2004 Arizona Youth Survey
City of Scottsdale, Maricopa County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2004 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2004 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
from your school and the State.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

City of Scottsdale, Maricopa
County
This report summarizes some of the
findings from the 2004 Arizona Youth
Survey administered to 8th, 10th and 12th
grade students during the spring of 2004.
The results for your school are presented
along with overall results for the State.
The survey was designed to assess
school safety, adolescent substance use,
anti-social behavior and the risk and
protective factors that predict these
adolescent problem behaviors.
All schools in Arizona are invited to
participate in the survey, and recruitment
efforts were successful in obtaining
participation by schools in all of the 15
counties. Students representing large and
small schools and different ethnic and
cultural groups participated in the
survey. Careful planning and uniform
administration of the survey have
resulted in survey data that are valid and
representative of the students in grades
8, 10, and 12 in Arizona.
Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Region
2002
2004

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

Tools for Assessment
and Planning
How to Read the
Charts
Data Charts:
• Substance Use &
Antisocial Behavior
• Risk & Protective
Factor Profiles
• School Safety
Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

State
2002

2004

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total Students
Grade

0

100

4047

100 12203

100 40960

100

8

0

0.0

1574

38.9

3451

28.3 18812

45.9

10
12

0
0

0.0
0.0

1345
1128

33.2
27.9

4984
3768

40.8 12558
30.9 9590

30.7
23.4

0
0

0.0
0.0

1948
2024

49.0
51.0

5881
6043

49.3 19172
50.7 21161

47.5
52.5

White

0

0.0

3143

78.5

6198

51.8 19745

49.0

African American

0

0.0

95

2.4

292

2.4

1503

3.7

10.3

2938

7.3

Gender
Male
Female

Ethnicity

Native American

0

0.0

51

1.3

1237

Hispanic

0

0.0

354
124

8.8
3.1

3630

30.3 13184
32.7
812
2.0
Asian
*
*
258*
2.2*
Pacific Islander
31
0.8
289
0.7
* 2002 categories Asian and Pacific Islander were combined as 'Asian or Pacific Islander'

3

Many states and local agencies have
adopted the Risk and Protective Factor
Model to guide their prevention efforts.
The Risk and Protective Factor Model of
Prevention is based on the simple
premise that to prevent a problem from
happening, we need to identify the
factors that increase the risk of that
problem developing and then find ways
to reduce the risks. Just as medical
researchers have found risk factors for
heart disease such as diets high in fat,
lack of exercise, and smoking; a team of
researchers at the University of
Washington have defined a set of risk
factors for youth problem behaviors.
Risk factors are characteristics of school,
community, and family environments, as
well as characteristics of students and
their peer groups that are known to
predict increased likelihood of drug use,
delinquency, school dropout, teen
pregnancy, and violent behavior among
youth.
Dr. J. David Hawkins, Dr. Richard F.
Catalano, and their colleagues at the
University of Washington, Social
Development Research Group have
investigated the relationship between
risk and protective factors and youth
problem behavior. For example, they
have found that children who live in
families with high levels of conflict are
more likely to become involved in
problem behaviors such as delinquency
and drug use than children who live in
families with low levels of family
conflict.

2004 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors
Protective factors exert a positive influence
or buffer against the negative influence of
risk, thus reducing the likelihood that
adolescents will engage in problem
behaviors.
Research on risk and protective factors has
important implications for prevention
efforts. The premise of this approach is
that in order to promote positive youth
development and prevent problem
behaviors, it is necessary to address those
factors that predict the problem. By
measuring risk and protective factors in a
population, specific risk factors that are
elevated and widespread can be identified
and targeted by preventive interventions
that also promote related protective factors.
For example, if academic failure is
identified as an elevated risk factor in a
community, then mentoring and tutoring
interventions can be provided that will
improve academic performance, and also
increase opportunities and rewards for
classroom participation.
Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is based on the work of J. David
Hawkins, Ph.D., Richard F. Catalano,
Ph.D.; and a team of researchers at the
University of Washington in Seattle.
Beginning in the early 1980’s the group
researched adolescent problem behaviors
and identified risk factors for adolescent
drug abuse and delinquency. Not
surprisingly, they found that a relationship
exists between adolescent drug abuse,
delinquency, school dropout, teen
pregnancy, and violence and were able to
identify risk factors for these problems.
The chart at the right shows the links
between the 16 risk factors and the five
problem behaviors. The check marks have
been placed in the chart to indicate where
at least two well designed, published
research studies have shown a link between
the risk factor and the problem behavior.

