuana-specific data are notavailable.

From a statutory perspective,implement the data collectionrecommendations in this reportwhich provide more specificinformation on how marijuana isimpacting youth. Ourrecommendations should furtherinform and clarify the definition ofthis term.

Probation Data

Non-uniform interpretation of“probation” in this context -(Marijuana offenders onprobation? Marijuana vis-à-vis

Clarify language to be specific forindividuals on probation who arearrested, detained, or prosecutedfor marijuana crimes.


27/74


25



probation violations? etc).

Supplemental Recommendations

Priority Areas

Youth Use and PrevalencePreventing youth use and access to marijuana was consistently shared by lawenforcement and public health stakeholders as a top priority. Data collection andreporting on youth use and access, exposure to advertising and understandingyouth’s perception of risk are extremely important in developing education,awareness and prevention campaigns. In addition to the recommendationsoutlined in the legislative requirements for youth regarding expansion of

surveillance and survey data, we recommend continued support of research andevaluation that can measure the impact and effectiveness of prevention,education and awareness investments.

Behavioral Health Treatment NeedsThere are not specific legislative requirements in SB13-283 that require reportingof substance abuse data for marijuana use and treatment in the required 2006-2008 and 2014-2016 report timeframes. However, through national and statedata available through the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) inthe Office of Behavioral Health, reports from treatment providers offer highstrategic value data to assess needs and support investments in substanceabuse treatment decision making. Data analysis of existing data sources couldbe used to determine high risk populations to help cater educational andoutreach programs. In addition, more research is needed on the relationship foradults and youth between alcohol and marijuana; or other drug use andmarijuana. This will give the State a better picture of substance abuse, treatmentand prevention needs in Colorado.


28/74


26



Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID)Colorado statutes and many other states’ laws set regulations that directlymeasure the level of impairment of the driver. The understanding of howdangerous it is to drive under the influence of marijuana, how to test forimpairment, and how the risks compare to driving drunk — are lagging behind

the impacts of legalization and public understanding. Based on several reviewpapers, it is estimated that there is a twofold increase in the risk of an accident ifthere is any measurable amount of THC in the bloodstream. Risks can be evenhigher when marijuana is used in combination with alcohol. Blood-alcohol contentcan be tested on the side of the road with a Breathalyzer but the same is not truefor marijuana. Currently, THC levels must be measured from blood samples. Inaddition, more research and study is needed to understand the effects ofcombining alcohol and marijuana and its impact on driving impairment. Given thehigh strategic value of this issue and need for data to test and assess risk, werecommend universal data collection for DUID infractions which would requireinvestments in systems for capturing data, law enforcement training through

programs such as ARIDE and DRE, reliable screening technology, investmentsto increase data collection capacity and toxicity reporting for the blood samplestested for DUID and DUI through the CDPHE certified laboratory system, andpublic education and awareness campaigns regarding impairment levels usingmarijuana, and using marijuana in combination with other substances. As withthe awareness and prevention programs for public health and protecting youth,research studies and evaluation reports require funding to determine the efficacyof efforts. In support of these and other reforms, the Colorado Task Force onDrunk and Impaired Driving created through HB 14-1321 was established tomake recommendations regarding the enhancement of government services,education, and intervention to prevent drunk and impaired driving. A team of law

enforcement officials, including the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police(CACP), Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS), and CBI, shouldcontinue to convene to provide input, direction and oversight on the issuesrelated to DUID, including involvement with the Colorado Department of PublicHealth and Environment.

Local level impacts for jurisdictions allowing and not allowing retail salesCurrently the Department of Revenue Marijuana Enforcement Division collectsdata on cities and counties that allow and do not allow retail sales of marijuana.Local statistical data are available across the major categories – crime, healthand school data. Colorado counties and municipalities are passing local

ordinances to establish their own local controls over marijuana access. Using thelongitudinal data collection approach, the recommendation would be for the Data

Advisory Board (earlier recommendation regarding data governance) inpartnership with cities, counties and agencies to identify research questions thathighlight the data required for producing analytical reports by jurisdictional type.The data from these reports can be used for comparing communities with andwithout retail sales outlets and can be used in decision making to specificallytarget investments and resources for youth use, public health and public safety.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htmhttp://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htmhttp://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htmhttp://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm


