\

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Arizona Gambling
Profile Report

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 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
Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling
Arizona State University
Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Gambling Report

CONTENTS:
Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

This report summarizes the results of the
gambling questions from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006.

Tools for Assessment
and Planning

All schools in Arizona were invited to
participate in the survey, and students
from all of the 15 counties participated.

How to Read the
Charts

The 2006 AYS contained nine questions
that asked students how often during the
past 12 months they had: 1) gambled at a
casino, 2) played the lottery or scratchoff tickets, 3) bet on team sports, 4)
played cards for money, 5) bet money on
horse races, 6) played bingo for money
or prizes, 7) gambled on the internet, 8)
bet on dice games such as craps, and 9)
bet on games of personal skill such as
pool, darts, or bowling. The response
categories were Never; Before, but not
in the past year; A few times in the past
year; Once or twice a month; Once or
twice a week; and Almost every day.

Data Charts:
• Risk & Protective
Factor Profiles
• Substance Use &
Antisocial Behavior
• School Safety
Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals

Total Students

Non-Gamblers
Infrequent
Frequent
2006
Gamblers 2006 Gamblers 2006

State 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

18943

100

16279

100

13117

100

60401

100

8
10

6867

36.3

6689

41.1

5958

45.4

26872

44.5

6431

33.9

5572

34.2

4453

33.9

19581

32.4

12
Gender

5645

29.8

4018

24.7

2706

20.6

13948

23.1

Male
Female

7259

39.3

7317

46.0

7590

59.5

28381

48.2

11231

60.7

8601

54.0

5177

40.5

30505

51.8

Grade

Ethnicity
African American

792

4.3

567

3.6

574

4.5

2592

4.4

American Indian
Asian

939

5.1

780

4.9

881

6.9

3394

5.8

533

2.9

372

2.3

205

1.6

1341

2.3

Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White

5469

29.6

5309

33.5

5251

41.4

21376

36.5

Other

120

0.6

148

0.9

122

1.0

457

0.8

9805

53.1

8011

50.5

5049

39.8

26761

45.7

815

4.4

671

4.2

598

4.7

2696

4.6

3

This report contains results for nongamblers (those responding "Never");
infrequent gamblers (those responding
“Before, but not in the past year” or
“A few times in the past year”); and
frequent gamblers (those responding
“Once or twice a month,” “Once or
twice a week,” or “Almost every
day”).
Table 1 contains the characteristics of
gamblers, infrequent gamblers, frequent
gamblers, and all students who completed
the survey. There were a total of 12,062
students who did not complete the
gambling questions and they were not
included in the gambling analysis.
Because not all students answered all of the
questions, the number of students in the
gender and ethnicity categories will often
not equal the total number of students in
grades 8, 10, and 12.

Gambling and the Risk and
Protective Factor Model of
Prevention
There is a developing body of research
designed to help with the identification of
risk and protective factors associated with
youth problem gambling, however that
body of research has not yet been tested
to the same rigor as the risk and
protective factors associated with
substance abuse. The information
surrounding prevention of youth problem
gambling and science-based prevention
strategies are sparse, therefore research
from alcohol and substance abuse
prevention is currently being employed in
the youth problem gambling prevention
field.
There is an expanding collection of
research pointing to the commonalities
between youth problem gambling and
other problem behaviors. Since contemporary efforts in alcohol and drug
prevention have focused on science-based
risk and protective factors, those factors
were included in this report as they
may be of significance in future youth
problem gambling research.

2006 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 to
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.
The chart at the right shows the links between
the 19 risk factors and the five problem
behaviors. The check marks have been placed
in the chart to indicate where at least two welldesigned, published research studies have
shown a link between the risk factor and the
problem behavior.

