2004 Arizona Youth Survey Apache 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: Apache 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 379 100 689 146 81 152 38.5 21.4 40.1 309 44.8 215 31.2 165 23.95 201 171 54.0 46.0 327 351 48.2 51.8 108 208 45 1 29.0 55.8 12.1 0.3 20 650 4 0 0 0 3* 0.8* 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 2.9 6198 51.8 19745 95.2 1237 10.3 2938 0.6 3630 30.3 13184 0.0 292 2.4 1503 0.0 812 258* 2.2* 0 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Apache County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 146 3451 309 18812 81 4984 215 12558 152 3768 165 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 45.8 52.8 25.4 50.0 16.2 4.9 4.8 5.6 4.8 * 5.6 54.8 Grade 8 State County 56.9 42.5 39.6 57.9 6.8 34.6 26.6 42.1 11.9 13.5 2.4 4.3 4.5 6.9 2.9 7.3 1.9 2.0 * 11.1 5.5 4.0 33.2 49.3 State County 51.9 58.0 33.5 47.5 7.2 9.9 20.4 29.6 13.7 13.6 2.5 4.9 3.7 5.0 3.4 1.3 1.5 3.8 11.0 * 2.4 3.7 33.2 37.0 Grade 10 State County 72.3 70.8 49.8 73.1 10.2 40.1 41.6 63.3 10.4 9.5 8.3 7.1 8.2 15.0 6.8 8.5 3.2 3.4 * 12.7 8.2 6.6 44.5 66.7 State County 69.3 73.0 45.3 69.7 11.0 40.8 36.6 60.5 10.9 11.5 5.3 5.4 7.8 9.8 6.7 8.7 2.4 1.6 16.5 * 4.3 7.1 45.6 62.2 Grade 12 State County 80.8 75.9 61.1 79.1 16.9 35.8 50.8 70.0 10.1 7.3 12.6 10.4 12.0 21.0 8.6 14.6 3.8 4.9 * 10.3 12.0 6.9 52.8 70.6 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 38.5 18.1 34.6 4.7 14.2 22.4 29.0 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.8 3.5 3.8 2.6 3.8 1.4 0.5 * 6.6 2.5 3.3 25.7 34.1 State County 41.3 43.8 17.7 30.0 3.4 21.5 16.2 26.8 2.9 2.4 2.4 1.2 3.0 4.2 2.8 0.6 0.7 0.0 8.2 * 1.1 3.0 23.6 29.5 Grade 12 State County 58.9 47.2 23.2 42.6 5.9 11.7 25.4 28.2 2.0 0.0 3.1 7.5 4.0 5.5 2.2 6.7 1.3 0.6 * 5.5 3.2 1.2 28.6 36.4 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 24.8 3.5 0.5 State County 25.1 29.2 2.6 2.4 Grade 12 State County 32.2 33.3 6.0 3.1 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 23.7 20.5 38.4 9.9 12.4 3.6 4.7 8.0 15.7 10.8 18.0 5.0 10.5 1.3 1.4 State County 12.3 12.3 20.8 30.2 8.9 7.3 4.4 1.7 9.1 13.6 16.5 9.0 5.9 10.1 1.5 1.1 Grade 12 State County 8.1 10.4 23.8 37.9 10.0 13.7 2.1 3.7 8.2 11.9 9.1 19.6 4.9 11.6 1.0 4.9 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 19.7 15.7 14.4 20.5 5.3 3.1 3.8 0.8 3.9 * 4.7 24.6 Grade 8 State County 34.4 18.8 9.1 20.4 4.0 16.1 14.3 19.5 6.5 4.0 1.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 1.0 2.3 1.2 0.7 * 5.0 3.6 1.7 19.9 24.3 State County 25.3 29.6 10.7 12.3 2.4 3.7 9.7 12.3 5.8 2.5 1.6 1.2 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.6 2.5 5.5 * 0.8 1.2 17.9 16.0 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 12.1 0.0 Grade 8 State County 14.1 14.8 1.2 1.0 State County 16.0 14.8 0.8 3.7 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 20.6 22.5 6.4 1.4 7.1 11.3 4.9 2.1 Grade 8 State County 18.1 22.8 15.4 25.0 5.7 7.8 3.3 4.2 9.1 10.5 11.6 20.7 6.7 7.9 1.4 1.3 State County 17.7 12.5 13.2 18.8 5.0 6.3 4.8 2.5 8.7 7.5 17.8 12.7 6.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 41.3 48.7 35.4 35.7 24.8 22.6 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 45.9 55.7 39.2 40.6 31.3 26.1 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 38.5 34.6 29.1 15.2 50.6 38.0 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 45.4 67.3 49.5 48.0 35.0 25.0 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 46.1 46.4 31.1 24.4 41.6 31.9 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 63.1 69.4 40.1 34.4 42.8 24.8 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 44.8 39.0 56.9 46.8 18.2 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 50.4 46.4 60.6 37.7 18.1 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 28.2 