Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis

Office of Marijuana Coordination
1375 Sherman Street, Room 136

Denver, CO 80203
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 Colorados 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 Colorados 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
states legislative requirements. For each legislative requirement, the states 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.
1375 Sherman Street, Room 136, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3117 www.colorado.gov/marijuana
Marijuana Data Discovery

and Gap Analysis Summary
Report
September 4th, 2014
Final Version
Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com
Marijuana Data Analysis Report
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
1
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

2
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.

3
Key Terms and Abbreviations

The following terms and acronyms are used in this document.
Term / Abbreviation
Definition
CDE
The constitutional amendment that legalized the recreational

use of marijuana in Colorado.
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
Governors Office of information Technology
ONDCP
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Youth / Under-age
People under the age of 21 who are restricted from purchasing,

possessing, or using recreational marijuana.
Amendment 64

4
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 Colorados 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. Colorados 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 systems effectiveness in
protecting youth, public health and public safety. This basic concept of
effectively leveraging data is illustrated in the Figure 1.0 below:

5
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, Colorados top strategic priority.
Figure 1.1: Baseline, Prioritization and Selection

6
As part of Colorados 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 Colorados 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.
7
Identifying strategic priorities and recommendations for improving the

States 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. Its important
to understand this report doesnt 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
8
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
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment/CDPHE

9
Colorado Department of Revenue/DOR, including the Marijuana

Enforcement Division/MED
Governors 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 Generals Office
Colorado District Attorneys Council
Colorado Department of Agriculture
Governors 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories

Understanding the Capability and Valuation Scoring
Understanding Scoring and Prioritization
Capability and Strategic Assessment
Enterprise and Legislative Recommendations
Data Management Strategic Recommendations
Supplemental Data Management Recommendations
Implementation Planning

10
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
11
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 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.
Monitor Health Effects of

Marijuana (CDPHE)
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 states
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.

12
Figure 1.4 Collection capability and Strategic Value Scoring Criteria
Low
No consistent
capability to collect
and report the data
requested.
Collection
Capability
Very low return on the

investment.
Strategic Value
The collection of these

data has very little
strategic value in
providing baseline or
evaluative capabilities.
Medium
High
Limited and
inconsistent capability
to collect and report
the data requested.
Sufficient capability to
collect and report data
requested.
Value in the data.
Instrumental in
establishing public
policy.
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.
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 Colorados 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 Colorados 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.

13
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 States 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
Public Safety
Medium
Low

14
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

Colorados 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 Colorados 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
15
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.
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
16
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 nonmedical 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
17
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 nonprofit 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 States 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 DUIDrelated data categories. A need was also identified for additional training and
resources to properly identify marijuana impairment.
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
18
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 multistate 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.
19
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
20
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.

21
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
22
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 entitys 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
Colorados 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; Governors Office
of Information and Technology/OIT; and Colorado Department of
23
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
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.
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.
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--vis
Clarify language to be specific for

individuals on probation who are
arrested, detained, or prosecuted
for marijuana crimes.

24
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
youths 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 20062008 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.

25
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.
26
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
27
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.

28
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 Colorados efforts to
mitigate the impacts from Recreational Marijuana.
Dependency. The data are a critical or fundamental requirement for
performing analysis.
High Priority Recommendations.
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
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

Crime Statistics
High
No
Yes
No
Name
R5: Drug Endangered Children

29
R10: Emergency Room Visits /

Poison Control
High
Yes
Yes
No
R11: Organized Crime / Money

Laundering
High
No
Yes
No
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
R12: Youth Use and Prevalence
Enterprise Recommendations.
Primary Strategic
Impact
Capability to
Collect Today
Strategic Value
Data Governance
All
N/A
High
Legislative Definition
Clarification
All
N/A
High
Recommendation
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 Governors 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
Coordinated data collection and sharing efforts outlined in this report.

30
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.

31
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 121345 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
32
recommendation correlates upon implementation of the marijuana related

incident reporting.
R10: Emergency Room Visits / Poison Control. 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 and track this through the All
Payer Claims Database.
R11: Organized Crime / Money Laundering. Track implementation of HB141398 regarding the bank co-op for marijuana establishments. Monitor existing
federal data.
Additional High Priority Area Recommendations.
R12: Youth Use and Prevalence. In addition to the recommendations outlined in
the legislative requirements for youth regarding the expansion of surveillance and
survey data, continue to support research studies and evaluation reports that can
measure the impact and effectiveness of prevention, education and awareness
investments.
R13: DUID. Support universal data collection for DUID infractions requiring
investments in systems for capturing data, law enforcement training through
programs such as ARIDE and DRE, reliable screening technology, and
investments to increase data collection capacity and toxicity reporting for the
blood samples tested for DUID and DUI through the CDPHE certified laboratory
system.
R14: Treatment Access. Analyze existing data sources to determine high risk
populations to help tailor educational and outreach programs. Investments in
research are 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.
R15: Marijuana Patterns of Use / Health Effects. 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. Through legislation,
adjust the required reporting so that it reflects current data collection protocols.

33
Lower Priority Recommendations

Strategic
Value
Level of
Effort
Risk
Cost
Agency
R16: Marijuana Initiated Contacts
Medium
High
High
High
CDPS
R17: Outdoor Marijuana

Cultivation
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 Using

Parcel Services
Medium
Moderate
Low
Moderate
CDPS
R21: Probation Infractions
Low
High
High
High
CDPS / DOC
R22: Hemp
Low
Low
Low
Low
DOA
Name
Lower Priority Legislative Data Collection Requirements:

R16: Marijuana Initiated Contacts. Modify the statute language to related
contacts, 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 their
regulatory framework by the Colorado Department of Revenue. This will define
the 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 that
identify 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 Colorado
understand its comparative position to other states, led by the Data Advisory
Board. These questions should be targeted to relevant and consistent reporting.
In other words, since Colorado has legalized the sale of recreational marijuana,
34
comparisons on criminal statistics will have to be adjusted. However,

comparisons to youth usage would be an area for consideration. 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 pulling data from existing sources.
R20: Marijuana Transfer Using Parcel Services. Monitor federal data sources.
R21: Probation Infractions. Clarify the definition for probation data collection for
marijuana. Based on clarification of data need, the recommendation is to ensure
ICON has marijuana specific data broken down for collection.
R22: Hemp. Enhance coordination and collaboration between the Colorado
Department of Agriculture, Colorado Department of Revenue, and Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment to share licensing information
between agencies.
Implementation Planning
This section provides a summary of the costs, timelines, resources, and other
requirements for implementation of the recommendations.
Level of Effort, Risks and Costs Scoring