9

9

Community laws and norms
favorable toward drug use,
firearms and crime

9

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 has 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.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence
Transitions and mobility

9

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

9

Family
Family history of the problem
behavior
Family management problems
Family conflict
Favorable parental attitudes and
involvement in the problem
behavior

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

The Arizona Youth Survey as a Tool for
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
The Arizona Youth Survey is an important part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention Framework
Process. CSAP created this 5-step model to guide states and communities through the process of creating
planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programming. The information presented in this
section is taken from CSAP’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant description.
Step 1: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in
Service Delivery
•

•
•

Community Needs Assessment: The results of this survey (presented in this Profile Report and in
results reported at the State level) will help you to identify needs for prevention. States should consider
administering a survey, such as the Arizona Youth Survey, biennially to assess adolescent substance
use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk and protective factors that predict adolescent problem
behaviors. While planning prevention services, communities are urged to collect and use multiple data
sources, including archival and social indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant
interviews, as well as data from this survey.
Community Resource Assessment: It is likely that existing agencies and programs are already
addressing some of the prioritized risk and protective factors. It is important to identify the assets and
resources already available in the community and the gaps in services and capacity.
Community Readiness Assessment: It is very important for states and communities to have the
commitment and support of their members and ample resources to implement effective prevention
efforts. Therefore, the readiness and capacity of communities and resources to act should also be
assessed.

Step 2: Mobilize and/or Build Capacity to Address Needs: Engagement of key stakeholders at the state and
community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be
sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with
leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain
prevention activities.
Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan: States and communities should develop a strategic plan
that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and
implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on documented needs, build on
identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored.
Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The issue of
sustainability should be kept in mind throughout each step of planning and implementation.
Step 4: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities: By
measuring risk and protective factors in a population, prevention programs can be implemented that
will reduce the elevated risk factors and increase the protective factors. For example, if academic
failure is identified as a prioritized risk factor in a community, then mentoring, tutoring, and increased
opportunities and rewards for classroom participation can be provided to improve academic
performance. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention
programs that fit the Strategic Framework of the community, match the population served, and are
scientifically proven to work. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology
website (www.westcapt.org) contains a search engine for identifying Best Practice Programs.
Step 5: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or
Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the
outcomes desired are achieved and to assess program effectiveness, assess service delivery quality,
identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies,
programs, and practices.

5

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 a percentage of high
school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage is
lower than the overall state rate?

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

6

Practical Implications of the AYS
No Child Left Behind
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that
schools and communities use six Principles of Effectiveness to guide their decisions and spending on federally funded
prevention and intervention programs. First introduced in 1998 by the Department of Education, the Principles of
Effectiveness outline a data-driven process for ensuring that prevention programs achieve the desired results. The
Principles of Effectiveness stipulate that local prevention programs and activities must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

be based on a needs assessment using objective data regarding the incidence of drug use and violence,
target specific performance objectives,
be based on scientific research and be proven to reduce violence or drug use,
be based on the analysis of predictor variables such as risk and protective factors,
include meaningful and on-going parental input in program implementation, and
have periodic evaluations of established performance measures.

The results of the Arizona Youth Survey presented in this report can help your school and community comply with
the NCLB Act. The Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior charts provide information related to Principle 1 above.
The Risk and Protective Factor charts provide information related to Principle 4. Overall, using the Risk and
Protective factors planning framework helps schools meet all of the Principles of Effectiveness, and thereby assists
schools in complying with the NCLB Act.

How to Read the Charts: Substance Use and
Antisocial Behavior Charts
There are four types of charts presented in this
report: 1) substance use and antisocial behavior
charts, 2) risk factor charts, 3) protective factor
charts, and 4) school safety charts. All the charts
show the results of the AYS, and the actual
percentages from the charts are presented in Tables
3 through 10.

•

30-day use is a measure of the percentage of
students who used the substance at least once in
the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a
more sensitive indicator of the level of current
use of the substance.

•

Binge drinking and a Pack or more of
cigarettes per day are measures of heavy use of
alcohol and tobacco. Binge drinking is defined as
having five or more drinks in a row during the
two weeks prior to taking the survey.

•

Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the
percentage of students who report any
involvement with the eight antisocial behaviors
listed in the charts in the past year. In the charts,
antisocial behavior will often be abbreviated as
ASB.

•

Dots are used on the charts to show the overall
average of all of the youth in each grade who
participated in the survey for each behavior. More
information about the dots is contained on the
following page.

Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts
This report contains information about alcohol,
tobacco and other drug use (referred to as ATOD
use throughout this report), and other problem
behaviors of students. The bars on each chart
represent the percentage of students in that grade
who reported the behavior. The four sections in the
charts represent different types of problem
behaviors. The definitions of each of the types of
behavior are provided below.
•

Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of
students who tried the particular substance at
least once in their lifetime and is used to show
the percentage of students who have had
experience with a particular substance.