29/74


27



Multi-state comparison As one of only two states in the U.S. that have legalized retail marijuana,Colorado has become a laboratory for identifying, monitoring and regulating thesale of marijuana. While Colorado had two years of experience with the

legalization of licensed medical marijuana businesses, cultivation facilities andedible marijuana products under HB 10-1284, Colorado is faced with newchallenges associated with certifying retail marijuana stores, regulating growoperations and enforcing laws surrounding the use and distribution of marijuanain multiple forms. Even though Colorado is leading the way among states, thereare significant baselines for Colorado to compare marijuana statistics usingFederal data sources outlined in this report including criminal activity, usageamong adults and youth, and treatment statistics. National surveys such as theYRBS/Healthy Kids Colorado survey can be used for comparison on usageamong youth across states. Since Colorado has legalized the sale of recreationalmarijuana, comparisons on criminal statistics will have to be adjusted.

Recommendations include using the Data Advisory Board (recommended earlier)to define research questions that will help Colorado understand its comparativeposition to other states. These questions should be targeted for relevant andconsistent reporting. After these questions are defined, resources can beidentified to collect federal, other state, and independent data that are relevantfor comparison. This may require building additional reports or it may be simplyentail pulling data from existing sources.

Additional Findings from Stakeholder Interviews beyond theStatutory Requirements and Priority Areas:

Hash Oil ExplosionsHash Oil Explosions were identified by a number of stakeholders interviewed asa potential concern for public safety. Currently, law enforcement and firedepartment stakeholders are meeting to discuss this emerging issue and addresspotential actions. In interviews, stakeholders noted that only fire departments atthe current time may know that a hash oil explosion has occurred. Theseincidents may also go unrecognized or unreported as hash oil explosion. If thecause of the fire is investigated, arson among other charges may be the charge.SB 13-283, added C.R.S 9-7-113 Use of flammable gases in home marijuanacultivation – prohibited, giving local governments authority to ban the use of a

compressed, flammable gas as a solvent in the extraction of THC or othercannabinoids in a residential setting.

From a data collection standpoint and given existing systems, the State wouldneed to identify and track the local government entities that have passed localordinances and collect the number of citations issued. These data could beaggregated to the State level to develop a baseline and track trends over timebut would need to be analyzed at a local or regional level to determine


30/74


28



geographic areas where prevention and enforcement could be targeted to areaswith highest incidents or at greatest risk.

EdiblesOverexposure to high potency edibles was identified by a number of

stakeholders interviewed as a potential concern for public health, protectingsafety and protecting kids. During the Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap

Analysis Project period, an emergency rule making work group was formed toadopt emergency rules related to the THC in a serving size of edibles. The workgroup has completed its review and new regulations for edibles took effect

August 1, 2014. An additional work group has been formed to review how toimprove the labeling of edibles for the general public. That work group becameeffective August 1, 2014.

From a data collection standpoint, any data sets requiring r eporting “specificallyfor marijuana” through public health, public safety, or school data systems would

have to include a further breakdown to determine that marijuana exposure was aresult of the ingestion of an edible. No action is recommended for data collectionat the current time.


31/74


29



Strategic Roadmap and Planning

This section summarizes the priorities, timelines, and projected efforts (financialcosts and resources) required to implement the recommendations.

Prioritization Summary of Recommendations

This section provides a summary score of the recommendations. We havedefined the prioritization of recommendations based upon:

Strategic value. The value of the data collection is scored as High. Thesedata are critical for setting a baseline, building evaluative, predictive, orlongitudinal analysis.

Cross spectrum strategic value. Data that can be used across the threeprimary objectives to protect youth, health, and public safety.

Federal Priority. The data are helpful in showing Colorado’s efforts to

mitigate the impacts from Recreational Marijuana. Dependency. The data are a critical or fundamental requirement for

performing analysis.

High Priority Recommendations.

