Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis

(1)

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Executive Summary

October 7, 2014

Colorado was one of the first states to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use through the passage of a constitutional amendment. While the State has implemented a robust legal and regulatory framework for this new industry, marijuana use and possession remain illegal under federal law. With Colorado’s efforts being closely watched nationwide, strategic data collection and evaluation can provide valuable information to 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 of data across multiple levels of government and policy areas in order to identify the effects of marijuana legalization 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 management capabilities to meet legislative reporting requirements and identifies strategic priorities and

recommendations 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 – yielded information on what and how data is presently collected and what more is needed in order to meet the state’s legislative requirements. For each legislative requirement, the state’s capability to collect data, as well 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 multiple state priorities), and alignment to federal priorities, the Report identified 15 high-priority recommendations and 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 of marijuana-related activities.

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

(2)

Marijuana Data Discovery

and Gap Analysis Summary

Report

September 4th, 2014 Final Version

(3)

Acknowledgements

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

(6)

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 recreational _{use 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

(7)

Introduction

Colorado is one of the first states to legalize recreational marijuana through a constitutional amendment (Amendment 64) in 2012 and has recently implemented a regulatory and legal framework. Colorado has established clear priorities since the passage of the constitutional amendment even though recreational marijuana is still considered illegal by federal standards. These priorities 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. Specifically build measures and systems to protect diversion of recreational marijuana to under-age youth (defined as under the age of 21).

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

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

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

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

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

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. Costs include supports for law enforcement, educational outreach programming, public health and awareness campaigns, and other programmatic investments to help meet these priorities. As part of this framework, Colorado requires a highly robust data management system that can both capture relevant information and provide the necessary analytical capabilities to measure the effectiveness of these

investments. Colorado’s goal is to build a data management system which also incorporates a performance management capability that allows for the specific targeting of funding, supports and understanding of the system’s effectiveness in protecting youth, public health and public safety. This basic concept of

(8)

Figure 1.0: The value of data collection

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

(9)

As part of Colorado’s vision to build a longer term and highly effective

performance management system based upon best practice data governance, analysis and reporting capabilities, the Colorado General Assembly enacted legislation (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 Colorado

agencies.

o C.R.S.24-33.5-516 requires the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice to gather data over the two year period beginning January 1, 2006, and over the two year period beginning January 1, 2014.

o C.R.S. 25.1.5-111 requires reporting by the Colorado Department of 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 leader by establishing a rigorous regulatory framework for the legalization of recreational marijuana. At the foundation of this goal is the development of the necessary data management systems that can provide invaluable inputs into public policy decisions and the overall effectiveness and impacts of those decisions.

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Project

In order to start the development of this data management capture and reporting capability, the first step is to catalog the data management systems in Colorado today. The priority areas for assessment are the reporting requirements in the aforementioned 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 with the Center for Research Strategies and the Keystone Center was selected to provide a detailed assessment in an accelerated timeframe on the ability of the State to collect critical marijuana-related data, identify key gaps, and provide recommendations to State leadership to mitigate these gaps.

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

Understanding the legislative requirements for recreational marijuana reporting.

Understanding the existing data management capabilities within the State of Colorado.

(10)

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

This document is designed to drive strategic decisions for prioritizing investments in data collection and reporting. In this regard, the report provides a high-level roadmap for Colorado organized by high-priority recommendations. Each recommendation includes a timeline for implementation, high level cost

estimation, and a risk assessment associated with implementation. It’s important to understand this report doesn’t dive into the various public policy positions on marijuana but focuses instead on building a vigorous and sustainable data reporting system that will provide public policy makers with valuable information for 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 priorities around protecting youth, health, and public safety. We interviewed leaders of State departments, State data subject matter experts, law enforcement officials, nonprofit organizations, and marijuana industry officials in order to provide a holistic report that identifies what is collected today, how it is collected, and what is 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 a nine week period in June and July 2014 using the following approach to discover data collection requirements and capabilities through interviews, research, and

(11)

analysis and develop strategic recommendations for data collection and reporting. 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 in response to the legalization of adult-use marijuana and conduct a comprehensive data discovery and gap analysis, the project team met with a variety of

departmental 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 reporting requirements.

The project team met with representatives specifically identified in the following agencies and reached out to a number of additional departmental and subject matter experts recommended during the discovery, interview and evaluation process. A list of stakeholders interviewed is included in Appendix A. A list of

interview questions is provided in Appendix B.