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
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.

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

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 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 at-risk and the less atrisk groups included academic grades (the more atrisk group received “D” and “F” grades, the less atrisk 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 atrisk 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 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.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
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
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability of
Handguns
Perceived Availability of
Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

9

7 State Norm 2006
State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

10

7 State Norm 2006
State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
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
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability of
Handguns
Perceived Availability of
Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

11

7 State Norm 2006
State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

12

7 State Norm 2006
State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
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
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability of
Handguns
Perceived Availability of
Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

13

7 State Norm 2006
State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

14

7 State Norm 2006
State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

0

60

50

40

Percentages (%)

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior

ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8

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
Prescription Drugs
Steroids
Ecstasy
Sedatives
Heroin
Stimulants
Methamphetamines
Cocaine

15

Hallucinogens
Inhalants
Marijuana
Chewing Tobacco
Cigarettes
Alcohol
Prescription Drugs
Steroids
Ecstasy
Sedatives
Heroin
Stimulants
Methamphetamines
Cocaine
Hallucinogens
Inhalants
Marijuana
Chewing Tobacco
Cigarettes
Alcohol

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Heavy Use Antisocial Behavior Past
30 Day Use*
Ever Used
100

90

80

70

30

20

10

0

60

50

40

Percentages (%)

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior

ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10

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
Prescription Drugs
Steroids
Ecstasy
Sedatives
Heroin
Stimulants
Methamphetamines
Cocaine

16

Hallucinogens
Inhalants
Marijuana
Chewing Tobacco
Cigarettes
Alcohol
Prescription Drugs
Steroids
Ecstasy
Sedatives
Heroin
Stimulants
Methamphetamines
Cocaine
Hallucinogens
Inhalants
Marijuana
Chewing Tobacco
Cigarettes
Alcohol

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Heavy Use Antisocial Behavior Past
30 Day Use*
Ever Used
100

90

80

70

30

20

10

0

60

50

40

Percentages (%)

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior

ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12

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
Prescription Drugs
Steroids
Ecstasy
Sedatives
Heroin
Stimulants
Methamphetamines
Cocaine

17

Hallucinogens
Inhalants
Marijuana
Chewing Tobacco
Cigarettes
Alcohol
Prescription Drugs
Steroids
Ecstasy
Sedatives
Heroin
Stimulants
Methamphetamines
Cocaine
Hallucinogens
Inhalants
Marijuana
Chewing Tobacco
Cigarettes
Alcohol

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

State 2006
Frequent Gamblers 2006
Infrequent Gamblers 2006
Non-Gamblers 2006

Heavy Use Antisocial Behavior Past
30 Day Use*
Ever Used
100

90

80

70

30

20

10

0

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
Non-Gamblers 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
Non-Gamblers 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
Non-Gamblers 2006

State 2006

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.

21

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.

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

22

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
Grade 8
Total Students

Grade 10

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

6867

6689

5958

State
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

6431

5572

4453

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

56.2
35.5
7.0
26.3
8.0
2.7
5.2
3.5
4.7
1.1
10.1
1.8
1.0
11.7
36.8

70.6
43.8
10.6
33.1
13.6
4.0
7.2
5.0
7.7
1.8
16.1
3.2
1.6
17.9
47.0

80.5
54.0
19.8
45.2
15.6
6.5
11.4
7.4
9.8
3.8
19.0
6.1
3.9
21.2
60.8

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

29.1
13.4
2.0
11.4
2.0
1.1
1.9
1.1
2.1
0.4
4.0
0.5
0.4
4.7
18.6

38.9
16.4
3.0
15.1
3.4
1.4
2.4
1.4
3.0
0.4
7.1
0.7
0.6
6.9
24.6

53.4
22.7
7.9
22.1
4.5
3.2
4.7
3.0
4.3
1.5
10.2
2.4
2.4
11.5
36.7

26872

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Drug Used

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Stimulants
Heroin
Sedatives
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

13.8
6.3
1.3
4.9
3.3
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.2
2.4
0.4
0.3
2.5
11.4