Low
Moderate
High
No major effort.
Can be assumed by
existing resources.
Project level investment that

requires project planning,
systems design, analysis,
and other additional work.
Major project that may be

months to years in duration
and impacts a wide variety of
stakeholders.
Risks
No financial, political,
or operational risks.
Sufficient risks to policy,

systems, and operations to
require mitigation.
Highly complex and high

chance for operational or
political disruption.
Requires risk management
planning.
Cost
Little to no costs can

be covered within
existing state budgets.
Up to $500k in total costs

for professional services,
FTE, or infrastructure.
Over $500k in total costs for

professional services, FTE,
or infrastructure.
Level of
Effort

35
Summary Scorecard of the High Priority Recommendations

Strategic
Value
Level of
Effort
Risk
Cost
Agency
R1: Data Governance Model
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Marijuana
Coordination
Office
R2: Legislative Requirements
High
Low
Low
Low
Policy
R3: Criminal Arrest
High
High
Moderate
High
CDPS
R4: Comprehensive School Data
High
High
High
High
CDE
R5: Drug Endangered Children
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Multiple
R6: Diversion to Minors
High
High
Moderate
High
Multiple
R7: Marijuana Related Traffic

Accidents
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Multiple
R8: Out-of-State Diversion
High
High
High
Moderate
CDPS
R9: Marijuana Site Operational

Crime Statistics
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
CDPS
R10: Emergency Room Visits /

Poison Control
High
High
High
High
CDPHE/
HCPF (APCD)
R11: Organized Crime / Money

Laundering
High
Low
Low
Low
CDPS
R12: Youth Use and Prevalence
High
High
Moderate
High
Multiple
R13: DUID
High
High
Moderate
High
Multiple
R14: Treatment Access
High
Moderate
Low
Low
CDHS
R15: Marijuana Patterns of Use /

Health Effects
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
CDPHE
Name

36
Risk and Level of Effort Details for High Priority Recommendations

Name
Level of Effort
Risk
R1: Data
Governance
Model
Moderate. This will require cooperation and

coordination across agencies to determine
priorities and implement the
recommendations.
Low. There is little to no risk in

improving coordination and
communication.
R2: Legislative
Requirements
Low. These recommendations will require

minor effort mostly policy changes.
Low. There is little to no risk within

this recommendation.
R3: Criminal
Arrest
High. This will require modification of local

and state law enforcement systems to
capture marijuana level data.
Moderate. Risk is primarily around

modification and integration of local
and state law enforcement
systems.
R4:
Comprehensive
School Data
High. This will require statutory changes to

ensure school districts capture marijuanalevel infractions. This will require changes to
school data systems and reporting. This also
includes training for schools and districts in
identifying marijuana-based infractions.
High. There is significant policy

work and local control issues with
schools to mitigate. There is also a
significant level of risk in terms of
training and adoption by districts
and schools. If does not come with
corresponding funding, will also be
viewed as an unfunded mandate.
R5: Drug
Endangered
Children
Moderate. The effort is mostly around

ensuring the definition is communicated
across stakeholders in the state.
Low. There is little to no risk in

terms of clarifying this definition and
modifying systems accordingly.
R6: Diversion to
Minors
High. This effort includes the modification of

NIBRS to capture juvenile offenses for
marijuana as well assessing methods to
survey youth. This also includes longitudinal
development of data reporting to better
understand youth diversion.
Moderate. There are risks with the

and state law enforcement systems
to capture juvenile information.
There are also political risks with
youth usage surveys.
R7: Marijuana
Related Traffic
Accidents

local and state law enforcement systems.
This also includes training for law
enforcement in identifying marijuana-based
driving infractions.
Moderate. There are risks with the

and state law enforcement systems
to capture juvenile information.
There are also implementation risks
with training associated with
recognizing accidents that are
related to marijuana or driving
under the influence.
R8: Out-of-State
Diversion
High. This effort includes cooperating with

out-of-state law and federal enforcement
agencies to track data.
High. Risks are primarily political

and evolve around relationships
with federal and border state law
enforcement.
R9: Marijuana
Site Operational
Crime Statistics
Moderate. This effort is primarily focused on

aggregating longitudinal data from
Department of Revenue with criminal data.
This is a high-level of effort if the marijuana-
Moderate. The risks here are

around managing data sources and
sharing information publicly.

37
related recommendation implemented.
Name
Level of Effort
Risk
R10: Emergency
Room Visits /
Poison Control
High. This will involve improving and refining

efforts to collect data through voluntary
reporting methods including the BRFSS, All
Payer Claims Database (APCD), Hospital
Discharge and E.R. Data, and Rocky
Mountain Poison Control Center data. In
addition, this recommendation includes
requiring hospital provider reporting of youth
related marijuana admissions and tracks this
through the All Payer Claims Database.
High. Risks are primarily

associated with requiring hospitals
to report youth-related admissions.
Risks are also associated with
costs of modification of existing
data systems of hospitals, payers
and the APCD.
R11: Organized
Crime / Money
Laundering
Low. Effort is primarily around monitoring

existing data sources.
Low. There are no to little risks

associated with this
recommendation.
R12: Youth Use

and Prevalence
High. This effort is primarily on the building

and assessing methods to survey youth
usage and access.
Moderate. Risks are associated

with political / local control issues
with data collection.
R13: DUID

local and state law enforcement systems.
This also includes training for law
enforcement in identifying marijuana-based
driving infractions. Given the timeframe for
results of DUID testing, thus also requires
better connection of lab results to original
case files.
Moderate. Risks are primarily

associated with law enforcement
systems integration and
associated training.
R14: Treatment
Access
Moderate. This will require optimizing

existing data sources to provide better
reporting data.

recommendation.
R15: Marijuana
Patterns of Use /
Health Effects
Moderate. This will require optimizing

existing data sources to provide better
reporting data.

recommendation.

38
Implementation Considerations
We have summarized the following near-term activities for the state to consider in terms
of implementing the recommendations.

39
Cost Summary Details for High Priority Recommendations

The following table provides summary level of costs for the high level
recommendations. These are high-level estimates and need to be fully verified
before assigning fiscal notes.
Name
Cost Summary
R1: Data Governance

Model
Moderate. Costs include state FTE or a contractor to facilitate the data

governance body which we assume will be approximately $100k. This
may be incorporated into existing staff responsibilities but we believe
there is additional capacity and focus required.
R2: Legislative
Requirements
Low. There is little to no costs for this recommendation.
R3: Criminal Arrest
High. System costs for law enforcement system changes are the primary
costs. From 2009 CCIS integration requirements, we would estimate this
to be approximately $500,000. We assume training costs are minor since
it doesnt include Drug Recognition Training.
R4: Comprehensive
School Data
High. Assumption of system costs would be well over $1M for both
modifications within CDE as well as local school district systems. In
addition, project management and communication costs would be
required. Training for school districts to identify marijuana-related
incidents could be estimated at a training cost / district but we assume it
would be well over $250,000 year.
R5: Drug Endangered

Children
Moderate. System costs are the primary costs and we estimate this to be
around $25 to $50k.
R6: Diversion to
Minors
High. Primary costs are around system costs to change NIBRS this
would be a minor cost but integration with other local law enforcement
systems would likely be around $250k. Costs to develop and issue youth
surveys require systems development and communication. There are
also costs associated with data aggregation.
R7: Marijuana Related

Traffic Accidents
Moderate. Costs center around the modification to FARS. We expect this

can be done for less than $50k.
R8: Out-of-State
Diversion
Moderate. Costs include supporting the collection of out-of-state

agencies and cooperating to reduce diversion.
R9: Marijuana Site

Operational Crime
Statistics
Moderate. Data reporting and aggregation costs should be less than

$50k.
R10: Emergency
Room Visits / Poison
Control
High. Modification of the All Claims Payer Database will be moderate

(within $25 to 50k) but also requires modifications to hospital and insurer
claims systems which might be more significant. Costs to train providers
and hospitals will be high well over $500k.
R11: Organized Crime

/ Money Laundering
Low. There is little to no cost to monitor existing data.