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

(12)

Colorado Department of Revenue/DOR, including the Marijuana Enforcement 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 recommended for 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 by a Project Governance Team comprised of agency representatives to provide oversight and assistance during the project timeframe. Members of the project governance team were provided periodic status updates during the project and asked for individual clarification when questions arose.

Structure of Our Findings

This report is structured in the following manner.

1. Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories 2. Understanding the Capability and Valuation Scoring

3. Understanding Scoring and Prioritization 4. Capability and Strategic Assessment

5. Enterprise and Legislative Recommendations 6. Data Management Strategic Recommendations 7. Supplemental Data Management Recommendations 8. Implementation Planning

(13)

Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories

As outlined above, this report is based upon statutory requirements outlined in C.R.S §24-33.5-516 and C.R.S. §25-1.5-111. If possible within the budgetary and time 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 and report on data not identified in SB13-283 (see priority list, not including required areas C.R.S §24-33.5-516 and C.R.S. §25-1.5-111). These recommendations are provided in the Supplemental Data Management Recommendations section.

Legislative Categories and Definitions

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

Table 1.1

Statutory Category Statutory Definition

Marijuana-Initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement

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

Marijuana Criminal Arrest Data

Marijuana arrest data, including amounts of marijuana with each arrest, broken down by judicial district and by race and ethnicity

Comprehensive School Data

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

referrals related to drug use and sales, broken down by specific drug categories

Drug Endangered Children Data related to drug-endangered children, specifically for _marijuana Diversion to Minors Diversion of marijuana to persons under twenty-one years of _age Marijuana Related Traffic

Accidents

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

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

Marijuana Site Operational Crime Statistics

Crime occurring in and relating to the operation of marijuana establishments

Marijuana Transfer Using

Parcel Services Utilization of parcel services for the transfer of marijuana

Probation Data Probation data

Data on Emergency Room Visits and Poison Control

Data on emergency room visits related to the use of marijuana and the outcomes of those visits, including information from Colorado Poison Control Center

(14)

Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Outdoor marijuana cultivation facilities

Money Laundering Money laundering relating to both licensed and unlicensed _marijuana Organized Crime The role of organized crime in marijuana

Monitor Health Effects of Marijuana (CDPHE)

Monitor changes in drug use patterns, broken down by race and ethnicity, and the emerging science and medical information relevant to the health effects associated with marijuana use.

The Department shall appoint a panel of health care professionals with expertise in cannabinoid physiology to monitor the relevant information. The panel shall provide a report by January 31, 2015, and every two years thereafter to the State Board of Health, the Department of Revenue, and the general assembly. The Department shall make the report available 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 to protect consumers of marijuana or marijuana products to the general public.

The Department may collect Colorado-specific data that reports adverse health events involving marijuana use from the all-payer claims database, hospital discharge data, and behavioral 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’s current capability to actually collect required data. In addition, we also scored the strategic value of gathering these data. Figure 1.4 defines the score criteria for both the capability and strategic value of the data types.

(15)

Figure 1.4 Collection capability and Strategic Value Scoring Criteria

Low Medium High

Collection Capability

No consistent capability to collect and report the data requested.

Limited and

inconsistent capability to collect and report the data requested.

Sufficient capability to collect and report data requested.

Strategic Value

Very low return on the investment.

The collection of these data has very little strategic value in providing baseline or evaluative capabilities.

Value in the data. Collection of these data can be used to establish a baseline. These data may be able to be used for longitudinal, analytical and or predictive modeling. Instrumental in establishing public policy.

These data can be used to target specific populations and behaviors.

These data can be longitudinally leveraged.