23.8
9.4
2.0
7.1
6.0
0.7
1.2
0.7
1.3
0.3
4.4
0.5
0.5
4.4
17.9

36.9
16.8
5.3
14.1
10.0
2.0
3.1
1.8
2.7
1.2
7.3
1.6
1.7
7.1
31.3

State
2006
19581

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

5645

4018

2706

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

64.6
41.4
8.9
34.8
7.0
3.8
8.8
5.3
6.0
2.1
13.5
2.9
1.3
14.6
43.4

79.6
53.4
16.8
44.7
11.6
5.8
12.0
6.4
10.3
2.7
19.7
4.5
2.2
23.7
56.2

86.0
62.0
26.8
55.2
12.9
9.0
16.8
9.9
11.3
4.4
22.9
7.5
4.0
26.3
65.8

NonGamblers
2006

Infrequent
Gamblers
2006

Frequent
Gamblers
2006

36.8
16.9
2.6
13.6
0.9
0.9
2.2
1.0
1.6
0.5
4.7
0.5
0.5
5.1
19.9

50.9
23.2
4.9
18.0
2.0
1.7
3.6
1.0
3.0
0.5
7.7
0.6
0.6
8.7
26.9

61.7
28.6
11.8
27.1
2.5
3.6
5.3
2.7
3.8
1.6
11.4
2.1
2.5
13.3
38.6

Grade 10
State
2006

Alcohol
34.5
52.8
66.7
50.4
Cigarettes
20.5
29.8
43.6
30.8
Chewing Tobacco
4.2
6.7
13.7
8.0
Marijuana
11.5
16.4
27.8
18.3
Inhalants
9.0
15.6
21.7
15.2
Hallucinogens
1.0
1.5
3.8
2.1
Cocaine
1.8
2.5
6.5
3.6
Methamphetamines
1.4
2.0
4.5
2.6
Stimulants
1.9
3.3
5.8
3.4
Heroin
0.7
1.1
2.5
1.4
Sedatives
5.6
10.6
14.0
10.0
Ecstasy
0.8
1.6
3.9
1.9
Steroids
0.6
1.1
3.3
1.6
Prescription Drugs
5.8
10.5
14.0
9.8
Any Drug
23.6
35.7
49.9
36.2
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days‡
Grade 8
Drug Used

Grade 12

NonGamblers
2006

State
2006

† 2006 refers to stimulants other than methamphetamines. For prior years, Stimulants included methamphetamines.
‡ 30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

23

13948

Grade 12
State
2006

67.6
43.8
11.8
34.0
11.9
4.1
7.6
5.0
7.1
2.1
14.3
3.4
2.0
16.0
47.0

Grade 10

24.1
10.5
2.7
8.5
6.2
1.0
1.7
1.0
1.5
0.7
4.5
0.8
0.8
4.5
19.7

State
2006

State
2006

74.5
50.0
15.6
42.6
9.8
5.6
11.6
6.6
8.5
2.8
17.4
4.4
2.2
20.0
52.8

Grade 12
State
2006

39.2
17.1
4.0
15.7
3.1
1.7
2.9
1.7
2.9
0.7
6.6
1.0
1.0
7.3
25.6

State
2006

47.0
21.8
5.4
18.1
1.7
1.7
3.3
1.4
2.6
0.8
7.1
0.9
1.0
8.1
26.6

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Drug Used

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

Grade 10
NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

Binge Drinking
6.7
11.2
23.1
13.4
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
0.6
0.7
2.2
1.0
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Behavior

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

Suspended from School
13.8
16.7
27.8
Drunk or High at School
7.7
11.1
21.2
Sold Illegal Drugs
2.2
3.4
9.3
Stolen a Vehicle
2.0
2.8
8.4
Been Arrested
5.1
6.0
14.4
Attacked to Harm
9.9
16.1
28.4
Carried a Handgun
3.7
5.9
13.0
Handgun to School
0.6
0.8
3.1
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
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