Violence

School
Drop-Out

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

YOUTH AT RISK

Substance
Abuse

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS

Community
Availability of Drugs and Firearms

9

Community Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

9

Transitions and Mobility

9

9

Low Neighborhood Attachment and
Community Disorganization

9

9

Extreme Economic and Social Deprivation

9

9

9

9

Family History of High Risk Behavior

9

9

9

9

Family Management Problems

9

9

9

9

9

Family Conflict

9

9

9

9

9

Parental Attitudes and Involvement

9

9

Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Academic Failure in Elementary School

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of Commitment to School

9

9

9

9

Alienation and Rebelliousness

9

9

Friends Who Engage in a Problem Behavior

9

9

9

9

Favorable Attitudes Toward the Problem
Behavior

9

9

9

9

Early Initiation of the Problem Behavior

9

9

9

9

9

9
9
9

Family

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
Why the Arizona Youth
Survey?
Data from the Arizona Youth
Survey can be used to help
school and community
planners assess current
conditions and prioritize
areas of greatest need.
Each risk and protective
factor can be linked to
specific types of
interventions that have been
shown to be effective in
either reducing risk(s) or
enhancing protection(s). The
steps outlined here will help
your school and community
make key decisions regarding
allocation of resources, how
and when to address specific
needs, and which strategies
are most effective and known
to produce results.

What are the numbers telling you?
Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Using the table
below, note your findings as you discuss the following questions.
•
Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want?
•
Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want?
•
Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which substances are your students using the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?
•
Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to decide if a rate is “unacceptable.”
•
•
•

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or
much lower than the other?
Compare your data with statewide, and national data – differences of
5% between local and other data are probably significant.
Determine the standards and values held within your community – For
example: Is it acceptable in your community for 40% of high school
students to drink alcohol regularly even when the statewide percentage
is 50%?

Substance use and antisocial behavior data – raise awareness about the
problems and promote dialogue
Risk and protective factor data – identify exactly where the community
needs to take action
Promising approaches – talk with resources listed on the last page of
this report for ideas about programs that have proven effective in
addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and
improving the protective factors that are low

Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate
#1
#2
#3
#4

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

5

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
How do I decide which
intervention(s) to employ?
Strategies should be selected
based on the risk factors that are
high in your community and the
protective factors that are low.

•

•

Strategies should be age
appropriate and employed prior to
the onset of the problem
behavior.

•

Strategies chosen should address
more than a single risk and
protective factor.

•

No single prevention program
offers the complete solution.

An isolated
prevention program
does not provide the
complete solution to
reducing youth
problem behaviors.
A comprehensive
prevention strategy
addresses ATOD
use, antisocial
behavior, and risk
and protective
factors.

How do I know whether or
not the intervention was
effective?
Participation in the bi-annual administration of the survey provides trend
data necessary for determining the
effectiveness of the implemented
intervention(s) and also provides data
for determining any new efforts that are
needed.

How to Read the Charts
Brief Overview
•

Student responses for risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior and other
questions are displayed by grade on the following pages.

•

The bars represent the percentage of students in your school who reported elevated risk or protection,
substance use, or antisocial behaviors. There are two bars presented for each factor, one showing the
results from the 2002 Arizona Youth Survey and another showing the results from this 2004 survey.

•

Scanning across these charts, you can easily determine which factors are most (or least) prevalent, thus
identifying which of the factors are most important for your school or community to address.

•

Bars will be complemented by a small dot. This dot shows the comparison to all Arizona students
sampled, and provides additional information for your school and community in determining the
relative importance of each risk and protective factor. Additional explanations of cut-points, dots, and
the 7-state norm line are located on the following page.

•

Actual percentages of the information shown on the charts are provided in the data tables at the end of
this profile report.

•

Brief definitions of the risk and protective factors can be found following the profile charts.