NameStrategic

Value Cross

SpectrumFederalPriority Dependency

R1: Data Governance Model High Yes Yes Yes

R2: Legislative Requirements High Yes No Yes

R3: Criminal Arrest High Yes Yes No

R4: Comprehensive School High Yes Yes No

R5: Drug Endangered ChildrenHigh Yes Yes No

R6: Diversion to Minors High Yes Yes No

R7: Marijuana Related TrafficAccidents High Yes Yes No

R8: Out-of-State Diversion High Yes Yes No

R9: Marijuana Site OperationalCrime Statistics High No Yes No


32/74


30



R10: Emergency Room Visits /Poison Control High Yes Yes No

R11: Organized Crime / MoneyLaundering High No Yes No

R12: Youth Use and Prevalence High Yes Yes No

R13: DUID High Yes Yes No

R14: Treatment Access High Yes No No

R15: Marijuana Patterns of Use /Health Effects High Yes Yes No

Enterprise Recommendations.

Recommendation Primary StrategicImpact

Capability toCollect Today Strategic Value

Data Governance All N/A High

Legislative DefinitionClarification All N/A High

Enterprise Recommendations

R1: Data Governance Model. Convene a governance authority to implement therecommendations in this report. The formulation of this authority (board orcommission) should be endorsed by the Governor and have multi-jurisdictionaland cross competency representation. A project manager should be contractedor hired to facilitate the administration of this group for the first year. Thisresource can be housed in the Governor ’s Office of Marijuana Coordination.Formation of a data governance model will address the:

Significant effort required to prioritize, collect, and manage the datacollection efforts

Strong need for continued and formalized cross departmentalcooperation

Coordinated data collection and sharing efforts outlined in this report.


33/74


31



R2: Legislative Definition Clarification. Clarify the legislative definitions inSB13-283 for marijuana initiated contacts; data related to drug endangeredchildren, specifically for marijuana; and probation data.

Marijuana Initiated Contacts by law enforcement by race and ethnicity, andby judicial district. Modify the statute language from “initiated” to “related,”

or strike as a collection method. From a statutory perspective, implementthe data collection recommendations in this report which provide morespecific information on criminal activity related to marijuana.

Data related to Drug Endangered Children, specifically for marijuana.Educate stakeholders about the recent definition of drug endangeredchildren. From a statutory perspective, implement the data collectionrecommendations in this report which provide more specific information onhow marijuana is impacting youth.

Probation Data. Clarify language to be specific for individuals on probationwho are arrested, detained, or prosecuted for marijuana offenses.


34/74


32



High Priority Legislative Data Collection Requirements.

The following are recommendations to improve the data collection requirementsper the legislative requirements.

R3: Criminal Arrest. Convene law enforcement officials to determine the level ofdetailed reporting required and the most efficient means of capturing data relativeto the statute – e.g., by marijuana, by amounts, by race, by ethnicity. For judicialdistrict, we recommend changing this requirement to use the existing CCIS OIRdata field which would provide municipal and county information. However, if thestate wishes to compile information by judicial district, it would need to be addedinto CCIS.

R4: Comprehensive School. Change the existing school district reporting toinclude specific information on marijuana. This will require a modification to theSchool Finance Act to require all school districts to capture information. HB 12-

1345 implementation should include a marijuana data category though there arechallenges to the overall implementation of this legislation and it is scheduled tosunset in 2016.

R5: Drug Endangered Children. Modify TRAILS to capture marijuana levelinformation. Provide statewide communication and education to stakeholdersabout the terminology from SB13-278.

R6: Diversion to Minors. Modify NIBRS to capture marijuana data. Assessmethods to survey youth, including using existing student surveys. Conduct abroad inventory of surveys completed across Colorado. Place a high priority on

expanding and encouraging broader and consistent participation by schools anddistricts in the YRBS/Healthy Kids Colorado survey. Develop longitudinal datareporting to determine overall diversion.

R7: Marijuana Related Traffic Accidents. Modify CDOT FARS to include moreconsistent use of marijuana drug codes. This includes toxicity, DUID blood leveldata reporting and collection requirements for CDPHE certified laboratories.Modify local law enforcement record management systems and CCIS to includea specific marijuana DUID-related data category (Recommendation 13).