29.5 39.2 34.2 21.5 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 41.4 33.2 68.3 51.2 34.3 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 35.7 30.4 44.0 40.4 27.7 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 36.5 32.3 63.2 44.6 31.0 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 70.8 31.3 52.3 41.2 56.0 26.6 49.8 39.4 44.9 33.8 46.5 45.4 57.0 25.9 49.8 43.7 54.8 20.8 43.7 44.6 60.1 32.9 43.8 47.9 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 41.4 33.3 49.6 40.7 32.4 60.2 59.7 50.7 36.1 42.6 57.4 28.9 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 33.8 47.7 51.5 42.3 33.6 56.4 65.9 58.5 55.0 50.2 54.8 38.6 36.3 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 43.8 36.3 28.4 40.7 21.0 27.5 40.7 34.6 47.5 13.9 40.7 11.1 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 36.2 54.3 62.1 56.7 39.4 34.9 70.6 59.0 44.8 47.5 61.2 38.7 46.4 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 45.1 44.3 42.2 41.3 29.3 29.1 57.3 43.2 42.5 35.8 48.0 15.6 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 35.6 45.7 55.8 53.3 36.0 37.7 65.2 57.8 50.6 51.6 53.7 36.1 40.2 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 30.4 42.1 40.7 31.9 32.3 39.0 41.1 32.0 53.2 53.8 43.6 42.3 23.2 50.0 39.2 37.3 42.9 64.7 43.2 37.4 26.1 53.2 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 47.4 62.9 74.2 52.4 59.2 61.0 48.2 60.2 65.3 50.0 59.7 60.6 48.1 61.3 61.0 49.4 57.8 56.5 43.8 60.2 62.1 47.1 55.9 56.9 60.6 59.9 62.3 61.5 56.9 57.7 56.5 53.9 55.6 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 53.1 55.9 56.2 48.9 65.7 52.1 61.8 52.2 55.0 53.8 58.6 60.8 59.5 57.1 61.7 60.8 65.8 55.4 64.2 49.5 45.1 42.1 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 25.7 58.3 58.9 44.0 43.8 64.2 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 59.5 66.7 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 24.6 51.9 61.2 43.1 30.0 61.5 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 73.0 50.0 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 63.8 57.9 49.4 40.3 25.6 47.5 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 63.3 Belief in the Moral Order 60.8 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 63.2 18.1 14.6 2.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 91.5 5.7 1.4 0.7 0.7 88.8 6.3 4.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 91.4 2.9 2.1 0.0 3.6 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 67.4 14.1 12.2 3.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.6 81.0 9.8 5.6 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 81.8 9.2 5.0 1.0 3.0 90.7 3.3 2.7 0.3 3.0 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 86.4 8.6 2.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 91.4 2.5 3.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.5 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 96.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.5 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 70.2 14.9 8.2 3.4 1.4 1.0 0.5 0.5 84.4 6.6 6.1 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 86.5 7.2 3.8 0.5 1.9 90.0 1.9 2.4 0.5 5.2 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 93.0 3.8 1.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 95.7 1.6 0.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 97.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 90.8 1.1 2.2 0.5 5.4 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 84.6 8.6 2.5 1.9 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 88.9 4.9 3.