40
R12: Youth Use and

Prevalence
High. Costs are similar to Recommendation 6.
R13: DUID
High. Costs are associated with modification of CCIS and local law
enforcement systems (Recommendation 1). The major cost is
development of the training for Drug Recognition Experts in capturing the
data.
R14: Treatment
Access
Low. There is little to no cost to collect and monitor existing data.
R15: Marijuana
Patterns of Use /
Health Effects
Moderate. Efforts are already underway to collect and optimize data

collection. Costs here are associated with FTE and system staff to
continue this work.

41
Appendix A: Discovery Process Stakeholder Interviews

Project Governance Team
Name/Title/Department/Division
Adrienne Russman
Marijuana Data Project Manager and Policy Advisor
Office of Policy, Research and Legislative Affairs
Colorado Office of the Governor
Dianna Anderson
Chief Data Officer
Office of Information Technology (OIT)
Karin McGowan
Deputy Executive Director
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
Kim English
Director
Office of Research and Statistics
Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS)
Lewis Koski
Director
Marijuana Enforcement Division
Colorado Department of Revenue (DOR)
Melissa Wavelet
Director
Office of Performance and Strategic Outcomes
Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS)
John Jackson
Chief of Police
Greenwood Village Police Department
(Representing local law enforcement/CACP)
Email/Phone
adrienne.russman@state.co.us
dianna.anderson@state.co.us
karin.mcgowan@state.co.us
kim.english@state.co.us
lewis.koski@state.co.us
melissa.wavelet@state.co.us
jjackson@greenwoodvillage.com
Stakeholders Interviewed
Name/ Title
Alice Wheet
Budget Analyst
Ann Renaud
Budget Analyst
Henry Sobanet
Director
Jack Finlaw
Chief Legal Counsel
Mattie Albert
Budget Analyst
Andrew Freedman
Director of Marijuana Coordination
Zachary Pierce
Policy Advisor
Barbara Brohl
Executive Director
Lewis Koski
Director
Department/Division
Email/Phone Number
Governors Office/ State

Planning and Budgeting
Governors Office/State
Governors Office/Legal
Counsel
alice.wheet@state.co.us
Governors Office
Governor Office/Policy
DOR
DOR/Marijuana
Enforcement Division
ann.renaud@state.co.us
henry.sobanet@state.co.us
jack.finlaw@state.co.us
mattie.albert@state.co.us
andrew.freedman@state.co.us
zachary.pierce@state.co.us
barbara.brohl@state.co.us
lewis.koski@state.co.us

42
Heather Copp
Deputy Director
Daria Serna
Director of Communications
Mia Tsuchimoto
DOR
DOR
DOR/Marijuana
Enforcement Division
Ron Kammerzell
Deputy Senior Director
Barbara Kelley
Executive Director
Reggie Bicha
Executive Director
Melissa Wavelet
Director
Office of Performance and Strategic
Outcomes
Patrick K. Fox, M.D.,
Acting Director/Deputy Director of
Clinical Services
Stan Paprocki
Director, Prevention and Early
Intervention
DOR/Enforcement
DORA
CDHS
CDHS/Office of
Performance and
Strategic Outcomes
CDHS/Office of
Behavioral Health
CDHS/Office of
Behavioral Health
daria.serna@state.co.us
mia.tsuchimoto@state.co.us
ron.kammerzell@state.co.us
barbara.kelley@state.co.us
reggie.bicha@state.co.us
melissa.wavelet@state.co.us
patrick.fox@state.co.us
stan.paprocki@state.co.us
chris.habgood@state.co.us
Chris Habgood
Director of Policy & Planning
CDHS/Office of
Behavioral Health
Marc S. Condojani, LCSW, CAC III

Director of Community Treatment
and Recovery Programs
Rebecca S. Helfand, Ph.D.
Evaluation Manager
Dianna Anderson
Chief Data Officer
CDHS/Office of
Behavioral Health
marc.condojani@state.co.us
CDHS/Office of
Behavioral Health
Rebecca.helfand@state.co.us
OIT
dianna.anderson@state.co.us
Darrell Lingk
Director
CDOT/Transportation
Safety
darrell.lingk@state.co.us
Glenn Davis
Highway Safety Manager
CDOT/Highway Safety
glenn.davis@state.co.us
CDPHE
larry.wolk@state.co.us
Larry Wolk
Executive Director
Karin McGowan
Deputy Executive Director
Stan Hilkey
Executive Director
Kim English
Director
Peg Flick
Mitch Yergert
Director
CDPHE
CDPS
CDPS/Office of Research
and Statistics
CPDS/Division of
Criminal Justice
CDA/Division of Plant
Industry
karin.mcgowan@state.co.us
stan.hilkey@state.co.us
kim.english@state.co.us
Peg.flick@state.co.us
Mitchell.yergert@state.co.us

43
CDA/Division of Plant
Industry
Duane Sinning
Assistant Director
CDPHE/Medical
Marijuana Research
Grant Program
CDPHE/Public Education
Campaign
Ken Gershman
Manager
Ali Maffey
duane.sinning@state.co.us
Ken.Gershman@state.co.us
ali.maffey@state.co.us
Allison.hastey@state.co.us
Allison Hastey
Amy Dillon
Laura Gillim Ross
Laboratory Director
Ron Hyman
State Registrar and Director
Mike VanDyke
Chief
Ricky Tolliver
Manager
Tista Ghosh
Director
Disease Control and Environmental
Epidemiology Division
Leanne Emm
Associate Commissioner
Janelle Krueger
Manager
Dropout Prevention and Engagement
Jan Petro
Data Services Director
Sarah Mathew
Director of Health and Wellness
Matthew Durkin
Tom Raynes
Executive Director
Chris Halsor
Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor
Christian Thurstone
Public Awareness/
Communication Campaign
contacts:
Allison Hastey
CDPHE
CDPHE/Healthy Kids
Colorado
amy.dillon@state.co.us
CDPHE/Laboratory
Services
laura.gillim-ross@state.co.us
CDPHE/Office of Vital
Statistics and Medical
Marijuana Registry
CDPHE/Environmental
Epidemiology,
Occupational Health, and
Toxicology Section
CDPHE/Health Surveys
and Analysis Unit
CDPHE/ Disease Control
and Environmental
Epidemiology
CDE
ronald.hyman@state.co.us
mike.vandyke@state.co.us
rickey.tolliver@state.co.us
Tista.ghosh@state.co.us
emm_l@cde.state.co.us
CDE/Choice and
Engagement Division
Krueger_j@cde.state.co.us
CDE/Information
Management Services
CDE/Innovation, Choice,
and Engagement Division
Attorney Generals Office
Petro_j@cde.state.co.us
matthew.durkin@state.co.us
CDAC
tom@cdac.state.co.us
CDAC
Denver Health and
Hospital Authority
Communications/Public
Information Group by
Agency
Mathew_s@cde.state.co.us
chris@cdac.state.co.us
Christian.thurstone@dhha.org
ali.maffey@state.co.us
Allison.hastey@state.co.us
Ali Maffey
CDPHE
Darla Hackworth
Colorado Bureau of
Investigations (CBI)
darla.hackworth@state.co.us