Recommendation Prioritization

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

Strategic value. The value of the data collection is scored as High. These data are 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)

Capability and Strategic Assessment

This section provides a summary of the existing capability to collect data and the associated strategic value for the collection and management of these data indicators. 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 State’s collection capabilities and the strategic value of the collection. This is organized by the statutory categories and 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-initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement

Public Safety Low Medium

Marijuana Criminal

Arrest Data Public Safety Medium High

Comprehensive

School Data Protecting Youth Low High

Drug Endangered

Children Protecting Youth Low High

Diversion to Minors Protecting Youth Medium High

Marijuana Related

Traffic Accidents Public Safety Medium High

Out-of-State

Diversion Public Safety Medium High

Marijuana Site Operational Crime Statistics

Public Safety Medium High

Marijuana Transfer Using Parcel Services

Public Safety Medium Medium

Probation

Infractions Related to Marijuana

(17)

Statutory Category Primary Strategic Impact Capability to Collect Today Strategic Value Data on Emergency

Room Visits and Poison Control

Public Health Medium High

Outdoor Marijuana

Cultivation Public Safety Medium Medium

Organized Crime /

Money Laundering Public Safety Medium High

Marijuana Patterns of Use and Health Effects by County

Public Health Low High

Marijuana Patterns of Use and Health Effects by

Race / Ethnicity

Public Health High High

Medical Research Public Health High High

Adverse Health

Impacts Public Health Medium High

Capability Assessment and Recommendation Summary

Colorado’s efforts are being closely watched across the nation. Data can provide valuable information for the State as it moves forward. The following sections assess the current data management and reporting capabilities for the State of Colorado and make recommendations around current and future data needs.

Appendices C and D provide an overview of the data capability, gaps and recommendations.

In most data categories for the 2006-2008 and 2014-2016 legislative reporting timeframes, information can be collected as required in legislation but the data available will only be for drug categories in general, not broken down specifically for marijuana. Even if marijuana categories were developed for collection and reporting for the 2014-2016 timeframe, the data would not be comparable to the previous reporting period. Appendix E provides detail on marijuana data

indicators that are available for the 2006 to 2008 time period.

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

(18)

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

Marijuana-initiated Contacts by Law Enforcement

There is not a current capability in Colorado to collect marijuana-initiated

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

Amendment 64, some local law enforcement agencies and the Colorado State Patrol have created reports or modified records management systems to enable a minimal capability to identify and track marijuana related incidents. This data collection is limited by several factors including the lack of a clear definition of “marijuana-initiated contacts,” a lack of local or statewide reporting systems to capture an “initiated” incident, and a lack of uniform and consistent reporting that would allow for comparison of information. The recommendation around this specific provision would be to convene local law enforcement officials to better determine tracking of a marijuana related incident including methods to uniformly identify an incident and to specifically capture data. Alternatively, we recommend striking it as a data collection point and using the predictive, longitudinal data analysis recommended in the local level impacts section of this report to analyze crime and disorder data. Either action will require modification to the existing legislation.

Marijuana Criminal Arrest Data

The 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 five levels of marijuana drug offenses. NIBRS, though, is unable to report data by ethnicity, amounts or arrests by judicial district. We recommend convening law enforcement officials to determine the level of detail required and the most efficient means of capturing data related to amounts and whether this is a necessary data element for analysis. Relative to judicial district reporting, we recommend changing this requirement. We suggest using the CCIS OIR data field which provides municipal and county information. However, if the State wishes to access judicial district information, this category would need to be added into CCIS.

Comprehensive School Data

The capability in the State to collect comprehensive school data for marijuana use is very limited. Currently drug-related suspensions, expulsions, and police referrals can be collected, but data are reported for all drugs and not broken down specifically for marijuana. In addition, law enforcement referrals and

standards for reporting at the local school level are inconsistent leading to a lack of uniform reporting. Given the high priority of preventing youth from using marijuana, the recommendations would be that the State changes the existing school district reporting to require the collection of information specific to

(19)

marijuana. This would require modification of the School Finance Act as well as a requirement that all school districts capture the requisite information. HB12-1345, the School Finance Act, also mandates that both local law enforcement and district attorneys collect data on criminal justice contacts with students and to report those data annually to the Colorado Department of Public Safety/Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ). This legislation was originally passed to collect data on student race and ethnicity for school referrals to law enforcement. Currently, there is no required reporting by specific drug offense but these reports do provide a means to include a marijuana data category. The legislation is

scheduled to sunset in 2016. A need was also identified for additional school staff trainings and resources to properly identify marijuana use.

Drug Endangered Children - Specifically for Marijuana

The capability in the State to collect data on drug endangered children

associated with marijuana is very limited. The State currently collects arrest data for ‘reckless endangerment’ and data in TRAILS related to substance abuse/ neglect by parents and/or substance abuse by the youth and/ or drug exposed infants. The challenge with the data is that this information is not specific to marijuana and arrest data are not broken down by specific offense. Given the high priority of protecting youth, the recommendation is to modify TRAILS to capture marijuana information. More statewide communication efforts are also needed to educate stakeholders about the definition of drug endangered children, recently defined in SB-13-278. From this work, identification of key questions could be determined which would identify useful data for future

collection. Finally, there is a need for additional training and resources for human services staff to better identify and recognize caregivers who are under the influence of marijuana.

