WSLCB - Board Caucus
(January 7, 2025) - Data Dashboards

WSLCB - Board Caucus (January 7, 2025) - Data Dashboards - Takeaways
[ Event Details ]

Two newly released data dashboards on cannabis use and revenue were highlighted by staff who explained their process, potential uses, and agency leaders’ plans for future dashboards.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday January 7th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Caucus.

My top 5 takeaways:

  • The merits of a dashboard for information on cannabis and other substances regulated by WSLCB had become clear prior to a performance audit of the agency published late in 2024.
    • WSLCB debuted a data dashboard for cannabis in 2015 which was removed in 2017.
    • By 2024, HB 2182 (“Creating a data dashboard to track use of regulated substances”) proposed statutory language to require a new data dashboard by WSLCB. The bill was passed by the Washington State House of Representatives (WA House), but not the State Senate.
    • In August 2024, the Research Program hosted a closed focus group for public health and prevention representatives to gather their input on the creation of data dashboards by agency staff.
    • The Office of the Washington State Auditor (WA SAO) conducted a performance audit of WSLCB and presented lawmakers with recommendations publicly in a November 2024 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) I-900 Subcommittee meeting. The WA SAO report noted: “Our 2018 performance audit recommended that LCB use its cannabis tracking system for a data-driven, automated approach to enforcement. However, when we prepared to conduct a follow-up audit to see how the agency fared at implementing our recommendations, we learned that it currently lacks a data tracking system that easily and reliably tracks cannabis products. For these reasons, this audit sought to find out why and what LCB does instead to identify risky transactions and prioritize its activities.”
  • Research Program Manager Sarah Okey gave an update on the agency's data dashboard initiative, which aimed to make complex data more available to the public (audio - 8m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB, presentation).
    • During caucus, Okey outlined the goal of creating “foundational data dashboards” to be displayed on the agency website, which would visualize data on a platform with interactive features accessible to the public. “And when we say ‘foundational,’ we mean that at this stage, we will only be building dashboards using data that contain four criteria,” which she said were: highly feasible, high value, high quality, and limited in nature.
      • Highly feasible data were already gathered and reported, requiring no new data processes.
      • High-value data summarized information that was frequently requested.
      • High-quality data were regarded as reliable and valid.
      • Limited in nature meant data were refreshed no more than once per quarter and focused on high-level insights.
    • According to Okey, foundational dashboards supported the WSLCB 2024-2029 strategic plan by making data digestible, being responsive to information requests, and having information be understandable to non-technical audiences.
    • She reviewed their progress, remarking how “in June, we started with several members of LCB being involved in a Power BI training, which is the platform that we're currently using to build out dashboards. In July, foundational dashboards were placed on our strategic plan for the current fiscal year and assigned to the research program to lead.” From there, she indicated having met with agency leaders in August “to discuss our plan of action for leading this initiative. In September, we began our internal dashboard work group meeting, which…consists of analysts and other teams agency wide.” Staff discussed barriers in October, and by November Okey relayed they “started developing standard operating procedures as to how to develop and finalize and approve dashboards…then in December, we were able to release our first two dashboards,” which focused on cannabis.
    • Okey also emphasized that while the research program was coordinating the effort, the dashboards “could not be developed without the support of executive leadership, the dashboard work group, the data governance committee” and other divisions at the agency. She added their methodical progress was intentional because they want to be confident in all of the dashboards WSLCB published.
      • She observed that changes to the dashboard were possible, given the potential for a dashboard bill from the legislature, or the ongoing systems modernization project (SMP) at the agency.
      • HB 1066 (“Creating a data dashboard to track use of regulated substances”), legislation prefiled for the 2025 legislative session by Representative Kristine Reeves, aimed to provide statutory direction to the agency’s dashboard development goals.
  • Research Analyst Nick Glodosky provided a live demonstration of the two published dashboards, first presenting information from the International Cannabis Policy Study (ICPS), leading to a question from Board Member Ollie Garrett about retail access (audio - 6m,  video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • Glodosky explained that the ICPS is an annual survey conducted by researchers at the University of Waterloo focused on cannabis policy and public health. The agency partially funded ICPS research in exchange for the group surveying a representative sample of Washington's population and providing that data in return.
    • According to Glodosky, the ICPS data dashboard included six pages on cannabis use, starting with an overview “followed by pages containing select findings from the 2023 survey. The first four have results for only past year cannabis users, where the last two have results for the full sample, unless otherwise noted.”
      • The first page on the ICPS dashboard had general characteristics of past-year users, including the average age of first use, money spent, frequency of use, medical and recreational use, and products used, with cannabis flower being the most common.
      • The second page had information on the cannabinoid content of products used, namely tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) content in flower, edibles, and concentrates.
        • Glodosky cautioned about self-reported data as the average of 35% THC reported for flower was "actually really quite high."
          • This page of the dashboard contained an informational note that “All results are self-report” but did not denote any deviation from average or maximum cannabinoid concentrations in products from the licensed market.
          • During the demonstration of the already largely complete prototype dashboard during the Washington State Health Care Authority Prevention Research Collaborative meeting in September 2024, Cannabis Observer Founder Gregory Foster noted the average THC content of “edibles” self-reported in the ICPS survey (25.2mg) was 2.5 times higher than the legal serving size in Washington state (10mg).