6

How to Read the Charts: Cut-Points,
Dots, and Dashed Lines
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

Cut-Points
Before the percentage of youth at risk on a given
scale could be calculated, a scale value or cut-point
needed to be determined that would separate the atrisk group from the not-at-risk group. The
Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) survey was
designed to assess adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors
that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. The
Arizona Youth Survey, and other surveys designed
for other states and areas, follow the PNA format
and have the same goal of gathering information on
the prevention needs of students, schools,
communities, and states. Since PNA surveys have
been given to over 200,000 youth nationwide, it was
possible to select two groups of youth, one that was
more at risk for problem behaviors and another
group that was less at risk. A cut-point score was
then determined for each risk and protective factor
scale that best divided the youth from the two
groups into their appropriate group, more at-risk or
less at-risk. The criteria for selecting the more atrisk and the less at-risk groups included academic
grades (the more at-risk group received “D” and “F”
grades, the less at-risk group received “A” and “B”
grades), ATOD use (the more at-risk group had
more regular use, the less at-risk group had no drug
use and use of alcohol or tobacco on only a few
occasions), and antisocial behavior (the more at-risk
group had two or more serious delinquent acts in the
past year, the less at-risk group had no serious
delinquent acts).
The cut-points that were determined by analyzing
the results of the more at-risk and less at-risk groups
will remain constant and will be used to produce the
profiles for future surveys.

Since the cut-points for each scale will remain fixed,
the percentage of youth above the cut-point on a scale
(at-risk) will provide a method for evaluating the
progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.

Dots
The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.

Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.

7

8

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

Intention to Use Drugs

Gang Involvement

Depressive Symptoms

80

Rewards for ASB

Sensation Seeking

Friend's Use of Drugs

90

Prosocial Involvement

Interaction with Prosocial
Peers

Interaction with Antisocial Peers

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use

Attitudes Favorable to ASB

Early Initiation of Drug Use

Early Initiation of ASB

Rebelliousness

Low Commitment to School

Academic Failure

Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use

Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB

School

Belief in the Moral Order

School

Social Skills

Family

Religiosity

Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior

Family

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

80

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

90

Poor Family Management

Perceived Availability of Handguns

Perceived Availability of Drugs

Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use

Transitions & Mobility

Community Disorganization

Low Neighborhood Attachment

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Community

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

Community

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

100

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE RISK FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 8

100

Peer / Individual
Region 2004

State 2004

70

7 State Norm.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE PROTECTIVE FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 8

Peer / Individual

Region 2004

State 2004

7 State Norm.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

9

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

Intention to Use Drugs

Gang Involvement

Depressive Symptoms

80

Rewards for ASB

Sensation Seeking

Friend's Use of Drugs

90

Prosocial Involvement

Interaction with Prosocial
Peers

Interaction with Antisocial Peers

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use

Attitudes Favorable to ASB

Early Initiation of Drug Use

Early Initiation of ASB

Rebelliousness

Low Commitment to School

Academic Failure

Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use

Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB

School

Belief in the Moral Order

School

Social Skills

Family

Religiosity

Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior

Family

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

80

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

90

Poor Family Management

Perceived Availability of Handguns

Perceived Availability of Drugs

Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use

Transitions & Mobility

Community Disorganization

Low Neighborhood Attachment

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Community

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

Community

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

100

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE RISK FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 10

100

Peer / Individual
Region 2004

State 2004

70

7 State Norm.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE PROTECTIVE FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 10

Peer / Individual

Region 2004

State 2004

7 State Norm.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

10

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

Intention to Use Drugs

Gang Involvement

Depressive Symptoms

80

Rewards for ASB

Sensation Seeking

Friend's Use of Drugs

90

Prosocial Involvement

Interaction with Prosocial
Peers

Interaction with Antisocial Peers

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use

Attitudes Favorable to ASB

Early Initiation of Drug Use

Early Initiation of ASB

Rebelliousness

Low Commitment to School

Academic Failure

Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use

Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB

School

Belief in the Moral Order

School

Social Skills

Family

Religiosity

Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior

Family

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

80

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

90

Poor Family Management

Perceived Availability of Handguns

Perceived Availability of Drugs

Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use

Transitions & Mobility

Community Disorganization

Low Neighborhood Attachment

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Community

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

Community

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement

100

Opportunity for Prosocial
Involvement

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE RISK FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 12

100

Peer / Individual
Region 2004

State 2004

70

7 State Norm.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE PROTECTIVE FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 12

Peer / Individual

Region 2004

State 2004

7 State Norm.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alcohol

Inhalants

11
Been Arrested

Carried a Handgun
Handgun to School

80

Attacked to Harm

90

Stolen a Vehicle

Sold Illegal Drugs

Heavy Use

Drunk or High at School

Suspended from School

1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day

30-Day Use

Binge Drinking

Ecstasy

* Sedatives

Heroin

Stimulants

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Lifetime Use

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Ecstasy

* Sedatives

Heroin

Stimulants

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

100

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Percentages (%)

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2004 Student Survey, Grade 8
Antisocial Behavior

Region 2004

State 2004

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Alcohol

12

Cocaine

Carried a Handgun

80

Handgun to School

90

Attacked to Harm

Ecstasy

Handgun to School

Carried a Handgun

Attacked to Harm

Been Arrested

Stolen a Vehicle

Sold Illegal Drugs

Drunk or High at School

Suspended from School

1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day

Binge Drinking

80

Been Arrested

Heroin
* Sedatives

90

Stolen a Vehicle

Heavy Use

Sold Illegal Drugs

Cocaine
Stimulants

Heavy Use

Drunk or High at School

Suspended from School

30-Day Use

1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day

Inhalants
Hallucinogens

30-Day Use

Binge Drinking

Ecstasy

* Sedatives

Heroin

Stimulants

Lifetime Use

Hallucinogens

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Ecstasy

* Sedatives

Heroin

Stimulants

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Lifetime Use

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Ecstasy

* Sedatives

Heroin

Stimulants

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

100

Inhalants

Alcohol
Cigarettes

Percentages (%)
100

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Percentages (%)

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2004 Student Survey, Grade 10
Antisocial Behavior

Region 2004

State 2004

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2004 Student Survey, Grade 12

Antisocial Behavior

Region 2004

State 2004

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

School Safety Profile
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE SAFE SCHOOL FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 8
100

90

Region 2004
State 2004

80

70

Percentage (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Unsafe at School

Carried a Weapon

Threatened or Injured

13

In a Physical Fight

School Safety Profile
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE SAFE SCHOOL FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 10
100

90

Region 2004
State 2004

80

70

Percentage (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Unsafe at School

Carried a Weapon

Threatened or Injured

In a Physical Fight

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE SAFE SCHOOL FACTORS
2004 Student Survey, Grade 12
100

90

Region 2004
State 2004

80

70

Percentage (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Unsafe at School

Carried a Weapon

Threatened or Injured

14

In a Physical Fight

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions
Community Domain Risk Factors
Community and Personal
Transitions & Mobility

Neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility have been shown to have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling, while children who experience frequent residential moves and stressful life
transitions have been shown to have higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and drug use.

Community Disorganization

Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of
public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling.

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

A low level of bonding to the neighborhood is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling.

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking
age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in
consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative
attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use.

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
Community Domain Protective Factors

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

When opportunities are available in a community for positive participation, children are less likely to
engage in substance use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

Rewards for positive participation in activities helps children bond to the community, thus lowering their
risk for substance use.
Family Domain Risk Factors

Family History of Antisocial
Behavior

When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use),
the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors.

Family Conflict

Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict,
appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use.

Parental Attitudes Favorable In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use,
Toward Antisocial Behavior & children are more likely to become drug abusers during adolescence. The risk is further increased if
parents involve children in their own drug (or alcohol) using behavior, for example, asking the child to
Drugs
light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator.
Poor Family Management

Parents’ use of inconsistent and/or unusually harsh or severe punishment with their children places them
at higher risk for substance use and other problem behaviors. Also, parents’ failure to provide clear
expectations and to monitor their children’s behavior makes it more likely that they will engage in drug
abuse whether or not there are family drug problems.
Family Domain Protective Factors

Family Attachment

Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance
use and other problem behaviors.

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities
and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by
their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.
School Domain Risk Factors

Academic Failure

Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6) academic failure increases the risk of both drug
abuse and delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the
risk of problem behaviors.

15

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions (Continued)
Low Commitment to School

Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, stimulants, and
sedatives or non-medically prescribed tranquilizers is significantly lower among students who expect to
attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework,
and perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use.
School Domain Protective Factors

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at
school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to
be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors.
Peer-Individual Risk Factors

Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the
involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15
is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict
lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes
Attitudes Favorable Toward
Antisocial Behavior and Drug and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in
middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior,
Use
their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive
attitudes toward drug use and antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem
behaviors, including drug use.
Friends' Use of Drugs

Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely
to engage in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest
predictors of substance use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families
and do not experience other risk factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the
risk of that problem developing.

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging
in antisocial behavior themselves.

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use.

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in
antisocial behavior and substance use.