R8: Out-of-State Diversion. Encourage Colorado law enforcement officials to

work with Border States to determine and measure diversion from Coloradothrough voluntary agreements, led by CBI/Colorado Crime Analysis InformationCenter (CAIC). Adopt data capture and analysis methods to track this diversionactivity.

R9: Marijuana Site Operational Crime Statistics. Use existing data to assesscrime and disorder related to, within, or near marijuana site operations by crossreferencing site information (licensing data) with criminal statistics. This


35/74


33



recommendation correlates upon implementation of the marijuana relatedincident reporting.

R10: Emergency Room Visits / Poison Control. Continue to improve andrefine efforts to collect data through voluntary reporting methods including the

BRFSS, All Payer Claims Database, Hospital Discharge and E.R. Data, andRocky Mountain Poison Control Center data, including requiring hospital providerreporting of youth related marijuana admissions and track this through the AllPayer Claims Database.

R11: Organized Crime / Money Laundering. Track implementation of HB14-1398 regarding the bank co-op for marijuana establishments. Monitor existingfederal data.

Additional High Priority Area Recommendations.

R12: Youth Use and Prevalence. In addition to the recommendations outlined inthe legislative requirements for youth regarding the expansion of surveillance andsurvey data, continue to support research studies and evaluation reports that canmeasure the impact and effectiveness of prevention, education and awarenessinvestments.

R13: DUID. Support universal data collection for DUID infractions requiringinvestments in systems for capturing data, law enforcement training throughprograms such as ARIDE and DRE, reliable screening technology, andinvestments to increase data collection capacity and toxicity reporting for theblood samples tested for DUID and DUI through the CDPHE certified laboratory

system.

R14: Treatment Access. Analyze existing data sources to determine high riskpopulations to help tailor educational and outreach programs. Investments inresearch are needed on the relationship for adults and youth between alcoholand marijuana; or other drug use and marijuana. This will give the State a betterpicture of substance abuse, treatment and prevention needs in Colorado.

R15: Marijuana Patterns of Use / Health Effects. Continue to support existingsurveillance and treatment management systems, encouraging current effortsalready underway to expand marijuana related tracking. Surveillance surveys are

national data collection systems but Colorado specific questions can continue tobe added as long as there is funding. The Behavioral Risk Factor SurveillanceSystem (BRFSS) can serve as a way to capture use patterns for adults withtreatment patterns being derived from DACODs. Access and use of marijuana byyouth can be monitored through the Healthy Kids Colorado survey, withinformation reported by health district rather than by county. Through legislation,adjust the required reporting so that it reflects current data collection protocols.


36/74


34



Lower Priority Recommendations

NameStrategic

Value Level ofEffort Risk Cost Agency

R16: Marijuana Initiated Contacts Medium High High High CDPS

R17: Outdoor MarijuanaCultivation Medium Low Low Low CDPS

R18: Local Level Impacts Medium Moderate Moderate Moderate Multiple

R19: Multi-State Comparison Medium Moderate Moderate Moderate Policy

R20: Marijuana Transfer UsingParcel Services Medium Moderate Low Moderate CDPS

R21: Probation Infractions Low High High High CDPS / DOC

R22: Hemp Low Low Low Low DOA

Lower Priority Legislative Data Collection Requirements:

R16: Marijuana Initiated Contacts. Modify the statute language to “relatedcontacts,” or strike as a collection method. Assumptions for Level of Effort, Risks,

and Cost are based upon implementation of “ related ” incidents .

R17: Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation. Monitor existing federal data.

R18: Local Level Impacts. Produce a jurisdictional index of locations and theirregulatory framework by the Colorado Department of Revenue. This will definethe “ jurisdiction” type at a high level; this can be as simple as asking if the locality

allow the selling of recreational marijuana? Create research questions thatidentify the data required for producing analytical reports by jurisdictional type.The Data Advisory Board can prioritize, help design and implement these reports.

R19: Multi-State Comparison. Define research questions that will help Coloradounderstand its comparative position to other states, led by the Data AdvisoryBoard. These questions should be targeted to relevant and consistent reporting.In other words, since Colorado has legalized the sale of recreational marijuana,


37/74


35


915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebou

Documents

Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis