Oklahoma Methamphetamine Oklahoma Methamphetamine Prevention InitiativePrevention InitiativePrevention InitiativePrevention Initiative

Statewide DataStatewide Data

Krista Rhoades

Decision Support Services

Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Services

Admitted Consumers Served for MethAdmitted Consumers Served for MethAdmitted Consumers Served for MethAdmitted Consumers Served for Meth

Data from ODMHSAS, stateData from ODMHSAS, state--funded treatmentfunded treatmentData from ODMHSAS, stateData from ODMHSAS, state funded treatmentfunded treatmentAll consumers were in substance abuse All consumers were in substance abuse treatmenttreatmentConsumers specified meth as their primary drug Consumers specified meth as their primary drug of choiceof choiceCounties represent the consumer’s county of Counties represent the consumer’s county of residence at the time of admission to treatmentresidence at the time of admission to treatmentRates per 10,000 were calculated based on U.S. Rates per 10,000 were calculated based on U.S. Census population estimates for the beginning Census population estimates for the beginning of each fiscal yearof each fiscal year

Admitted Consumers Served for MethAdmitted Consumers Served for MethAdmitted Consumers Served for MethAdmitted Consumers Served for Meth

Rates of Meth as Primary Drug of y gChoice for the Top 5 Ranked

Counties3 Y R t f FY04 FY063-Year Rate from FY04-FY06

Ranking County Rate1 Beckham 33 821 Beckham 33.822 Muskogee 29.003 Atoka 28 523 Atoka 28.524 McCurtain 28.125 Washita 27.765 Washita 27.76

Statewide 10.67

Treatment Episode Dataset (TEDS)Treatment Episode Dataset (TEDS)Treatment Episode Dataset (TEDS)Treatment Episode Dataset (TEDS)

TEDS data is supposed to be submitted toTEDS data is supposed to be submitted toTEDS data is supposed to be submitted to TEDS data is supposed to be submitted to SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) by all statesTreatment (CSAT) by all statesThese data include a complete episode from These data include a complete episode from admission to dischargeadmission to dischargeData were from 2005Data were from 2005Primary drug of choice at admission was Primary drug of choice at admission was methamphetaminemethamphetaminePercent of all admissionsPercent of all admissions

Changes in Drug of ChoiceChanges in Drug of ChoiceChanges in Drug of ChoiceChanges in Drug of Choice

ODMHSASODMHSAS--funded treatmentfunded treatmentODMHSASODMHSAS funded treatmentfunded treatmentBased on primary drug of choice at admissionBased on primary drug of choice at admissionCounts of admitted consumers served inCounts of admitted consumers served inCounts of admitted consumers served in Counts of admitted consumers served in substance abuse treatmentsubstance abuse treatment

Top Three Drugs of Choice for Substance Abuse Admitted Consumers Served from FY00-FY06

Drug of Choice FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

Alcohol 7,389 7,382 7,468 7,370 6,970 6,895 6,486

Marijuana/Hashish 2,993 3,180 3,586 3,678 3,864 3,925 3,861

Methamphetamine 1,917 2,410 2,800 2,888 3,430 3,692 3,906

Top Three Drugs of Choice for Substance Abuse Admitted Consumers Served from FY00-FY06

7,000

8,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Adm

issi

ons Alcohol

Marijuana/Hashish

Methamphetamine

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

Year

Percent Change Alcohol: -12%, Marijuana: 29%, Methamphetamine: 104%

Admitted Consumers Served-Top 3 Drugs of Choice for Targeted Counties in FY06County Drug of Choice Count Rate

AtokaMethamphetamine 49 34.2Alcohol 33 23.0Marijuana/Hashish 25 17.4

BeckhamAlcohol 68 36.2Methamphetamine 48 25.5Marijuana/Hashish 47 25.0j

McCurtainMethamphetamine 113 33.4Alcohol 70 20.7Marijuana/Hashish 55 16.2Marijuana/Hashish 55 16.2

MuskogeeMethamphetamine 189 26.7Marijuana/Hashish 143 20.2Alcohol 133 18 8Alcohol 133 18.8

WashitaMethamphetamine 32 28.0Alcohol 22 19.2Alcohol 6 486 18 3

StatewideAlcohol 6,486 18.3Methamphetamine 3,906 11.0Marijuana/Hashish 3,861 10.9

Synthetic Narcotics ArrestsSynthetic Narcotics ArrestsSynthetic Narcotics ArrestsSynthetic Narcotics Arrests

Taken from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR)Taken from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR)Taken from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR)Taken from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR)Combined Sales/Manufacturing and PossessionCombined Sales/Manufacturing and PossessionCombined adult and juvenileCombined adult and juvenileCombined adult and juvenileCombined adult and juvenileCalendar years 2003Calendar years 2003--20052005Rates per 10 000 were calculated using U SRates per 10 000 were calculated using U SRates per 10,000 were calculated using U.S. Rates per 10,000 were calculated using U.S. Census population estimates for that yearCensus population estimates for that year