Rebelliousness

Young people who do not feel part of society, are not bound by rules, don’t believe in trying to be
successful or responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of
abusing drugs. In addition, high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and
normlessness have all been linked with drug use.

Sensation Seeking

Young people who seek out opportunities for dangerous, risky behavior in general are at higher risk for
participating in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Intention to Use ATODs

Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life.
Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions.

Depressive Symptoms

Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely
to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth
problem behaviors.

Gang Involvement

Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.

Religiosity

Young people who regularly attend religious services are less likely to engage in problem behaviors.

Social Skills

Young people who are socially competent and engage in positive interpersonal relations with their peers
are less likely to use drugs and engage in other problem behaviors.

Belief in the Moral Order

Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs.

Prosocial Involvement

Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth.

Prosocial Norms

Young people who view working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem
behavior.

Involvement with Prosocial
Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from
engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use.

Peer-Individual Protective Factors

16

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
Year
Number of Youth

Grade 10
Grade 12
Grade 8
2002
2004
2002
2004
2002
2004
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State
0 3451 1574 18812
0 4984 1345 12558
0 3768 1128 9590

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Drug Used
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Stimulants
Heroin
* Sedatives
Ecstasy
Any Drug

Grade 8
Grade 10
Grade 12
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State
0.0
56.9
49.4
51.9
0.0
72.3
69.6
69.3
0.0
80.8
82.3
77.9
0.0
39.6
22.8
33.5
0.0
49.8
37.9
45.3
0.0
61.1
52.9
54.2
0.0
6.8
4.2
7.2
0.0
10.2
9.7
11.0
0.0
16.9
19.1
16.7
0.0
26.6
14.1
20.4
0.0
41.6
35.8
36.6
0.0
50.8
52.2
45.7
0.0
11.9
11.9
13.7
0.0
10.4
9.8
10.9
0.0
10.1
9.2
9.1
0.0
2.4
1.4
2.5
0.0
8.3
4.6
5.3
0.0
12.6
10.4
7.6
0.0
4.5
2.1
3.7
0.0
8.2
6.2
7.8
0.0
12.0
12.3
11.5
0.0
2.9
2.6
3.4
0.0
6.8
5.1
6.7
0.0
8.6
6.7
8.2
0.0
1.9
0.9
1.5
0.0
3.2
3.1
2.4
0.0
3.8
5.9
3.0
*
*
12.1
11.0
*
*
17.2
16.5
*
*
27.7
19.8
0.0
5.5
1.6
2.4
0.0
8.2
2.4
4.3
0.0
12.0
5.6
5.9
0.0
33.2
26.5
33.2
0.0
44.5
43.8
45.6
0.0
52.8
57.6
52.4

Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days
Drug Used
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Stimulants
Heroin
* Sedatives
Ecstasy
Any Drug

Grade 10
Grade 12
Grade 8
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State
0.0
34.4
23.5
25.3
0.0
47.9
41.2
41.3
0.0
58.9
60.5
51.1
0.0
9.1
8.4
10.7
0.0
18.1
15.5
17.7
0.0
23.2
27.9
24.4
0.0
4.0
0.9
2.4
0.0
4.7
3.6
3.4
0.0
5.9
8.0
5.4
0.0
14.3
7.4
9.7
0.0
22.4
16.3
16.2
0.0
25.4
25.4
18.5
0.0
6.5
5.8
5.8
0.0
3.4
2.4
2.9
0.0
2.0
1.8
1.4
0.0
1.5
1.0
1.6
0.0
3.2
2.1
2.4
0.0
3.1
2.7
2.3
0.0
2.6
1.0
1.6
0.0
3.5
1.5
3.0
0.0
4.0
3.5
3.7
0.0
1.0
0.9
1.6
0.0
2.6
2.1
2.8
0.0
2.2
2.1
3.0
0.0
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.0
1.4
1.1
0.7
0.0
1.3
1.4
0.7
*
*
5.0
5.5
*
*
8.3
8.2
*
*
14.0
9.2
0.0
3.6
0.5
0.8
0.0
2.5
0.5
1.1
0.0
3.2
0.8
1.0
0.0
19.9
14.6
17.9
0.0
25.7
21.9
23.6
0.0
28.6
31.8
25.1

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Drug Used
Binge Drinking
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day

Grade 10
Grade 12
Grade 8
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State
0.0
14.1
13.4
16.0
0.0
26.0
24.3
25.1
0.0
32.2
37.8
32.5
0.0
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.0
3.5
2.4
2.6
0.0
6.0
6.2
4.8

Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 10
Grade 12
Grade 8
Behavior
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State
Suspended from School
0.0
18.1
11.9
17.7
0.0
11.6
7.4
12.3
0.0
8.1
7.5
9.3
Drunk or High at School
0.0
15.4
10.0
13.2
0.0
20.5
15.8
20.8
0.0
23.8
23.8
22.2
Sold Illegal Drugs
0.0
5.7
4.1
5.0
0.0
9.9
8.5
8.9
0.0
10.0
11.3
9.8
Stolen a Vehicle
0.0
3.3
3.2
4.8
0.0
3.6
1.9
4.4
0.0
2.1
1.5
2.6
Been Arrested
0.0
9.1
6.2
8.7
0.0
8.0
5.9
9.1
0.0
8.2
6.4
9.1
Attacked to Harm
0.0
11.6
15.7
17.8
0.0
10.8
14.0
16.5
0.0
9.1
10.6
13.3
Carried a Handgun
0.0
6.7
4.2
6.5
0.0
5.0
4.1
5.9
0.0
4.9
3.7
5.5
Handgun to School
0.0
1.4
1.2
1.5
0.0
1.3
0.8
1.5
0.0
1.0
0.7
1.3
* The 2002 sedative question only asked about quaaludes, barbituates, and tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question.

17

Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Risk Factor
Year
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Sensation Seeking
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs

Grade 10
Grade 12
Grade 8
2002
2004
2002
2004
2002
2004
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

38.1
43.1
47.4
34.9
39.9
37.5

32.4
26.3
47.4
30.9
41.6
29.2

40.7
47.2
52.5
37.6
40.6
37.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

39.3
40.0
45.3
35.1
50.5
24.7

39.1
36.8
48.9
38.9
54.4
18.2

46.7
54.2
57.6
43.1
52.1
27.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

44.3
39.5
45.1
33.1
60.1
32.7

41.7
29.4
49.9
39.9
57.8
25.9

51.0
50.1
55.7
37.2
55.0
34.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

43.1
46.1
40.5
41.7
25.8

41.9
50.2
33.3
47.0
28.9

46.4
52.5
46.2
45.3
27.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

41.5
34.3
37.7
44.3
44.0

41.5
35.9
36.8
47.7
44.3

43.2
40.9
45.8
47.7
41.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

46.2
31.4
35.5
42.9
45.2

47.8
34.2
36.8
47.6
52.1

44.8
38.3
42.9
44.4
42.8

0.0
0.0

52.3
41.2

38.1
49.6

49.8
39.4

0.0
0.0

46.5
45.4

41.3
55.1

49.8
43.7

0.0
0.0

43.7
44.6

35.6
58.8

43.8
47.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*

40.0
33.6
40.3
46.3
37.4
47.9
52.1
41.9
41.6
38.0
48.2
21.7
*

34.5
31.4
28.2
46.1
32.5
45.6
47.1
38.7
61.8
52.0
45.0
12.8
38.1

37.4
38.1
38.0
46.0
33.5
48.5
58.2
44.2
58.4
49.1
52.5
25.1
38.6

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*

40.9
31.1
39.0
54.5
47.2
45.3
48.2
44.8
44.6
34.6
43.8
13.6
*

36.0
31.1
31.2
53.4
43.6
46.0
49.5
47.4
55.4
48.6
47.6
17.4
51.5

39.5
39.1
38.1
51.0
39.3
40.7
56.9
44.7
55.3
42.4
50.5
23.0
46.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*

38.6
32.2
40.6
53.3
46.4
47.6
47.8
41.3
46.5
40.1
39.7
10.7
*

36.1
33.2
39.7
50.5
49.6
57.3
45.8
44.0
57.3
63.7
37.5
13.4
38.6

36.0
39.4
39.7
46.8
36.9
44.4
52.6
38.8
54.6
52.8
43.3
18.9
32.1

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

Grade 8
Grade 10
Grade 12
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State
0.0
0.0