44
Chief of Police, Erie

Police Department
Marco Vasquez
JP Burt
Kevin Wong
Katie Greene
Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP)
Colorado Association of
Chiefs of Police (CACP)
Marijuana Working Group
CIAC
RM-HIDTA
See Department of
Justice Priority Metrics
Data Document
mvasquez@erieco.gov
Jp.burt@state.co.us
kwong@rmhidta.org
kathryn_a._greene@ondcp.eop.gov

45
Appendix B: Discovery Process Stakeholder Questions

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis
Stakeholder Interview Guide Questions
CONTACT INFORMATION: Name, Title, Department
LEADING INDICATORS
We will be using the frames for this project of Protecting Kids, Public Safety and Public Health.
What would be the key measures you would use to demonstrate progress in each of these
areas?
LEGISLATIVELY REQUIRED INDICATORS
We have identified indicators that have been legislatively required for your agency to collect.
Could you tell us what information (related to each of these topics) is currently being
collected?
Are there any of these legislatively required indicators that cannot be collected? Why?
Are you aware of any data quality concerns related to each of these individual data
indicators?
Do you believe that the information being collected is sufficient to monitor the impact of
marijuana legalization?
What other types of information should be collected?
CURRENT DATA COLLECTION CAPACITY
How would you rate your current capacity to collect legislatively required information related to
the legalization of marijuana? (e.g., high, medium, low)
a. Do you have the appropriate staff to collect the information?
b. Do you have the appropriate funding to collect the information?
c. Do you have the appropriate information technology to collect the information?
What plans are underway (if any) to expand the information that is collected?
What additional resources would you need (if any) to expand the collection of information?
a. Do you need additional staffing resources?
b. Do you need additional funding?
c. Do you need additional information technology resources?
BUILDING COLORADO DATA COLLECTION CAPACITY
Who else is (or should be) collecting information (related to X topic)?
a. Federal government
b. Local agencies
c. Non-government agencies
Are some of these sources more reliable (or trustworthy) than others? Are there data quality
issues we should be aware of related to any of these data sources?
What barriers have an impact on the collection of information related to the legalization of
marijuana?
a. Are there technical barriers?
b. Difficulties accessing information from other agencies, localities...?
c. Financial barriers?
What actions could help to address these barriers?
What are the most important next steps that Colorado should undertake to monitor the impact of
marijuana legalization in the frames of Protecting Kids, Public Safety and Public Health?
a. Related to strategy and communication
b. Related to policy
c. Related to budget
Are there any additional individuals or groups we should contact?

46
Appendix C: Data Gap Analysis

C.R.S. 24-33.5-516 Study Marijuana Implementation
Statutory Category
What Do We Have?
What Are We Missing?
Marijuana-Initiated
Contacts by Law
Enforcement
Some local law enforcement records

management systems (new)
Colorado State Patrol flagging
marijuana incidents (new)
Clear definition of marijuanainitiated contacts

State-Wide Reporting System
Uniform and Consistent
Reporting
Marijuana Criminal Arrest

Data
Incident and arrest data from NIBRS

broken down by race and ethnicity into
five levels of marijuana drug offenses
Ability to report amounts of

marijuana
Incidents and arrests by
judicial district
Drug-related suspensions, expulsions,

and police referrals
Data for specific marijuana

category
Law enforcement referrals are
inconsistent
Varying standards for
reporting at the local level
Uniform reporting system

- Specifically for Marijuana
Arrest data for reckless endangerment

TRAILS data
Arrest data not broken down

by specific offense
Application of the new
definition of drug endangered
children
TRAILS does not collect
marijuana-specific data
Diversion to Minors
Youth Usage Data (Healthy Kids

Colorado Survey / YRBS)
Consequences Data in TRAILS though
Behavior Health and Child Welfare
Juvenile Marijuana Offenses
Dept. of Revenue Enforcement Data
NIBRS juvenile offenses are

not broken down by specific
drug category
Ability to understand patterns
of diversion to minors from
regulated and unregulated
market.

Accidents
FARS / NHTSA Reports

Colorado State Patrol
DRE Annual Reports (CDOT)
Department of Revenue
Dependent on local law

enforcement to report to Dept.
of Revenue
Comprehensive system to
report data broken by down by
marijuana
Clear standards for testing and
reporting marijuana
impairment
Federal Data
EPIC (Seizure Reports)
RM HIDTA Reports
EPIC is a voluntary reporting

system
Underreporting of data
Comprehensive School
Data

47
Federal Data Sources
Some local law enforcement record

management systems flagging
marijuana incidents (where there is a
retail presence)
Dept. of Revenue Enforcement Data

Inconsistent or no uniform
reporting by victim and by law
enforcement
U.S. Postal Service Inspection Data

EPIC (Seizure Reports)
RM HIDTA
This is a federal responsibility

for data collection
EPIC is a voluntary reporting
system
No data from private carriers
(UPS, FedEx, etc.)
ICON
Clear definition of probation

data for marijuana reporting
Specific marijuana-related
data
Query-capable data system

Hospital E.R. Data

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)
Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center
All Payer Claims Database ICD9
Codes (New)
DAWN no longer funded and

is voluntary
Hospital reporting is voluntary
Lack of uniform, consistent
reporting to Poison Control
Consistent use of ICD9 codes
Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation
EPIC
DEA
U.S. Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
National Guard
Department of Natural Resources
Local Law Enforcement Data

Federal Data Source
NIBRS / CBI
FBI
DEA
Federal Data Source with no

reporting data set, primarily
limited to intelligence gathered
in investigations and not public
data
NIBRS data not broken down
by offense

Crime Statistics

Parcel Services
Probation Infractions
Related to Marijuana
Organized Crime / Money

Laundering

48
Health Effects and Patterns of Use

25.1.5-111 Monitor Health Effects of Marijuana
Statutory
Category
Marijuana
Patterns of
Use and
Health
Effects
Subcategory
What Do We Have?
By County
National Survey on Drug Use and

Health NSDUH (SAMSHA)
Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System (BRFSS)
Adults - County-specific
data; only state-wide
data available
Race / Ethnicity
National Survey on Drug Use and

Health NSDUH (SAMSHA)
Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance
System (BRFSS)
Adults - County-specific
data; only state-wide
data available
Medical
Research
CDPHE Scientific Advisory

Committee
Implementation August
2014
Adverse Health
Impacts
CDPHE
All Payer Claims Database
Hospital Discharge and E.R. Data
DACODs data substance abuse
Behavioral Risk Factors
Rocky Mountain Poison Control
Center
Implementation FY
2014/2015