Diversion to Minors

The capability in the State to collect data on diversion to minors is adequate, however, there are challenges. While the Department of Revenue has the ability to track diversion through the point of sale and within the seed to sale tracking systems for marijuana that comes from the regulated retail market, there are no specific data collection tools that currently allow the State to track the diversion of non-recreational marijuana to youth outside the point of sale system. NIBRs is used to collect juvenile drug offense data but this information is not broken down by drug category nor specifically for marijuana and it does not capture how a minor 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 in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Through the NSDUH, 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

(20)

provides ongoing information regarding marijuana use patterns, information regarding how these young adults are obtaining or purchasing marijuana is not currently 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 the transactional data reporting from law enforcement, school districts, and human services as well as the surveillance data collected by public health. CDPHE has already added questions to the Colorado YRBS/Healthy Kids Colorado survey data. Additionally, some local school districts have expanded data collection to capture information from all local schools and for a larger sampling of students. We would recommend a broad inventory be completed across Colorado to assess the current methods used to survey youth through both State and non-profit organization resources. In addition, we recommend placing a high priority on expanding and encouraging broader, consistent participation of all school districts 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 Accidents

The capability in the State to collect data on marijuana related traffic accidents is limited. Data can be collected from several sources, including FARS, Colorado State Patrol, NHTSA and DRE Annual Reports from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The challenges with the data are that reporting is not specific to marijuana, there are not clear standards for reporting marijuana impairment, and there is not consistency or standardization in reporting from local levels to the Colorado Department of Transportation. While fatality data associated with marijuana use are available, there is limited information on accidents not involving a fatality or serious injury. Given the high strategic value of these data, recommendations would be to provide training for law enforcement and related stakeholders to ensure traffic accident reports and system reporting includes more consistent use of marijuana drug codes that are entered through FARS for fatality and serious injury reporting, and that CDPHE and its certified laboratories have the data collection capabilities for reporting and compiling information related to DUID and DUO blood levels. This includes changes to toxicity reporting as recommended by the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP). It is recommended that local law enforcement record

management systems and CCIS be modified to include specific marijuana DUID-related data categories. A need was also identified for additional training and resources to properly identify marijuana impairment.

Out-of-State Diversion

The capability in the State to collect data on out-of-state diversion is limited. Data can 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 the data are that EPIC is a voluntary reporting system so data are not reported

(21)

consistently. While there is an ability to trace recreational marijuana through the seed to sale tracking and point of sale systems, the same capacity does not exist for the medical marijuana caregiver model and unregulated market. Most

diversion is detected through investigations by federal, state, and/or local agencies outside of Colorado and there is no mechanism to capture that

diversion data. Given the high strategic value of these data, we recommend that Colorado law enforcement officials, led by the CBI Colorado Crime Analysis Information Center (CAIC), work with Border States through a study to determine and measure diversion from Colorado. This recommendation may require

development of voluntary agreements with Border States to adopt data capture and analysis methods for marijuana to be able to track this diversion activity, best identify patterns of occurrence and determine trends. There is precedent for Colorado and surrounding states to work collaboratively on law enforcement analysis projects as there has been recent work on tracking and analyzing multi-state auto theft data.

Marijuana Site Operational Crime Statistics

The capability in the State to collect data on marijuana site operational crime statistics is limited. Some local law enforcement record management systems in jurisdictions where there are medical/retail marijuana outlets are flagging

marijuana incidents. The Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR) Marijuana Enforcement Division can capture some of these data where crimes have been reported directly to DOR from the regulated market retail establishment. The challenges with the data are that there is not a statewide law enforcement

reporting system and no uniformity in the data collection. Given the high strategic value 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 for other activities such as home burglaries or auto thefts. In order to fully

understand the impact, further data collection requirements may require a

modification of the term “marijuana site operational crime statistics” in legislation to distinguish between crime occurring related to the regulated and unregulated markets. This recommendation depends upon action taken regarding the

“marijuana related incident” reporting in state law enforcement data systems.