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 85.7 8.7 2.5 1.2 1.9 93.8 1.2 1.9 0.6 2.5 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Cochise 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: Cochise 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 389 100 169 129 91 43.4 33.2 23.4 733 42.0 562 32.2 451 25.83 178 204 46.6 53.4 788 933 139 4 217 1 37.1 1.1 57.9 0.3 5* 1.3* 1746 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 668 38.9 6198 51.8 19745 28 1.6 1237 10.3 2938 773 45.0 3630 30.3 13184 76 4.4 292 2.4 1503 45 2.6 812 258* 2.2* 24 1.399 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 45.8 54.2 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Cochise County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 169 3451 733 18812 129 4984 562 12558 91 3768 451 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 59.8 39.9 8.5 23.7 13.5 2.3 5.0 3.1 1.3 * 4.7 29.8 Grade 8 State County 56.9 62.9 39.6 44.5 6.8 10.1 26.6 22.9 11.9 20.9 2.4 3.4 4.5 7.4 2.9 4.9 1.9 2.8 * 15.4 5.5 4.5 33.2 41.4 State County 51.9 71.8 33.5 49.2 7.2 21.9 20.4 34.4 13.7 10.2 2.5 5.5 3.7 7.9 3.4 7.8 1.5 1.6 11.0 * 2.4 8.7 33.2 40.3 Grade 10 State County 72.3 70.4 49.8 46.3 10.2 11.4 41.6 33.9 10.4 9.9 8.3 4.8 8.2 8.1 6.8 7.4 3.2 1.7 * 17.5 8.2 5.1 44.5 44.7 State County 69.3 84.1 45.3 57.3 11.0 27.8 36.6 43.3 10.9 14.4 5.3 5.6 7.8 17.8 6.7 7.8 2.4 1.1 16.5 * 4.3 8.9 45.6 42.9 Grade 12 State County 80.8 80.0 61.1 50.1 16.9 16.2 50.8 39.1 10.1 9.9 12.6 4.5 12.0 11.3 8.6 5.9 3.8 1.6 * 14.3 12.0 5.2 52.8 45.0 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 41.7 18.1 14.6 4.7 4.3 22.4 12.5 3.4 2.9 3.2 1.5 3.5 3.7 2.6 3.3 1.4 0.6 * 8.2 2.5 1.1 25.7 22.2 State County 41.3 57.3 17.7 13.5 3.4 7.9 16.2 20.2 2.9 3.4 2.4 1.1 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.2 0.7 0.0 8.2 * 1.1 2.2 23.6 23.6 Grade 12 State County 58.9 52.3 23.2 23.3 5.9 4.1 25.4 11.5 2.0 1.6 3.1 1.4 4.0 4.1 2.2 2.7 1.3 0.5 * 5.2 3.2 1.4 28.6 17.9 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 25.8 3.5 1.8 State County 25.1 27.0 2.6 4.5 Grade 12 State County 32.2 34.4 6.0 3.2 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 10.2 20.5 22.4 9.9 7.8 3.6 3.6 8.0 8.2 10.8 21.5 5.0 5.8 1.3 1.4 State County 12.3 7.9 20.8 14.6 8.9 10.1 4.4 3.4 9.1 5.6 16.5 6.7 5.9 9.0 1.5 1.1 Grade 12 State County 8.1 9.1 23.8 19.7 10.0 6.7 2.1 2.9 8.2 8.9 9.1 13.3 4.9 6.3 1.0 1.3 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 39.4 8.6 5.1 11.2 6.5 2.2 3.0 1.4 0.6 * 3.2 17.7 Grade 8 State County 34.4 31.4 9.1 14.9 4.0 2.5 14.3 11.2 6.5 9.1 1.5 2.3 2.6 4.2 1.0 2.5 1.2 1.0 * 8.0 3.6 1.6 19.9 22.7 State County 25.3 49.2 10.7 13.0 2.4 9.0 9.7 11.6 5.8 0.8 1.6 0.8 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 0.6 0.0 5.5 * 0.8 4.1 17.9 14.0 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 16.8 1.6 Grade 8 State County 14.1 20.7 1.2 1.5 State County 16.0 24.8 0.8 2.4 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 14.0 12.4 7.2 4.6 8.4 11.5 7.8 1.7 Grade 8 State County 18.1 15.5 15.4 14.1 5.7 7.2 3.3 6.6 9.1 10.4 11.6 19.8 6.7 7.5 1.4 2.0 State County 17.7 11.2 13.2 16.3 5.0 4.9 4.8 1.6 8.7 7.3 17.8 11.4 6.5 4.8 1.5 0.0 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 39.9 52.7 37.9 42.4 38.5 43.7 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 45.7 48.7 50.3 45.2 45.7 40.3 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 51.3 60.9 35.7 33.9 47.9 31.9 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 57.6 58.1 60.4 47.9 60.2 33.5 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 60.7 58.9 43.3 36.0 55.6 41.6 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 52.6 56.4 52.0 34.7 56.2 34.6 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 54.1 45.0 44.1 42.1 29.1 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 48.6 58.8 54.3 49.1 30.9 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 35.4 35.7 29.5 39.8 38.9 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 45.5 45.9 43.6 49.6 