49
Appendix D: Recommendations by Category

C.R.S. 24-33.5-516 Study Marijuana Implementation
Category
MarijuanaInitiated
Contacts by
Law
Enforcement
Marijuana
Criminal
Arrest Data
Comprehensi
ve School
Data
Drug
Endangered
Children Specifically
Data
Priority
Gaps Today
Recommendations
Clear definition of
marijuanainitiated contacts
State-Wide
Reporting System
Uniform and
Consistent
Reporting
We recommend the interpretation of

this statute as related contacts which
may require a statutory change, or
strike from collection.
The state needs to identify how to best
capture this incident data. We would
recommend convening law
enforcement officials to determine the
level of detail required and the most
efficient means of capturing these
data.
This may result in a change to local
law enforcement record management
systems and CCIS.
This is a dependency recommendation
for other criminal activities.
High
Ability to report
amounts of
marijuana.
Incidents and
arrests by judicial
district.
The state needs to identify how to

capture and collect amount data. We
would recommend convening law
enforcement officials to determine the
level of detail required and the most
efficient means of capturing these
data.
For judicial district, we recommend
challenging this requirement. We
would suggest using the CCIS OIR
data field which would provide
municipal and county information.
However, if the state wishes to add
judicial district, it would need to be
added into CCIS.
High
Data broken for

specific marijuana
category.
Law enforcement
referrals are
inconsistent
Varying standards
for reporting at the
local level.
We recommend the state change the

existing school district reporting to
include specific information on
marijuana. This will require a
modification to the School Finance Act
and to require all school districts to
capture information.
HB 12-1345 implementation should
include a marijuana data category.
High
Arrest data not

broken down by
specific offense
Application of the
Primary recommendation in terms of

data systems is to modify TRAILS to
capture marijuana information.
We recommend more statewide
Medium

50
new definition of
drug endangered
children
for Marijuana
TRAILS does not

collect marijuanaspecific data.
Diversion to
Minors
Marijuana
Related
Traffic
Accidents
High
High
Out-of-State
Diversion
High
Marijuana Site
Operational
High
communication and convening to

educate stakeholders about this
terminology. From this work,
identification of key questions could be
determined which would identify useful
data for future collection.
NIBRS juvenile
offenses are not
broken down by
specific drug
category.
Ability to
understand
patterns of
diversion to
minors from
regulated and
unregulated
market.
We recommend modification of NIBRS

to capture juvenile offenses for
marijuana.
We recommend longitudinal
development of data reporting to
determine how overall diversion
occurs.
We would recommend assessing
methods to survey kids. This may
include using existing student surveys.
Ideally data could be captured by
adding elements to these existing
surveys. We have identified some of
these local surveys but we would
recommend a broad inventory be
completed across Colorado.
Comprehensive
system to report
data broken by
down by
marijuana
We recommend modification of the

CDOT FARS to include more
consistent use of marijuana drug
codes. This includes toxicity reporting
as recommended by CACP which
would require data reporting
modifications by CDPHE.
We recommend local law enforcement
record management systems and
CCIS be modified to include specific
marijuana DUID-related data category.
EPIC is a
voluntary
reporting system
Underreporting of
data
Federal Data
Sources (DEA,
U.S. Postal
Service, RMHIDTA)
State-Wide
Reporting System
Our recommendation is for Colorado law

enforcement to work with Border States
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
and determine trends. We would
recommend a time specific study and
data analysis of findings from Border
States to determine diversion activity and
trends.
This recommendation is based upon
using existing data to assess criminal

51
Inconsistent or no
uniform reporting
by victim and by
law enforcement
Crime
Statistics
Marijuana
Transfer
Using Parcel
Services
Probation
Infractions
Related to
Marijuana
Data on
Emergency
Room Visits
and Poison
Control
Outdoor
Marijuana
Cultivation
Organized
Crime / Money
Laundering
related to, within, or near marijuana

site operations. The recommendation
is to cross reference site (licensing
data) with criminal statistics.
This recommendation depends upon
implementation of the marijuana
related incident reporting.
Low
This is a federal
responsibility for
data collection
EPIC is a
voluntary reporting
system
No data on private
parcel carriers
(UPS, FedEx, etc)
There is no recommendation here as

existing data sources are sufficient
today.
Low
Clear definition of
probation data for
marijuana
reporting. Specific
marijuana-related
data.
Query capable
data system.
Assuming the definition of probation is

about individuals violating probation
through illegal-marijuana activities,
there only recommendation is to
ensure ICON has marijuana specific
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 and track
this through the All Payer Claim
Database. There are potential new data
collections tools available beginning in
2015 / 2016 through the National Center
for Health Statistics.
High
DAWN no longer
funded and is
voluntary.
Hospital reporting
is voluntary.
Medium
State-Wide
Reporting System
Federal Data
Source

existing data sources are federal data.
High
Federal Data
Source
NIBRS data not
broken down by
offense.

existing data sources are federal data.

52

53
25.1.5-111 Monitor Health Effects of Marijuana

Statutory
Category
Marijuana
Patterns of
Use and
Health
Effects
Subcategory
Recommendation
By County
County-specific data, only

state-wide data.
Recommendation is to change to health

district.
Race / Ethnicity
County-specific data, only

state-wide data.
Implementation August
2014
Implementation FY 2014/
2015
No recommendation as these data are

available today.
No recommendation as these data are
available today.
We recommend using the following
data:
BRFSS Survey
All Payer Claims Database
Hospital Discharge and E.R. Data
Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center
Medical
Research
Adverse Health
Impacts

54
Appendix E: 2006-2008 Data Capabilities

The following table provides detail on marijuana data that is available from the
2006 to 2008 time period.
2006 2008 Capabilities
Statutory Category
Marijuana-Initiated Contacts
by Law Enforcement
No - N/A
Marijuana Criminal Arrest

Data
Yes*
FBI / CBI
Crime in the United States Number and Rates of Arrests, Drug
Abuse Violations, and Driving Under the Influence
Marijuana or Amount Specific
Not by Race / Ethnicity
Not by Judicial District
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/arrests/index.html
o From the FBI Crime in the United States 2006, Drug
Abuse Violates in Detail (Sale/Manufacturing and
Possession)
o DOES distinguish marijuana-related arrests
o NOT broken down by state, only by region
o NOT broken down by ethnicity/race
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_69.html
o From the FBI Crime in the United States, includes Drug
Abuse Violations and Driving Under the Influence Arrests
by State for 2006
o Not broken down by marijuana
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_30.html
o From the FBI Crime in the United States 2006, Includes
Number and Rates of Arrests, includes Drug Abuse
Violations and Driving Under the Influence
o Broken down by region, NOT by state
o Not broken down by marijuana
Yes*
CDE
Annual Data on Suspensions, Expulsions, Referrals to Law
Enforcement, and Other Action Taken
Not Marijuana Specific
Not School Specific
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/2012-2013sditrenddata
o
o
o
From CDE, Annual Data on Suspensions, Expulsions,

Referrals to Law Enforcement, and Other Action Take for
Drug Violations
Annual State-Level Data from 2003/2004 to 2012/2013
School Years
NOT broken down by marijuana