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

14.6
1.5

20.5
2.2

35.0
3.7

State
2006

22.4
2.4

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

19.9
2.6

Grade 10
NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

Grade 12

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

10.6
14.7
4.8
2.0
5.7
9.7
3.3
0.5

13.0
20.2
7.9
3.6
7.9
15.2
5.9
0.8

23.0
30.9
16.2
9.2
15.0
26.8
14.1
3.9

State
2006

42.9
6.1

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

6.1
14.7
5.4
1.5
5.2
8.1
3.6
0.6

Grade 10
NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

29.8
4.1

State
2006

7.9
21.4
9.2
2.4
6.8
12.5
6.6
0.6

16.4
33.9
18.8
6.5
13.7
22.9
13.2
3.5

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

41.0
32.6

38.8
29.2

35.6
29.2

38.2
30.4

38.8
36.1

37.4
36.1

35.1
36.3

37.1
36.3

39.4
35.3

38.0
34.8

35.0
36.3

37.6
35.2

51.7
61.7
64.1

48.1
55.8
60.4

45.9
53.5
56.7

48.7
57.4
60.6

45.8
53.9
55.8

43.1
53.8
55.4

42.9
50.5
52.7

44.1
53.0
54.9

57.9
56.9
57.7

56.7
55.6
57.6

56.4
54.4
54.6

57.1
55.9
56.9

62.0
53.4

59.7
51.2

55.5
44.8

59.1
50.7

64.8
64.1

64.3
64.4

60.2
57.3

62.9
62.3

67.1
49.9

67.3
48.9

60.2
43.9

65.2
48.0

50.8
69.6
68.0
51.9
39.6
60.1

46.4
61.3
54.6
48.0
38.7
59.0

44.2
42.2
40.3
40.5
39.0
56.7

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

48.2
62.5
72.1
52.7
40.9
62.7

43.6
53.5
63.0
50.5
40.3
60.3

42.0
37.7
49.4
46.5
41.4
58.5

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

71.8
74.8
61.4
51.6
42.6
54.7

71.6
66.4
49.3
47.1
38.7
53.1

68.3
49.3
35.9
45.3
36.8
51.0

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
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
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

Grade 10

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

39.0
39.3
50.4
29.6
28.0
29.4

40.8
48.1
53.2
36.2
37.3
36.5

42.2
58.5
57.3
49.5
50.9
48.3

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

46.3
52.0
58.5
36.3
42.3
23.2

46.3
57.6
61.3
41.0
48.6
25.0

47.8
64.4
62.7
52.8
59.5
37.5

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

49.6
48.6
53.0
28.7
45.9
29.4

49.6
53.0
55.4
35.5
53.1
33.6

50.1
58.4
57.8
44.9
60.0
44.8

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

39.1
44.6
30.4
34.2
19.1

48.0
54.1
43.2
51.1
30.0

58.2
58.8
56.2
62.2
39.6

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

39.4
37.9
35.5
37.8
31.3

44.2
42.5
42.8
53.6
43.6

53.7
46.4
54.7
63.2
52.6

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

39.4
35.5
31.3
36.8
32.1

46.8
38.4
42.0
50.8
44.1

53.4
42.2
48.7
58.0
50.9

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

42.8
36.2

43.4
40.1

52.3
48.9

48.6
41.1

47.8
37.2

46.5
38.5

55.6
46.2

51.6
40.1

40.8
40.4

41.2
42.7

49.5
49.2

44.1
43.0

32.9
29.1
23.0
34.1
22.7
35.1
46.2
30.3
38.7
40.5
25.7
17.1

43.7
37.9
33.6
46.7
31.2
44.9
56.4
39.8
50.3
45.9
36.3
22.8

56.5
52.7
50.6
60.4
45.5
55.4
70.5
55.3
59.2
49.3
48.8
38.6

43.8
40.2
35.2
46.2
32.4
45.4
58.4
41.3
48.7
45.7
36.5
26.3

39.1
31.7
27.9
39.7
29.0
31.6
48.2
35.3
39.3
44.5
36.0
17.2

47.9
40.9
35.4
51.7
36.7
38.6
56.4
42.4
46.7
45.3
45.4
19.9

58.5
55.3
49.8
61.9
47.4
49.8
69.2
54.2
52.7
46.5
56.4
35.4

47.5
42.4
36.6
49.7
36.6
39.2
58.1
43.2
45.0
45.5
44.9
23.9

37.3
28.7
26.2
37.0
27.2
32.9
42.1
28.6
47.4
38.2
23.5
11.5

45.0
39.8
35.2
48.4
37.4
42.7
51.9
36.5
56.1
39.0
31.4
15.2

55.8
54.3
46.7
59.5
45.6
52.8
66.9
47.0
63.0
37.9
39.9
26.0

44.3
38.8
34.1
45.6
34.6
40.5
52.0
35.9
53.8
38.6
29.9
16.3

25

Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety Issues
Grade 8
Question

Response

Grade 12

Grade 10

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

NonInfrequent Frequent
Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers
2006
2006
2006