Marijuana Transfer Using Parcel Services

The capability in the State to collect data on marijuana transfer using parcel services is limited. This information is being collected and reported by the U.S. Postal Service Inspection Division, as well as through EPIC and Rocky Mountain HIDTA Reports. The challenges with the data are that EPIC is a voluntary

reporting system so data are not reported consistently and there is no data reporting system for private carriers. Given the low value of these data, there are no recommendations to enhance the current system. The State should continue to use the federal data set from the US Postal Service as the existing data source for current needs.

(22)

Probation Infractions Related to Marijuana

The capability in the State to collect data on probation infractions related to marijuana is limited. This information is being collected through ICON/Eclipse, the judicial data reporting system for the State of Colorado. The challenges with the data are that there is not a clear definition of ‘probation data’ for marijuana reporting in the legislation which has led to confusion about what needs to be reported. Currently ICON does not have a specific marijuana-related data field; consequently, references to marijuana are only present if marijuana is identified in the report notes and ICON does not have the ability to query these reports for marijuana data collection. Given the low priority value of these data, the

recommendations are to better define the desired data needs and intent for collection of this data for marijuana reporting, and if the State is interested in these data for marijuana collection and assessment, to make system changes to ensure that ICON/Eclipse can capture marijuana specific data for reporting. Based on the clarification of the need for this data set, using probation data to assess other research questions related to marijuana may be better addressed through one-time, specific study inquiries.

Data on Emergency Room Visits and Poison Control

The capability in the State to collect data on emergency room visits and Poison Control is limited. These data are being collected through voluntary hospital reports, and the national Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) which is also voluntary and no longer funded. The All Payer Claims Database collects claims data and has claim codes that are specific to marijuana but providers do not consistently or uniformly code for marijuana. The challenges with the data are the voluntary nature of data collection. According to a recent Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) report, there are efforts underway by SAMHSA, the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to improve and transition data collection and reporting in 2015. CDPHE is also working with the Colorado Hospital Association to improve coding and the tracking of marijuana related admissions to emergency rooms. All the currently available data sets for adverse health effects are only available

retrospectively which greatly hinders the timely detection of adverse effects that may be related to contamination or poisoning. In order to fill these data gaps, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) has requested funding to increase data collection capacity through syndromic surveillance. Given the high strategic value of these data, the recommendations are to

continue to improve and refine efforts to collect data through voluntary reporting methods including the BRFSS, All Payer Claims Database, Hospital Discharge and E.R. Data, and Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center data, including requiring hospital provider reporting of youth related marijuana admissions. Tracking of this information should be through the All Payer Claim Database.

Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation

The capability in the State to collect data on outdoor marijuana cultivation is adequate but challenging. These data are being collected by local law

(23)

enforcement agencies that voluntary report this information within federal data sets (EPIC) and other federal collection sources (DEA, U.S. Forest Service, National Guard and Rocky Mountain HIDTA) but there is no statewide data system to capture local law enforcement outdoor cultivation seizures. This reporting provides information for outdoor cultivation that has been identified but does not capture the unknown, unreported and unregulated cultivation. It is important to distinguish that there is a difference between illegal, unregulated outdoor cultivation and legal, regulated cultivation as there is some outdoor growing that occurs in the regulated market. There is no recommendation here as existing data sources are based on federal data sets.

Organized Crime / Money Laundering

The capability in the State to collect data on organized crime and money laundering is challenging. These data are being collected through state and federal sources including NIBRS through CBI, the FBI, and the DEA. The

challenge 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 investigations and intelligence gathering which would not be public data. The new regulations Colorado passed in HB 14-1398; Marijuana Financial Services Cooperatives that create a bank co-op are intended to discourage potential illegal activity in

Colorado related to the regulated market. There is no recommendation here as this is a federal data set.

Marijuana Patterns of Use and Health Effects

The capability in the State to collect data on marijuana patterns of use and health effects is mixed. This information is being collected through a variety of state and federal data sets including the National Survey on Drug Use and Health –

NSDUH (SAMSHA), the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS – known in Colorado as the Healthy Kids Colorado survey), and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Data collection capacity exists within CDPHE, CDHS through the Office of Behavioral Health DACODs system, and the Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center. Given the high value of these data, the

recommendation is to continue to support existing surveillance and treatment management systems, encouraging current efforts already underway to expand marijuana related tracking. Surveillance surveys are national data collection systems but Colorado specific questions can continue to be added as long as there is funding. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) can serve 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 monitored through the Healthy Kids Colorado survey, with information reported by health district rather than by county. One legislative change can be to adjust the required reporting such that it reflects current data collection protocols.