55

Specifically for Marijuana
Yes*
SAMSHA
Yes
SAMSHA
Marijuana Specific, By Age Group and State
Diversion Minors
http://samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2k06State/NSDUHsae2006/Exc
elTabs/NSDUHsaeTabs2006.pdf
o From SAMSHA, Marijuana Use in the Past Year,
Marijuana Use in the Past Month, Perceptions of Great
Risk of Smoking Marijuana Once a Month, First Use of
Marijuana
o By Age Group and State, Annual Averages Based on 2005
and 2006 NSDUHs
Yes
CDOT
Drugged Driving - Marijuana Specific
Number of DREs trained
FARS
Multiple code categories for marijuana

Accidents
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/alcohol-and-impaireddriving/druggeddriving/assets/DruggedDrivingFactSheet082011
.pdf
o Drugged Driving in Colorado Facts for 2007
o Number of DREs in Colorado 2005 2010
o http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrolMain/CBON/1251593175672
o DUI/D Stats from Colorado State Patrol, 2004-2008, not
broken down by marijuana
Yes
El Paso Intelligence Center
National Seizure System
US Postal Service
RM HIDTA
N/A No

Crime Statistics
Yes
El Paso Intelligence Center
National Seizure System
U.S. Postal Inspection Services
RMHIDTA

Parcel Services
Probation Infractions Related

to Marijuana

Yes*
ICON
Yes*
OBH
Rocky Mountain Poison Control
Hospital Admission and Discharge Data

56
Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation
Yes*
Bureau of Land Management
Department of Natural Resources
EPIC Seizure Database, voluntary reporting
Yes*
NIBRS
Organized Crime / Money

Laundering

FBI / CBI
DEA
*Data is available but has limitations due to category breakdowns.

57
Appendix F: As Is Data Flows

INFORMATION FLOW IDENTIFYING GAPS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INFORMATION EXCHANGE WITH INITIAL INTEGRATION/FACILITATION
PRIORITIES AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPANSION
(Information Obtained from Stakeholder Interviews)
25-1.5-110
Monitor changes in drug use patterns, broken down by county and jurisdictional
district
25-1.5-110
Monitor emerging science and medical information relevant to the health
effects associated with marijuana use
SB 14-215
Report on the effectiveness of the eighteen-month public education and
awareness campaign
SB 14-215
For grantee programs, describe strategies, outcomes achieved/
proposed and information relating to program success in reducing or
preventing the use of marijuana and alcohol and the misuse of
prescription drugs by youth who are twelve to nineteen years of age.
SB 283
Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee: will be compiling
evidence on the health impacts of marijuana related to young
children and adolescents, pregnancy/breastfeeding, respiratory and
cardiovascular health, injuries and dosage.
Data Sharing with Other Agencies and Organizations
Research and Evaluation
Surveillance
CO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

Required Reporting to the Colorado Legislature
25-1.5-110
May collect data that
reports adverse health
events involving marijuana
use from the all-payer
claims database, hospital
discharge data, and
behavioral risk factors
Requires interface with CO
Hospital Association and
CIVHC
24-33.5-516
Reporting by CO Dept of
Public Safety
Data on emergency room visits
related to the use of marijuana
and the outcomes of those
visits, including information
from Colorado poison control
center
Requires data sharing with

CO Dept of Public Safety
OTHER DATA SHARING OPPORTUNITIES
Cooperation with CDOT
regarding DUID lab testing
results from CDPHE certified
labs
Areas highlighted in green represent data sources that are readily available,
relatively complete and specific in terms of indicating marijuana-related patterns

58
Areas highlighted in yellow represent data sources where data are collected
and/or that data sharing agreements are underway, but information regarding
marijuana is currently limited (e.g., data may be collected for all drugs without a
specific breakdown available for marijuana)
Areas highlighted in red represent data sources where data related to marijuana
are not currently available or must be obtained through request from another
agency source.
DATA EXPANSION
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has added marijuanarelated questions to several of its population-based surveillance systems including:
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System which monitors the selfreported health status, disease prevalence and risk behaviors of Colorados
adults
The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System which monitors
behaviors before, after and during pregnancy
The Child Health Survey which monitors behaviors and experiences for young
Colorado children between the ages of 1 and 14 years
The Healthy Kids Colorado Survey which focuses on middle and high school
aged youth
The Attitudes and Behavior Survey on Tobacco and Health which monitors
self-reported health-related attitudes and behaviors
OTHER DATA OPPORTUNITIES BEING EXPLORED

Hospitalization and Emergency Room Visit Data: examining ICD9 coded data
from the Colorado Hospital Association to understand potential health impacts of
marijuana
Poison Control Call Center Data: examining data from the Rocky Mountain
Poison Control Center to identify any unusual spikes or trends
Sentinel Surveillance of Unintentional Poisonings: developing pilot sentinel
surveillance sites
Injury Surveillance: adding questions regarding acute marijuana use to the
trauma registry. Considering the piloting of injury reporting related to marijuana
related to skiing/snow boarding
Foodborne Illness Surveillance: marijuana related questions added to food
borne illness surveys
Birth Defects Surveillance: enhanced surveillance to examine maternal
marijuana use
DUID/DUI - adding laboratory data on blood samples tested for DUI and DUID to
improve reporting for marijuana related traffic accidents. CDPHE has requested
funding to increase data collection capacity through the laboratory system as the
agency does not currently have the infrastructure to collect systematically the
toxicity levels in blood analyzed by contracted laboratories
59

60

Program Monitoring and Reporting
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

State Data Collection related
to Behavioral Health and
Substance Abuse
CCAR
DACODS
(CO Client
(Drug/Alcohol
Assessment
Coordinated
Record)
Data System)
Mental
Health
Centers
Drug Abuse
Treatment
Programs
Current use of
marijuana is a
checkbox
(Yes/No)
Questions
related to
impairment do
not specify
connection to
specific drugs
Options are
included for
primary,
secondary and
tertiary drug type
and use in the
past 30 days
including
marijuana
State Data Collection related to

Child Welfare
and Youth Corrections
TRAILS
(COs Automated Case Management
System)
County
Child
Welfare
Agencies
State Youth JD-Based

Corrections SB94
Facilities
Agencies
(n=2)
Risk
profiling
focuses on
substance
abuse
generically
Use the CCAR