42.2 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 40.4 34.4 41.1 53.3 53.3 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 42.2 38.3 37.8 46.7 38.5 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 54.5 34.7 52.3 41.2 49.3 36.4 49.8 39.4 57.6 39.5 46.5 45.4 52.1 45.1 49.8 43.7 58.9 44.0 43.7 44.6 40.6 48.6 43.8 47.9 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 43.4 30.9 39.1 45.2 34.8 52.1 49.6 42.0 39.1 31.8 52.2 27.5 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 42.2 38.3 48.0 49.2 36.0 50.8 61.2 51.4 58.2 53.2 57.0 26.7 41.4 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 48.0 32.3 31.2 49.2 40.6 40.8 44.9 34.1 43.1 21.6 59.2 21.0 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 43.9 45.2 38.8 52.4 40.0 44.4 65.0 49.0 58.0 44.4 51.9 26.6 47.7 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 44.4 27.8 38.2 51.1 38.9 34.1 54.5 34.1 47.2 34.8 49.4 6.7 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 36.2 37.5 35.7 46.0 34.0 42.0 52.6 33.6 52.6 56.5 44.2 16.7 29.3 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 35.6 35.0 40.7 31.9 45.1 31.8 41.1 32.0 40.9 48.2 43.6 42.3 41.4 37.0 39.2 37.3 44.8 53.3 43.2 37.4 43.9 34.0 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 47.0 55.9 55.3 52.4 59.2 61.0 49.1 60.1 59.9 50.0 59.7 60.6 46.8 60.7 50.5 49.4 57.8 56.5 47.9 53.7 53.9 47.1 55.9 56.9 60.2 58.0 60.2 61.5 56.9 57.7 58.0 54.2 54.1 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 58.6 55.0 56.2 48.9 61.3 51.3 61.8 52.2 54.3 71.1 58.6 60.8 54.4 53.9 61.7 60.8 54.9 36.7 64.2 49.5 56.5 40.6 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 50.9 53.5 50.8 46.9 44.7 64.4 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 54.1 59.7 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 49.5 48.7 62.5 50.1 41.0 62.3 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 68.9 43.3 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 77.6 61.5 47.0 51.3 37.9 53.5 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 53.7 Belief in the Moral Order 48.2 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 79.7 9.7 6.3 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.7 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 93.6 3.6 1.9 0.9 0.0 89.4 4.1 3.7 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.7 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 94.1 2.3 1.1 0.6 1.9 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 68.8 15.6 10.6 2.5 0.4 0.6 0.1 1.5 85.8 7.8 4.2 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 87.9 6.0 3.6 0.8 1.7 91.9 3.2 2.1 0.6 2.2 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 79.8 10.9 7.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 92.2 4.7 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 95.3 3.1 0.0 0.8 0.8 83.7 1.6 3.1 2.3 9.3 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 80.7 8.9 6.5 1.4 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.3 81.7 8.0 6.0 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.8 90.8 5.1 2.2 0.7 1.3 92.9 1.8 1.8 0.9 2.5 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 90.1 6.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 95.6 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 96.7 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 85.6 1.1 1.1 0.0 12.2 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 88.4 6.