(24)

Enterprise Recommendations

In addition to the legislatively required data collection capabilities and recommendations described above, we identified specific enterprise-wide

recommendations that should be considered by the State that support improved data 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 the collection and reporting for all of the recreational marijuana data requirements. While there has been great cooperation across state agencies to share data, this structure has significant constraints and inefficiencies. We believe this model is not 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 share data with CDPS.

As part of our recommendation on data collection and reporting, we believe that refining 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 single responsible agency to a distributed / longitudinal structure. While we are not

(25)

making systemic or technology platform recommendations, streamlining the processes 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 oversight progresses in the State, requires an entity to ensure alignment between strategy and direction. The entity has to be empowered and trusted to access and

accurately analyze data across agencies. The entity’s main function would be to organize operational, financial, risk-management and reporting processes so that the Governor and Legislature receive the information needed and can meet Colorado’s strategic objectives efficiently and effectively.

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

Overseeing the implementation of the recommendations for data collection outlined in this report.

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

Providing oversight into the development of data reports which are statutorily required.

Providing leadership and input into predictive and higher value data management activities and initiatives.

Ensuring agency resources are available to support data reporting expectations.

Establishing reporting frequency.

The membership of the data board should be made up of the following agencies that collect high value data: Department of Revenue (specifically Marijuana Enforcement 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 Office of Information and Technology/OIT; and Colorado Department of

(26)

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

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

Clarity of Statutory Definitions

Table 1.3 outlines three recommendations to clarify existing legislative

requirements. By improving these requirements, data collection efforts will be more effective and efficient.

Table 1.3 Legislative Definitions that require clarification

Data Reference in

Legislation Why an Issue? Potential Recommendations

Marijuana Initiated Contacts by law enforcement by race and ethnicity, and by judicial district

Stakeholders not interpreting “marijuana initiated contacts” uniformly because the term is not clearly defined in legislation or previously used in law

enforcement data collection. No comprehensive system to collect data.

From a statutory perspective, implement the data collection recommendations in this report which provide more specific information on criminal activity related to marijuana. Based on additional law enforcement feedback, modify the statute language from “initiated” to “related,” or strike as collection method.

Data related to Drug Endangered

Children, specifically for marijuana

Non-uniform interpretations of “drug endangered children” among human services and law

enforcement. TRAILS

captures/reports by drug category, not by marijuana specifically. Reckless endangerment charge in NIBRS not defined by offense so marijuana-specific data are not available.

From a statutory perspective, implement the data collection recommendations in this report which provide more specific information on how marijuana is impacting youth. Our

recommendations should further inform and clarify the definition of this term.

Probation Data

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

Clarify language to be specific for individuals on probation who are arrested, detained, or prosecuted for marijuana crimes.

(27)

probation violations? etc).

Supplemental Recommendations

Priority Areas

Youth Use and Prevalence

Preventing youth use and access to marijuana was consistently shared by law enforcement and public health stakeholders as a top priority. Data collection and reporting on youth use and access, exposure to advertising and understanding youth’s perception of risk are extremely important in developing education, awareness and prevention campaigns. In addition to the recommendations outlined in the legislative requirements for youth regarding expansion of

surveillance and survey data, we recommend continued support of research and evaluation that can measure the impact and effectiveness of prevention,

education and awareness investments.

Behavioral Health Treatment Needs

There are not specific legislative requirements in SB13-283 that require reporting of substance abuse data for marijuana use and treatment in the required 2006-2008 and 2014-2016 report timeframes. However, through national and state data available through the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS) in the Office of Behavioral Health, reports from treatment providers offer high strategic value data to assess needs and support investments in substance abuse treatment decision making. Data analysis of existing data sources could be used to determine high risk populations to help cater educational and

outreach programs. In addition, more research is needed on the relationship for adults and youth between alcohol and marijuana; or other drug use and

marijuana. This will give the State a better picture of substance abuse, treatment and prevention needs in Colorado.