Use the
SUS1A
(Substance
Abuse
Assessment)
Currently no
substance
abuse
assessments
in use
Legislative
Reporting
24-33.5516
Reporting
by CO
Dept of
Public
Safety
Data related
to drugendangered
children,
specifically
for marijuana
Requires
data sharing
with CO Dept
of Public
Safety
agency source.
DATA CHALLENGES
Behavioral Health
Mental Health Centers collect information on whether or not clients are currently
using marijuana but this is just a checkbox option.
61
Child Welfare
Child Welfare agencies collect information for child welfare cases that focuses
generically on: 1) substance abuse/ neglect by parent and/or 2) substance
abuse by the youth and/ or 3) drug exposed infant. Specific types of drugs
involved not always identified in TRAILS.
Able to identify the number of child abuse and referrals or child fatalities related
to substance abuse, but data system does not break it down by drug type.
Department of Youth Corrections
The State Youth Corrections Facilities use the CCAR (for behavioral health
assessments), the SUS1A (for substance abuse assessments), and the
Adolescent Self-Assessment Profile (ASAP) assessment tool.
While the three Prevention, Intervention, or Treatment (PIT) levels are recorded
in TRAILS, item-level results are not entered into TRAILS (hard copies kept in
youth files).
o Drug of Choice data is available in Trails for youth with T level
substance abuse treatment needs. This data dates back to August 31,
2005, and allows DYC to sort by substance.
o To truly measure the impact of marijuana legalization, DYC would
minimally need to monitor Drug of Choice data for several years (3-5).
DYC staff record Drug/Alcohol (DA) treatment plans and services youth receive
into TRAILS when youth are in state-operated facilities and on parole. DA
services and service detail are entered as sessions into TRAILS, and can be
counted/ measured. However, limitations include session-type variations. Other
limitations include measuring treatment service duration, frequency, and dosage.
DSM diagnoses are recorded in TRAILS, which contain cannabis disorders and
poly drug use disorders. The Division has attempted to analyze this data in the
past, and has faced data validity and reliability issues.
No substance abuse assessments are currently administered within the JDbased SB94 agencies.
DATA EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES
Funding to implement a consistent and uniform substance abuse screening and
assessment process and instrument across the Colorado juvenile justice system.
This would include staff training and infrastructure building and would allow for
item-level data for both the Substance Use Survey (SUS-1a) and the Adolescent
Self-Assessment Profile (ASAP) assessments.
An opportunity for a more robust level-system to replace the 3 PIT levels, in
relation to substance abuse treatment. The adult system uses a 7-tier
categorization.
Important for Office of Behavioral Health to understand attitudes within
communities and perceived risks but the infrastructure currently doesn't exist.
Would want to focus on availability and access, how easy is it to get, and how
this relates to substance abuse treatment trends.

62
Discussions are underway to report on the manner in which local Youth Corrections
agencies (under the SB94 program) will report the expenditure of state dollars allocated
under the Marijuana Tax (SB 215) program for marijuana-related programming.

63

CO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Program Monitoring
SB 14-215
Report on: (a) the number of school health

professionals hired using grant moneys; (b) a
list and explanation of the services provided
using grant moneys; and (c) any additional
information that the state board, by rule, may
require.
Data Sharing with Other

Agencies
24-33.5-516. Study marijuana

implementation
Statewide school data, including suspensions,
expulsions, and police referrals related to drug
use and sales, broken down by specific drug
categories
Individual school data, including suspensions,
expulsions, and police referrals related to drug
use and sales, broken down by specific drug
categories
Data Sharing with Other Agencies
Legislatively Mandated Reporting

HB 12-1345
Statute 22-32-109.1 - Safe Schools Act. School
Reports SectionLaw enforcement agencies report to Division of Criminal
Justice the number of students investigated and type of
offense, number of students arrested and type of offense,
number of summons issued, and the age, gender, school,
race, ethnicity of student
District Attorneys report to Division of Criminal Justice the
number of school cases, type of offense, disposition of the
case, and the age, gender, school, race, ethnicity of student
District attorney shall report to the extent practicable the
number of cases referred by law enforcement that were not
filed in court, and the number of cases and types of offenses
referred to juvenile diversion program
Division of Criminal Justice shall provide data collected to
public upon request
Requires data sharing with CO Dept of

Public Safety
Local Data Reporting
LOCAL DATA REPORTING
For each school year, local districts report to the Colorado Department of Education on the number of suspensions
and expulsion by type of Incident and by the race/ethnicity and gender of students involved. Drug offenses are not
broken down by drug category, or specifically for marijuana. Because a student could be suspended more than one
time in a school year or could be suspended and later expelled, data reporting reflect the number of students by
incident. Unduplicated counts of students are also tracked.

64
agency source.
DATA EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES (based on stakeholder interviews)
School districts currently report Information on student suspensions/expulsions
only generically for all drugs at the current time. Local districts have discretion in
determining the criteria for suspensions/expulsions.
The Colorado Department of Education believes that it will need to have
legislation to amend the statute to require that districts differentiate the type of
drug resulting in the suspension/expulsion as part of their mandated reporting.
The Colorado Department of Education is aware of challenges that unfunded
mandates create for school district reporting. If the reporting is voluntary, it tends
to be underreported and could potentially entail quality problems. Having a
statute mandating reporting would assure that the reporting is more complete.
One caution relates to the concern that school district personnel may not have
the knowledge to properly identify drug type in use.
Reporting under SB 12-046 is inconsistent and incomplete. No funding is
available to support this reporting system. School Resource Officers/local law
enforcement can submit raw data to the Colorado Department of Criminal
Justice, which may or may not include drug category, or can use the online DCJ
form which does request drug category, broken down by marijuana. This
information is submitted to the Colorado Department of Criminal Justice but has
not been analyzed. This legislation is set up for a review in 2016.
For the data reporting to be efficient and reliable, funding will be required for
training, professional development and infrastructure development costs.

65


24-33.5-516
Reporting of traffic fatalities related to being
under the influence of marijuana (reported by
local law enforcement through CDOT into the
Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FARS)

Public Safety
Data Sharing
Program Reporting
CO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Traffic accidents and serious injuries
related to being under the influence of
marijuana
Requires data sharing with CO Dept

of Public Safety
Title 42, Article 4, Part 13, C.R.S.
Evaluations of alcohol and drug

convictions (including those that are
marijuana related) shared with the CO
Department of Human Services
Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety (ADDS)
education and treatment services are
provided to those arrested, convicted of
or receiving deferred prosecutions,
sentences, or judgments for
alcohol/other drug offenses related to
driving
Traffic accidents and serious injuries
related to being under the influence of
marijuana
Tracking of Citations for Driving Under
the Influence of Drugs (DUID)
Areas highlighted in yellow represent data sources where data are collected and/or
that data sharing agreements are underway, but information regarding marijuana is
currently limited (e.g., data may be collected for all drugs without a specific
breakdown available for marijuana)
Areas highlighted in red represent data sources where data related to marijuana are
not currently available or must be obtained through request from another agency
source.

66

67
DATA COLLECTION CAPACITY

The Federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) collects information on:
Drivers tested for drugs with a positive drug test
Fatalities involving a drugged driver
Drivers with cannabis only
The Colorado Department of Human Services tracks information on the numbers of
Coloradans who receive Alcohol and Drug Driving Safety (ADDS) education and
treatment services as a result of a driving under the influence of drugs conviction.
Collection of information related to driving under the influence of drugs is limited by: 1)
lack of training by law enforcement officers to recognize and test for the presence of
drugs including marijuana, and using appropriate coding to indicate marijuana involved,
2) a deference to testing for driving under the influence of alcohol which is easier to
establish and subsequently to prosecute
DATA EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES
The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) are concerned that
marijuana use will adversely affect traffic safety and is concerned for the safety of
the motoring public and passengers as it pertains to driving under the influence
of drugs.
Both the CACP and the Colorado Task Force on Drunk and Impaired Driving
(CTFDID) endorse expanding the number of law enforcement officers who have
been trained in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) as
well as Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) to identify drivers impaired by drugs.
The CTFDD supports statutory changes that would allow for Colorado law
enforcement officers to utilize additional preliminary testing of drug involvement
by suspected DUID drivers. This technology would assist in the detection and
reduction of DUID drivers in Colorado.
CACP requests funding for the purchase of oral fluid testing equipment for local
agencies to test the effectiveness of this technology in determining if drivers are
under the influence of marijuana or other legal and illegal drugs. Training on the
use of this equipment should also be funded.
CACP supports legislation or changes in current law to enhance the seriousness
of offenses when drivers are found to be impaired by alcohol and marijuana
and/or other drugs.
The CTFDD supports the creation of new statistical tracking to properly
document the number of DUI and DUID arrests. This would include the ability to
distinguish different types of drug categories in DUID arrests.
The CTFDD supports increasing the number of statewide safety and prevention
programs.