State
2006

0 days
During the past 30 days, on how
1 day
many days did you carry a weapon
2-3 days
such as a gun, knife, or club on
4-5
days
school property? (q43)
6 or more days

96.8
1.4
0.9
0.2
0.7

94.3
3.0
1.1
0.3
1.2

87.9
4.9
2.7
1.3
3.2

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

96.2
1.2
0.7
0.3
1.6

93.9
2.2
1.3
0.6
2.0

86.8
4.3
2.9
1.1
4.9

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

96.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
1.8

94.5
1.4
1.0
0.4
2.7

88.7
2.7
1.7
1.1
5.8

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

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? (q41)

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

91.7
4.7
2.0
0.4
1.2

90.6
5.7
2.4
0.7
0.7

85.9
7.2
3.9
1.2
1.9

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

94.2
3.1
1.5
0.5
0.6

93.3
3.6
2.0
0.4
0.7

89.3
5.4
2.6
0.7
2.0

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

96.7
1.7
0.8
0.3
0.4

95.6
2.7
1.1
0.2
0.4

91.7
3.9
1.9
0.8
1.6

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
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? (q39)

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

90.2
5.1
2.5
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.8

86.6
7.0
4.0
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6

75.8
10.9
6.7
2.2
1.0
0.6
0.5
2.2

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

91.3
4.6
2.1
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.8

87.7
7.1
3.2
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.7

77.5
9.0
7.0
2.0
1.1
0.5
0.3
2.7

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

94.2
3.0
1.9
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3

91.5
4.3
2.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6

82.8
6.9
5.7
1.1
0.5
0.8
0.5
1.7

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times were you in a physical
fight on school property? (q40)

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

84.0
9.6
4.0
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5

78.2
13.1
5.8
1.6
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.6

63.8
16.8
11.4
3.6
0.9
0.7
0.6
2.2

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

90.6
6.2
2.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3

86.2
8.6
3.7
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3

74.5
12.5
8.1
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.3

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

94.9
3.5
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2

92.6
5.1
1.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3

82.8
9.3
4.8
1.1
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.9

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

26

Table 11. Youth Gambling Behavior
8th Grade Gambling Profile
How often in the past 12
months have you:
Gambled at a Casino?
Played the lottery or
scratch of tickets?
Bet on team sports?
Played cards for
money?
Bet money on horse
races?
Played bingo for money
or prizes?
Gambled on the
Internet?
Bet on dice games such
as craps?
Bet on games of
personal skill?

Never

Not in the past
year

A few times in
the past year

Once or twice a Once or twice a
Almost everyday
month
week

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

18248

94.5

539

2.8

267

1.4

95

0.5

29

0.2

124

0.6

12405

64.3

1810

9.4

2819

14.6

1339

6.9

632

3.3

293

1.5

12008

63.0

1710

9.0

2641

13.8

1074

5.6

676

3.5

964

5.1

12669

66.6

1640

8.6

2417

12.7

1241

6.5

592

3.1

465

2.4

17467

91.9

552

2.9

468

2.5

213

1.1

124

0.7

173

0.9

13738

72.6

1676

8.9

2068

10.9

778

4.1

326

1.7

333

1.8

17163

91.1

533

2.8

407

2.2

287

1.5

194

1.0

249

1.3

16332

86.8

672

3.6

750

4.0

463

2.5

270

1.4

331

1.8

13563

71.9

1370

7.3

1842

9.8

963

5.1

541

2.9

582

3.1

Table 12. Youth Gambling Behavior
10th Grade Gambling Profile
How often in the past 12
months have you:
Gambled at a Casino?
Played the lottery or
scratch of tickets?
Bet on team sports?
Played cards for
money?
Bet money on horse
races?
Played bingo for money
or prizes?
Gambled on the
Internet?
Bet on dice games such
as craps?
Bet on games of
personal skill?