      • The third page presented reasons for, and consequences of cannabis use, noting that the most commonly reported reasons for use were to reduce stress or relax or to improve sleep. Panic was the most common adverse reaction reported.
        • Glodosky commented that the majority of survey respondents did not have a health professional recommendation to use cannabis.
      • The fourth page focused on the ease of access to retail stores, with a map showing the perceived ease of buying cannabis from a retail store by county, using a scale of one to five, with one being very easy and five very difficult. 
      • The fifth page provided information about perceptions of the illegal market. Participants were asked about the perceived quality and safety of legal and illegal cannabis, with most reporting that legal cannabis was both higher quality and safer to use than illegal cannabis.
        • The county with the highest average difficulty rating for buying legal or illegal cannabis was Grant County with average ease of 2.2 and 3.5 out of five, respectively.
      • The final page showed that the most common reason for buying cannabis from outside the legal market were that legal prices were higher or access to illegal sources was less convenient (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
  • Moving on to the second data presentation, Glodosky remarked that the dedicated cannabis account dashboard had information on revenue, expenditures, and distributions from the account, which led to questions from the board (audio - 4m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • He mentioned that this dashboard had been designed in response to the JLARC report recommendation that the agency establish a web page with this information in a single location.
      • The five page dashboard showed that 99% of revenue came from the cannabis excise tax, where funds were then distributed to the basic health account, the state general fund, state agencies, and local governments. It included data on allotments, the amount set aside by the state legislature for these agencies, and offered a comparison to what they actually spent.
      • The dashboard also provided an overview of expenditures and distributions, with filters to view data by fiscal year or specific agency. Distributions to local governments were based on the portion of the excise tax collected through cannabis sales, as well as their share of the population in counties that allowed cannabis businesses to operate.
      • A map on the dashboard showed the relative distribution by county, and hovering over a county showed the total amount distributed to the county government as well as to the cities and towns within that county.
    • Board Member Ollie Garrett asked about the ease of buying from a retail store, questioning if the areas with less access would be better areas to consider when trying to get a license in the cannabis industry (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
      • Glodosky clarified that “gray counties are ones that less than 10 people from that county filled out the survey. So we're actually not presenting data from those counties just to protect individuals.” But he noted that individuals in the industry could use the map as a way of "indicating which counties may need greater access to a retail store if they're interested in opening one."
    • Vollendroff asked if the $0 amount listed adjacent to particular counties or cities was solely caused by a ban or moratorium (audio - 5m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB), and if there was a way to project what the amount would be if there was not a moratorium (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
      • Glodosky clarified that jurisdictions with a ban or moratorium on retail cannabis businesses received $0 in distributions as a result of local cannabis sales, but as long as a city or town or county allowed cannabis businesses to operate, they would receive a distribution proportional to their population, even if they did not have a retail store operating in the area.
      • Vollendroff followed up to ask if potential revenue distributions could be projected for ban or moratoria areas.
      • Financial Analyst Colin O'Neill responded that it would be “really tricky to go back and figure out,” because the money from sales is apportioned across the cities allowing sales, and staff would have to project how many sales a city would have in order to determine what percentage of the sales in the state they would get. Put bluntly, such an estimate meant they would have to "come up with fake sales,” he said. O'Neill suggested that Budget Supervisor Aaron Hansen, the staffer responsible for tracking distributions and local moratoriums, was the best person to ask if Vollendroff wanted to know what the current list of moratoriums was.
      • Glodosky added that the distributions could be filtered by amount, to see all of the cities that have $0 distributions, and one can select fiscal years to see changes over time.
  • As the presentation concluded, board members offered comments and queries regarding future goals for the dashboards.
    • Vollendroff was "thrilled that we have this" and was especially happy that they were in the beginning stages with future possibilities. He was curious how the public should give input or ask questions about the dashboard. Okey answered that her team had been gathering feedback and were interested in hearing what would be helpful for people to have on dashboards. She offered the email contact for the Research Program for anyone wanting to reach out with questions, comments, or other ideas (audio - 1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • Garrett stated that the data was "great" and she thought the team did a "good job” (audio - <1m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
    • Vollendroff asked about future dashboards, mentioning alcohol and tobacco, and what goals the team had for the dashboards over the next year (audio - 2m, video - TVW, video - WSLCB).
      • Okey established that her staff were discussing where their data was sourced and how to aggregate it across time. She mentioned that they were considering a dashboard involving compliance checks for alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco, as well as one for license types and “how they change over time.” However, she noted the agency system modernization project (SMP) might impact when and how they build different dashboards.
      • Vollendroff envisioned the possibility of using their dashboards in collaboration with other state agency dashboards: “individually, they tell their own story, but when you bring those two data sets together…there's even more information to glean from that.” He acknowledged the cross-departmental collaboration and encouraged everyone to use the dashboards and provide feedback to the research team.

Information