68

CO DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY

24-33.5-516. Study marijuana implementation
Report on: (a) Marijuana-initiated

contacts by race, ethnicity and judicial
district (b) Marijuana arrests by race,
ethnicity and judicial district (c) Drug
Endangered children (d) Diversion to
those under the age of 21
Report on: (a) Diversion of marijuana out of Colorado (b)

Crime occurring in and relating to the operation of
marijuana establishments (c) The role of organized crime
in marijuana
Data Source: FBI, DEA and NIBRS
(b) Data Sharing with Other Agencies
Statewide school data, including

suspensions, expulsions, and police
referrals related to drug use and sales,
broken down by specific drug categories
Individual school data, including
suspensions, expulsions, and police
referrals related to drug use and sales,
broken down by specific drug categories
Education
Report on: Traffic accidents, including
fatalities and serious injuries related to being
under the influence of marijuana
Federal Data Reporting
Data Sources: NIBRS/ Colorado State Patrol
Report on: Utilization of parcel services for the transfer of

marijuana
Data Source: US Postal Inspection
Data Sources: Colorado State Patrol/ CDOT/FARS
Report on: Data on emergency room visits

related to the use of marijuana and the
outcomes of those visits, including
information from Colorado poison control
center
Data Sources: CDPHE
Report on: Probation Data

Data Source: ICON

Local arrest data is reported into CBI which feeds data to Public Safety and FBI (NIBRS) which is then shared upon
request with Public Safety. Arrest data for Colorado State Patrol needs to be requested by Public Safety. FARs data
comes from two places Colorado State Patrol or local law enforcement to the Department of Revenue/
Department of Transportation into FARs. Drug seizure data also comes from local law enforcement and is also
voluntary reporting to federal system(s), including EPIC.
69
agency source.
DATA EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES (based on stakeholder interviews)

70
Appendix G: ONDCP Performance Management Guidelines

Released July 2014
National Drug Control Strategy, Performance Reporting System (PRS)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-andresearch/prs_2014.pdf Measure 7.3: Increase Federal data sets that establish
feedback mechanisms to measure usefulness (surveys, focus groups, etc.)
A key approach to improving the usefulness of data for both Federal partners and the
public is receiving feedback from data users. This information can be helpful in
enhancing websites, data formats, data reports, etc. Feedback mechanisms can also
take a variety of forms, including online surveys, conferences, or contact information on
agency websites. For this measure SAMHSA sought to hold a data users conference by
2015.The target was exceeded for this measure. In August 2012, the agency held its first
Behavioral Health Data Users Conference. The Conference provided overviews of what
types of data are available and trained attendees on how to access and analyze data.
Beyond the measures discussed previously, the Strategy outlines a series of actions
focused on sustaining and enhancing existing Federal data systems, developing and
implementing new data systems and analytical methods to address gaps, developing
data on drug use and its consequences that are useful at the community level, and
improving data on drugged driving. Progress has been made in all of these areas.
The DAWN emergency department data system was discontinued at the end of
2011.Efforts are underway to transition data collection from SAMHSA to the newly
consolidated National Hospital Care Survey by the National Center for Health Statistics.
SAMHSA and NCHS are working together on a range of issues including, pretesting a
revised data collection approach, recruiting the required number of hospitals, conducting
secondary sampling of emergency department visits, and identifying potential data
outcomes to address research questions. With growing public health concerns
surrounding prescription drug abuse, particular emphasis will be placed on this area.
For the NSDUH, a re-design is planned for 2015 to incorporate updates to the
methodology and to improve its ability to provide estimates of emerging drug problems,
especially prescription drug abuse. The Drug and Alcohol Services Information System
provides valuable information on treatment facilities and client outcomes; work is
ongoing to ensure the continuing viability of the system. Assessing the price and purity
of illicit street drugs provides essential information for understanding the economics of
the drug market. DEA is working to enhance its systems for managing and tracking
forensic analyses.
Information on the criminal justice population is also important for informing policies and
programs. Efforts are underway to strengthen drug information systems focused on
arrestees and incarcerated Individuals. Efforts have also been taken to develop new
data systems and analytical methods to address knowledge gaps. This includes the
transitioning of the Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) to the National Seizure
System (NSS) and the transitioning of DAWN to the SAMHSA Emergency Department
Surveillance System to monitor drug-related emergency department visits. Several
agencies have also sought to enhance a range of data sources that can inform a better
understanding of global illicit drug markets, including more accurately, rapidly, and
transparently estimating the cultivation and yield of marijuana, opium, and coca globally.

71
As drug use and its consequences vary considerably among localities, developing data
that are useful at the community level will be helpful in both understanding local
problems and identifying approaches to mitigate the harm to both public health and
public safety. SAMHSA is currently working to develop a community early warning and
monitoring system to track substance use and problem indicators at the local level. And
finally, expanding understanding of patterns and risks associated with drugged driving
will support better public safety efforts. ONDCP has partnered with National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to support driver
simulator research to examine driving impairment as a result of marijuana and combined
marijuana and alcohol use and correlate it with the results of oral fluid testing to identify
behavioral indicators of impairment.

72

Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colorado Marijuana Data Discovery Gap Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Office of Marijuana Coordination

1375 Sherman Street, Room 136

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis

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

Marijuana Data Discovery

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

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

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

Key Terms and Abbreviations

The constitutional amendment that legalized the recreational

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Colorado Department of Human Services

Colorado Crime Information System

Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing

National Incident-Based Reporting System

Governors Office of information Technology

Office of National Drug Control Policy

People under the age of 21 who are restricted from purchasing,

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

Figure 1.0: The value of data collection

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

As part of Colorados vision to build a longer term and highly effective

Marijuana Data Discovery and Gap Analysis Project

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

Identifying strategic priorities and recommendations for improving the

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

analysis and develop strategic recommendations for data collection and

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

Colorado Department of Revenue/DOR, including the Marijuana

Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories

Purpose | People | Potential | Transform

915 South Pearl Street | Denver, Colorado 80209 | www.rebound-solutions.com

Marijuana Data Analysis Report

Understanding the Legislative Requirements and Categories

Legislative Categories and Definitions

Marijuana-initiated contacts by law enforcement, broken

Marijuana Criminal Arrest Data

Marijuana arrest data, including amounts of marijuana with

Comprehensive School Data

Comprehensive school data, both statewide and by individual

Drug Endangered Children

Data related to drug-endangered children, specifically for

Diversion of marijuana to persons under twenty-one years of

Marijuana Related Traffic

Traffic accidents, including fatalities and serious injuries