Synthetic Narcotics ArrestsSynthetic Narcotics ArrestsSynthetic Narcotics Arrests

from the UCR for 2003 to 2005 Combined2005 Combined

County Rate RankHaskell 58.29 1Sequoyah 54.20 2Custer 50.67 3LeFlore 50.57 4Cotton 50.00 5

Beckham 45.33 6Washita 43.84 7McCurtain 23.99 24Muskogee 19.11 36Muskogee 19.11 36Atoka 18.24 39Statewide 13.06 n/a

Meth LabsMeth Labs

Obtained from OSBIObtained from OSBIOSBI OBN and DEA all report meth labsOSBI OBN and DEA all report meth labsOSBI, OBN and DEA all report meth labs OSBI, OBN and DEA all report meth labs differentlydifferently

Fiscal vs Calendar yearFiscal vs Calendar yearFiscal vs. Calendar yearFiscal vs. Calendar yearLab incidents, including all dump sites vs. reported Lab incidents, including all dump sites vs. reported labs vs. lab seizureslabs vs. lab seizures

Statewide data does not include labs processed Statewide data does not include labs processed by OCPD and TPDby OCPD and TPDCountyCounty--level data includes OKCPD and TPD, level data includes OKCPD and TPD, calculated as rates per 10,000 using U.S. calculated as rates per 10,000 using U.S. C ti t f 2005C ti t f 2005Census estimates for 2005Census estimates for 2005

Meth LabsMeth LabsMeth LabsMeth Labs

Clandestine Labs Submitted to OSBI from FY00 to FY06C a dest e abs Sub tted to OS o 00 to 06FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

Labs 897 938 824 911 722 374 159

Clan Labs Submitted to OSBI

1000

600

800

1000

abs

0

200

400La

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06

Year

Meth LabsMeth Labs

Walk-In Clandestine Labs from 2005-2006Two-Year RateTwo-Year Rate

County Labs Rate RankSEQUOYAH 46 5.60 1PUSHMATAHA 13 5.58 2MCCURTAIN 30 4.42 3ADAIR 14 3 16 4ADAIR 14 3.16 4MAJOR 4 2.73 5WASHITA 4 1.74 7MUSKOGEE 15 1.06 16ATOKA 1 0.35 41BECKHAM 1 0.26 44Statewide 473 0.66 n/a

Meth LabsMeth LabsMeth LabsMeth Labs

Nationwide data from DEANationwide data from DEANationwide data from DEANationwide data from DEAAll meth incidents: labs, dumpsites, chemical or All meth incidents: labs, dumpsites, chemical or glassware seizuresglassware seizuresggCalendar year 2006Calendar year 2006

Oklahoma Prevention Needs AssessmentOklahoma Prevention Needs AssessmentOklahoma Prevention Needs AssessmentOklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment

Funded through a grant administered byFunded through a grant administered byFunded through a grant administered by Funded through a grant administered by ODMHSASODMHSASThis survey is conducted in schools with 6This survey is conducted in schools with 6thth, 8, 8thth, , yy ,, ,,1010thth and 12and 12thth grade studentsgrade studentsThe OPNA is conducted in the spring of every The OPNA is conducted in the spring of every p g yp g yother year; these data are from 2006other year; these data are from 2006Individual schools decide whether or not to Individual schools decide whether or not to participateparticipate

Oklahoma Prevention Needs AssessmentOklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment

Methamphetamine Use Data from the OPNA for 2006 for the Targeted Counties

Number of Students Surveyed Total StudentsCounty 6th 8th 10th 12th

At k 0 0 21 0 21Atoka 0 0 21 0 21Beckham 139 153 122 108 522McCurtain 50 35 53 43 181Muskogee 131 108 0 0 239Washita 0 54 45 35 134St t id 12 013 11 635 11 042 7 847 42 537Statewide 12,013 11,635 11,042 7,847 42,537

Oklahoma Prevention Needs AssessmentOklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment

Methamphetamine Use Data from the OPNA for 2006 for the Targeted Counties

Percent Ever Used Meth Total StudentsCounty 6th 8th 10th 12th StudentsCounty 6th 8th 10th 12th

Atoka n/a n/a 0.0 n/a 21Beckham 0.8 3.4 2.5 1.9 522McCurtain 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.3 181Muskogee 0.0 2.9 n/a n/a 239Washita n/a 3 9 8 9 2 9 134Washita n/a 3.9 8.9 2.9 134Statewide 0.4 1.7 3.5 4.8 42,537

Oklahoma Prevention Needs AssessmentOklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment

Methamphetamine Use Data from the OPNA for 2006 for the Targeted Counties

Percent 30-Day Use for Meth Total StudentsCounty 6th 8th 10th 12th

At k / / 0 0 / 21Atoka n/a n/a 0.0 n/a 21Beckham 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 522McCurtain 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 181Muskogee 0.0 1.0 n/a n/a 239Washita n/a 0.0 4.4 2.9 134St t id 0 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 42 537Statewide 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.0 42,537

Questions? Comments?Questions? Comments?Krista RhoadesKrista Rhoades

krhoades@odmhsas.orgkrhoades@odmhsas.org(405)522(405)522--85998599