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.4 88.2 5.6 2.9 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 92.4 3.4 2.2 0.9 1.1 93.1 1.1 0.4 0.0 5.4 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Coconino 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: Coconino 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 1000 100 1225 228 474 298 22.8 47.4 29.8 516 469 374 473 83 11 10* 100 12203 100 40960 100 200 595 430 16.3 48.6 35.1 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 52.4 47.6 635 579 52.3 47.7 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 38.2 48.4 8.5 1.1 586 48.4 6198 51.8 19745 414 34.2 1237 10.3 2938 124 10.2 3630 30.3 13184 15 1.2 292 2.4 1503 10 0.8 812 258* 2.2* 3 0.248 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 1* * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Coconino County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 228 3451 200 18812 474 4984 595 12558 298 3768 430 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 50.6 54.6 18.2 37.4 13.0 2.7 8.3 4.5 3.2 * 4.3 41.7 Grade 8 State County 56.9 46.5 39.6 51.0 6.8 19.6 26.6 37.6 11.9 11.1 2.4 5.5 4.5 7.1 2.9 6.1 1.9 0.5 * 10.1 5.5 2.1 33.2 46.1 State County 51.9 71.2 33.5 55.5 7.2 18.6 20.4 44.7 13.7 12.8 2.5 8.4 3.7 8.9 3.4 6.4 1.5 3.3 11.0 * 2.4 8.3 33.2 48.3 Grade 10 State County 72.3 69.4 49.8 53.3 10.2 17.9 41.6 43.6 10.4 12.6 8.3 5.0 8.2 6.3 6.8 6.5 3.2 3.2 * 19.2 8.2 5.8 44.5 52.6 State County 69.3 80.2 45.3 67.2 11.0 25.6 36.6 57.4 10.9 15.6 5.3 12.6 7.8 11.9 6.7 8.6 2.4 3.0 16.5 * 4.3 9.6 45.6 58.1 Grade 12 State County 80.8 76.3 61.1 58.6 16.9 19.1 50.8 49.6 10.1 10.1 12.6 10.2 12.0 11.8 8.6 11.5 3.8 3.8 * 23.2 12.0 8.7 52.8 56.7 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 43.2 18.1 23.3 4.7 4.8 22.4 19.9 3.4 2.7 3.2 2.2 3.5 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.4 0.9 * 10.6 2.5 0.7 25.7 28.1 State County 41.3 53.8 17.7 27.1 3.4 10.9 16.2 26.4 2.9 2.6 2.4 3.9 3.0 3.7 2.8 2.0 0.7 0.9 8.2 * 1.1 3.3 23.6 29.3 Grade 12 State County 58.9 47.3 23.2 28.3 5.9 5.2 25.4 19.3 2.0 0.9 3.1 2.8 4.0 4.3 2.2 4.2 1.3 1.0 * 10.8 3.2 0.7 28.6 28.2 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 26.4 3.5 2.2 State County 25.1 27.7 2.6 4.8 Grade 12 State County 32.2 32.9 6.0 5.5 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 10.5 20.5 26.3 9.9 8.9 3.6 5.6 8.0 11.0 10.8 16.8 5.0 5.8 1.3 1.5 State County 12.3 12.9 20.8 30.3 8.9 9.1 4.4 2.6 9.1 14.7 16.5 9.7 5.9 7.9 1.5 1.7 Grade 12 State County 8.1 8.2 23.8 27.2 10.0 10.8 2.1 4.2 8.2 14.2 9.1 13.9 4.9 6.3 1.0 2.3 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 29.2 15.1 9.9 21.4 5.2 2.1 4.9 1.0 2.1 * 2.9 26.4 Grade 8 State County 34.4 24.5 9.1 23.5 4.0 8.0 14.3 23.2 6.5 3.0 1.5 2.5 2.6 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.2 0.0 * 3.6 3.6 1.0 19.9 27.1 State County 25.3 43.8 10.7 19.0 2.4 8.9 9.7 24.3 5.8 3.5 1.6 4.3 1.6 3.6 1.6 2.7 0.6 1.7 5.5 * 0.8 4.2 17.9 27.7 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 15.3 2.1 Grade 8 State County 14.1 19.8 1.2 0.0 State County 16.0 24.8 0.8 3.7 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 21.0 20.6 6.3 5.5 9.8 14.4 9.6 2.5 Grade 8 State County 18.1 28.6 15.4 21.4 5.7 7.6 3.3 9.5 9.1 16.2 11.6 19.6 6.7 10.5 1.4 1.5 State County 17.7 14.1 13.2 26.5 5.0 8.3 4.8 5.4 8.7 11.7 17.8 11.6 6.5 7.0 1.5 1.4 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 42.7 42.5 39.1 34.7 38.3 34.8 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 44.3 59.3 47.9 41.1 41.0 41.3 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 41.5 48.3 46.5 36.0 48.5 24.5 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 48.7 52.2 54.4 45.8 51.4 31.1 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 51.2 43.2 45.8 32.6 53.0 36.5 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 49.5 49.3 55.8 41.9 52.8 33.8 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 42.6 38.8 48.7 43.5 21.4 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 55.9 51.1 66.3 42.9 25.4 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 44.2 32.3 46.4 45.3 39.2 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 