(28)

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID)

Colorado statutes and many other states’ laws set regulations that directly measure the level of impairment of the driver. The understanding of how dangerous it is to drive under the influence of marijuana, how to test for

impairment, and how the risks compare to driving drunk — are lagging behind the impacts of legalization and public understanding. Based on several review papers, it is estimated that there is a twofold increase in the risk of an accident if there is any measurable amount of THC in the bloodstream. Risks can be even higher when marijuana is used in combination with alcohol. Blood-alcohol content can be tested on the side of the road with a Breathalyzer but the same is not true for marijuana. Currently, THC levels must be measured from blood samples. In addition, more research and study is needed to understand the effects of

combining alcohol and marijuana and its impact on driving impairment. Given the high strategic value of this issue and need for data to test and assess risk, we recommend universal data collection for DUID infractions which would require investments in systems for capturing data, law enforcement training through programs such as ARIDE and DRE, reliable screening technology, investments to increase data collection capacity and toxicity reporting for the blood samples tested for DUID and DUI through the CDPHE certified laboratory system, and public education and awareness campaigns regarding impairment levels using marijuana, and using marijuana in combination with other substances. As with the awareness and prevention programs for public health and protecting youth, research studies and evaluation reports require funding to determine the efficacy of efforts. In support of these and other reforms, the Colorado Task Force on Drunk and Impaired Driving created through HB 14-1321 was established to make 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, should continue to convene to provide input, direction and oversight on the issues related to DUID, including involvement with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Local level impacts for jurisdictions allowing and not allowing retail sales

Currently the Department of Revenue Marijuana Enforcement Division collects data on cities and counties that allow and do not allow retail sales of marijuana. Local statistical data are available across the major categories – crime, health and school data. Colorado counties and municipalities are passing local

ordinances to establish their own local controls over marijuana access. Using the longitudinal data collection approach, the recommendation would be for the Data Advisory Board (earlier recommendation regarding data governance) in

partnership with cities, counties and agencies to identify research questions that highlight the data required for producing analytical reports by jurisdictional type. The data from these reports can be used for comparing communities with and without retail sales outlets and can be used in decision making to specifically target investments and resources for youth use, public health and public safety.

(29)

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 the sale of marijuana. While Colorado had two years of experience with the

legalization of licensed medical marijuana businesses, cultivation facilities and edible marijuana products under HB 10-1284, Colorado is faced with new challenges associated with certifying retail marijuana stores, regulating grow operations and enforcing laws surrounding the use and distribution of marijuana in multiple forms. Even though Colorado is leading the way among states, there are significant baselines for Colorado to compare marijuana statistics using Federal data sources outlined in this report including criminal activity, usage among adults and youth, and treatment statistics. National surveys such as the YRBS/Healthy Kids Colorado survey can be used for comparison on usage among youth across states. Since Colorado has legalized the sale of recreational marijuana, 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 comparative position to other states. These questions should be targeted for relevant and consistent reporting. After these questions are defined, resources can be identified to collect federal, other state, and independent data that are relevant for comparison. This may require building additional reports or it may be simply entail pulling data from existing sources.

Additional Findings from Stakeholder Interviews beyond the

Statutory Requirements and Priority Areas:

Hash Oil Explosions

Hash Oil Explosions were identified by a number of stakeholders interviewed as a potential concern for public safety. Currently, law enforcement and fire

department stakeholders are meeting to discuss this emerging issue and address potential actions. In interviews, stakeholders noted that only fire departments at the current time may know that a hash oil explosion has occurred. These

incidents may also go unrecognized or unreported as hash oil explosion. If the cause 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 marijuana cultivation – prohibited, giving local governments authority to ban the use of a compressed, flammable gas as a solvent in the extraction of THC or other cannabinoids in a residential setting.

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

(30)

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

Edibles

Overexposure to high potency edibles was identified by a number of

stakeholders interviewed as a potential concern for public health, protecting safety and protecting kids. During the Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Project period, an emergency rule making work group was formed to adopt emergency rules related to the THC in a serving size of edibles. The work group has completed its review and new regulations for edibles took effect August 1, 2014. An additional work group has been formed to review how to improve the labeling of edibles for the general public. That work group became effective August 1, 2014.

From a data collection standpoint, any data sets requiring reporting “specifically for marijuana” through public health, public safety, or school data systems would have to include a further breakdown to determine that marijuana exposure was a result of the ingestion of an edible. No action is recommended for data collection at the current time.