40.7
31.9

53.2
32.6

41.1
32.0

0.0
0.0

43.6
42.3

45.9
37.0

39.2
37.3

0.0
0.0

43.2
37.4

43.7
33.1

38.6
35.8

0.0
0.0
0.0

52.4
59.2
61.0

55.5
63.8
68.3

50.0
59.7
60.6

0.0
0.0
0.0

49.4
57.8
56.5

50.9
60.6
60.2

47.1
55.9
56.9

0.0
0.0
0.0

61.5
56.9
57.7

62.8
62.5
62.2

57.2
56.8
56.9

0.0
0.0

56.2
48.9

56.1
48.5

61.8
52.2

0.0
0.0

58.6
60.8

61.4
55.7

61.7
60.8

0.0
0.0

64.2
49.5

65.3
38.0

61.3
43.9

*
*
51.1
46.9
*
*
45.8
0.0
59.5
64.1
59.1
0.0
53.8
53.5
0.0
50.0
56.7
53.6
0.0
58.9
63.1
*
*
53.6
46.5
*
*
49.5
*
*
51.6
39.8
*
*
54.0
*
*
54.6
59.2
*
*
56.9
* not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

45.5
52.2
62.7
49.7
43.1
60.1

*
0.0
0.0
*
*
*

*
64.1
45.4
*
*
*

72.1
62.4
46.4
46.5
48.1
42.9

72.7
63.9
50.3
47.8
40.5
50.6

18

Table 10. Percentage of Students in the State and Your School Reporting Safety and School Issues
Response
Year
Safety
During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you carry a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property?

Grade 8
Grade 10
Grade 12
2002
2004
2002
2004
2002
2004
Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State Region State

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

94.6
1.8
1.3
0.5
1.7

95.9
2.1
0.8
0.3
0.9

93.7
2.9
1.5
0.5
1.5

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

94.2
1.0
1.2
0.4
3.2

95.5
1.5
0.8
0.3
1.9

94.4
1.8
1.2
0.5
2.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

93.2
1.2
0.8
0.6
4.1

96.6
0.9
0.5
0.2
1.8

94.8
1.3
0.8
0.4
2.6

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to
school because you felt you
would be unsafe at school or on
your way to or from school?

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

94.7
3.2
1.2
0.2
0.7

92.1
4.8
1.6
0.6
0.9

88.7
6.1
3.1
0.7
1.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

97.7
1.1
0.7
0.1
0.4

93.8
2.9
2.1
0.5
0.8

92.2
4.0
2.0
0.7
1.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

97.4
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.7

96.2
2.0
0.9
0.4
0.5

94.4
2.6
1.6
0.6
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property?

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

90.0
5.4
2.7
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.8

85.8
8.4
3.1
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.3

83.9
8.7
4.0
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.1
1.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

91.0
4.0
3.3
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7

88.8
6.8
2.2
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.7

86.5
6.8
3.5
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

94.4
2.6
1.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.7

92.3
4.8
2.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.3

89.9
4.9
3.0
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

78.5
12.7
5.9
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
1.0

76.5
12.8
7.3
1.8
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.7

72.4
14.4
8.5
2.4
0.7
0.4
0.2
1.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

87.6
7.3
3.6
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6

86.2
8.3
4.6
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2

82.9
9.5
5.0
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

93.5
3.6
1.8
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.3

91.0
5.7
2.2
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.7

90.1
5.8
2.6
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4

During the past 12 months, how 0 times
many times were you in a
1 time
physical fight on school property? 2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

19

Contacts For Prevention
Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
602-542-8700
www.ade.az.gov

Regional Prevention Contacts
Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima and Santa Cruz
Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-318-6907

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4630
www.hs.state.az.us/bhs/ops

Yuma and La Paz Counties
Jeannette Zumaya
The EXCEL Group
520-341-9199

Center for Violence Prevention & Community
Safety
Violence Prevention Academy
Todd Armstrong, Ph.D., Director
602-543-6630

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
520-214-2177

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila and Pinal Counties
Heidi Haeder-Heild
Pinal Gila Behavioral Health Association (PGBHA)
480-982-1317

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
www.samsha.gov/centers/csap/csap.html
Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Maricopa County
Gabriella Guerra
ValueOptions
602-685-3861

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Gila River Health Care Corporation (GRHCC)
Tom Cummins
520-562-3321

Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA)
www.samhsa.gov

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe Behavioral Health
Luis P. Canez, Jr.
520-879-6060

Western Regional Center for the
Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT)
www.westcapt.org

Navajo Nation
Josepha Molina
928-871-6239

This Report was Prepared for the State of Arizona
by Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Other State and National Contacts:
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Kristen Roof /Steve Ballance
602-364-1394/602-364-1157
www.acjc.state.az.us

20