Never

Not in the past
year

A few times in
the past year

Once or twice a Once or twice a
Almost everyday
month
week

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

15531

95.2

352

2.2

218

1.3

73

0.4

30

0.2

105

0.6

11488

70.4

1187

7.3

2353

14.4

807

4.9

316

1.9

164

1.0

10583

65.5

1335

8.3

2157

13.3

808

5.0

444

2.7

840

5.2

10625

66.0

1250

7.8

2323

14.4

1104

6.9

472

2.9

316

2.0

14913

92.6

450

2.8

376

2.3

159

1.0

97

0.6

111

0.7

12984

80.8

1143

7.1

1229

7.6

395

2.5

142

0.9

175

1.1

14789

92.8

300

1.9

334

2.1

222

1.4

123

0.8

177

1.1

13829

86.4

540

3.4

718

4.5

418

2.6

215

1.3

293

1.8

11585

72.4

992

6.2

1778

11.1

844

5.3

416

2.6

388

2.4

27

Table 13. Youth Gambling Behavior
12th Grade Gambling Profile
How often in the past 12
months have you:
Gambled at a Casino?
Played the lottery or
scratch of tickets?
Bet on team sports?
Played cards for
money?
Bet money on horse
races?
Played bingo for money
or prizes?
Gambled on the
Internet?
Bet on dice games such
as craps?
Bet on games of
personal skill?

Never

Not in the past
year

A few times in
the past year

Once or twice a Once or twice a
Almost everyday
month
week

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

11660

94.9

247

2.0

260

2.1

58

0.5

13

0.1

51

0.4

9355

76.1

739

6.0

1544

12.6

432

3.5

144

1.2

80

0.7

8713

71.4

876

7.2

1537

12.6

459

3.8

230

1.9

383

3.1

8348

68.6

825

6.8

1749

14.4

763

6.3

332

2.7

150

1.2

11445

94.0

309

2.5

222

1.8

100

0.8

40

0.3

58

0.5

10665

87.9

618

5.1

570

4.7

159

1.3

61

0.5

66

0.5

11421

94.1

186

1.5

215

1.8

120

1.0

90

0.7

110

0.9

10803

89.1

379

3.1

425

3.5

242

2.0

142

1.2

137

1.1

9289

76.4

615

5.1

1239

10.2

548

4.5

270

2.2

190

1.6

Table 14. Youth Gambling Behavior
All Grades Gambling Profile
How often in the past 12
months have you:
Gambled at a Casino?
Played the lottery or
scratch of tickets?
Bet on team sports?
Played cards for
money?
Bet money on horse
races?
Played bingo for money
or prizes?
Gambled on the
Internet?
Bet on dice games such
as craps?
Bet on games of
personal skill?

Never

Not in the past
year

A few times in
the past year

Once or twice a Once or twice a
Almost everyday
month
week

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

45439

94.9

1138

2.4

745

1.6

226

0.5

72

0.2

280

0.6

33248

69.4

3736

7.8

6716

14.0

2578

5.4

1092

2.3

537

1.1

31304

66.0

3921

8.3

6335

13.4

2341

4.9

1350

2.8

2187

4.6

31642

66.9

3715

7.9

6489

13.7

3108

6.6

1396

3.0

931

2.0

43825

92.7

1311

2.8

1066

2.3

472

1.0

261

0.6

342

0.7

37387

79.3

3437

7.3

3867

8.2

1332

2.8

529

1.1

574

1.2

43373

92.4

1019

2.2

956

2.0

629

1.3

407

0.9

536

1.1

40964

87.2

1591

3.4

1893

4.0

1123

2.4

627

1.3

761

1.6

34437

73.2

2977

6.3

4859

10.3

2355

5.0

1227

2.6

1160

2.5

28

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4594
www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa
Cruz Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-618-8807

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
1-800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties
Linda Weinberg
Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona
480-231-7504

Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety
Steve Ballance/Charles Katz
602-543-6174/602-543-6618
steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
928-214-2177

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
http://prevention.samhsa.gov

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and
Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of
Problem Gambling
Paula Burns
602-266-8299 ext. 351
www.problemgambling.az.gov

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

Other State and National Contacts:

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

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson
602-364-1173/602-364-1157
www.azcjc.gov

Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
www.ade.az.gov

29