(31)

Strategic Roadmap and Planning

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

Prioritization Summary of Recommendations

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

Strategic value. The value of the data collection is scored as High. These data are 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 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.

Name Strategic Value Cross Spectrum Federal Priority 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 Children

High Yes Yes No

R6: Diversion to Minors _High _Yes _Yes _No

R7: Marijuana Related Traffic

Accidents High Yes Yes No

R8: Out-of-State Diversion _High _Yes _Yes _No

R9: Marijuana Site Operational

(32)

R10: Emergency Room Visits /

Poison Control High Yes Yes No

R11: Organized Crime / Money

Laundering 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 Strategic _Impact _{Collect Today}Capability to Strategic Value

Data Governance All N/A High

Legislative Definition

Clarification All N/A High

Enterprise Recommendations

R1: Data Governance Model. Convene a governance authority to implement the

recommendations in this report. The formulation of this authority (board or commission) should be endorsed by the Governor and have multi-jurisdictional and cross competency representation. A project manager should be contracted or hired to facilitate the administration of this group for the first year. This

resource 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 data collection efforts

Strong need for continued and formalized cross departmental cooperation

(33)

R2: Legislative Definition Clarification. Clarify the legislative definitions in

SB13-283 for marijuana initiated contacts; data related to drug endangered children, specifically for marijuana; and probation data.

Marijuana Initiated Contacts by law enforcement by race and ethnicity, and by judicial district. Modify the statute language from “initiated” to “related,” or strike as a collection method. From a statutory perspective, implement the data collection recommendations in this report which provide more specific information on criminal activity related to marijuana.

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

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

(34)

High Priority Legislative Data Collection Requirements.

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

R3: Criminal Arrest. Convene law enforcement officials to determine the level of

detailed reporting required and the most efficient means of capturing data relative to the statute – e.g., by marijuana, by amounts, by race, by ethnicity. For judicial district, we recommend changing this requirement to use the existing CCIS OIR data field which would provide municipal and county information. However, if the state wishes to compile information by judicial district, it would need to be added into CCIS.

R4: Comprehensive School. Change the existing school district reporting to

include specific information on marijuana. This will require a modification to the School Finance Act to require all school districts to capture information. HB 12-1345 implementation should include a marijuana data category though there are challenges to the overall implementation of this legislation and it is scheduled to sunset in 2016.

R5: Drug Endangered Children. Modify TRAILS to capture marijuana level

information. Provide statewide communication and education to stakeholders about the terminology from SB13-278.

R6: Diversion to Minors. Modify NIBRS to capture marijuana data. Assess

methods to survey youth, including using existing student surveys. Conduct a broad inventory of surveys completed across Colorado. Place a high priority on expanding and encouraging broader and consistent participation by schools and districts in the YRBS/Healthy Kids Colorado survey. Develop longitudinal data reporting to determine overall diversion.

R7: Marijuana Related Traffic Accidents. Modify CDOT FARS to include more

consistent use of marijuana drug codes. This includes toxicity, DUID blood level data reporting and collection requirements for CDPHE certified laboratories. Modify local law enforcement record management systems and CCIS to include a 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 Colorado through voluntary agreements, led by CBI/Colorado Crime Analysis Information Center (CAIC). Adopt data capture and analysis methods to track this diversion activity.

R9: Marijuana Site Operational Crime Statistics. Use existing data to assess

crime and disorder related to, within, or near marijuana site operations by cross referencing site information (licensing data) with criminal statistics. This

Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis

Marijuana Data Discovery

and Gap Analysis Summary

Report

Contents

Acknowledgements

Key Terms and Abbreviations

Introduction

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Project

Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories

Legislative Categories and Definitions

Understanding Scoring and Prioritization

Understanding the Capability and Valuation Scoring

Recommendation Prioritization

Capability and Strategic Assessment

Collection Capability and Strategic Value

Capability Assessment and Recommendation Summary

Enterprise Recommendations

Streamline Data Collection

Data Advisory Board

Clarity of Statutory Definitions

Supplemental Recommendations

Priority Areas

Additional Findings from Stakeholder Interviews beyond the

Statutory Requirements and Priority Areas:

Strategic Roadmap and Planning

Prioritization Summary of Recommendations

Enterprise Recommendations

High Priority Legislative Data Collection Requirements.