41.8 35.7 51.7 47.0 42.0 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 43.2 25.9 43.3 41.8 36.9 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 42.8 32.6 48.3 44.1 41.8 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 56.3 35.5 52.3 41.2 71.8 40.9 49.8 39.4 51.5 45.4 46.5 45.4 52.0 39.2 49.8 43.7 51.6 38.0 43.7 44.6 46.5 46.7 43.8 47.9 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 36.3 35.8 45.9 43.4 35.3 52.6 53.1 48.0 35.4 38.9 54.4 25.4 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 35.0 51.5 51.6 46.0 31.5 51.3 79.7 59.4 57.1 45.6 68.4 41.2 44.6 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 41.5 38.4 43.1 56.2 46.3 43.6 51.8 46.4 44.5 28.7 48.9 15.8 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 36.5 41.9 44.5 53.3 43.1 41.2 56.5 47.6 54.8 41.8 48.6 22.6 47.4 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 41.7 41.5 48.4 52.1 43.2 43.2 59.7 48.9 45.8 38.1 44.6 14.2 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 30.4 44.5 48.5 52.7 41.9 47.3 56.1 40.6 56.2 53.8 41.6 19.8 35.0 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 32.7 35.4 40.7 31.9 33.0 32.3 41.1 32.0 42.2 42.9 43.6 42.3 40.0 37.7 39.2 37.3 37.5 39.6 43.2 37.4 40.0 33.7 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 56.3 63.4 62.9 52.4 59.2 61.0 43.4 55.1 54.3 50.0 59.7 60.6 51.4 57.2 59.2 49.4 57.8 56.5 46.9 54.9 58.1 47.1 55.9 56.9 60.5 56.0 59.4 61.5 56.9 57.7 59.1 58.8 62.7 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 55.8 49.6 56.2 48.9 54.8 46.0 61.8 52.2 54.4 60.1 58.6 60.8 62.6 66.1 61.7 60.8 65.1 51.9 64.2 49.5 58.8 51.6 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 30.8 55.1 56.1 34.7 30.3 62.4 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 52.6 61.4 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 43.7 50.3 65.8 51.9 49.2 62.3 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 64.3 50.9 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 70.6 63.2 53.2 45.5 40.2 49.5 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 56.2 Belief in the Moral Order 56.3 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 72.7 14.4 7.5 1.7 1.7 0.7 0.0 1.2 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 90.9 3.9 1.7 1.5 2.0 87.9 5.2 4.0 1.5 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.5 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 90.6 3.0 4.2 0.2 2.0 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 57.6 18.2 15.7 4.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.5 80.0 8.2 7.2 2.6 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 79.6 12.2 4.6 1.5 2.0 89.2 7.2 1.5 0.5 1.5 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 85.7 7.3 3.9 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 92.0 3.2 2.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.4 95.7 1.4 1.3 0.3 1.4 90.4 1.8 2.0 0.7 5.1 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 79.1 12.2 4.9 1.5 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.9 84.3 7.6 4.4 1.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.2 91.0 5.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 93.1 3.2 1.5 0.5 1.7 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 89.1 6.4 2.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.9 93.2 2.3 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.1 94.7 2.8 0.8 0.2 1.5 90.3 1.1 1.9 0.6 6.1 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 86.5 6.4 3.3 1.9 0.2 0.5 0.0 1.2 88.7 5.2 3.3 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 94.3 3.1 0.7 0.9 0.9 89.6 2.1 1.4 0.5 6.4 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Gila 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: Gila 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 541 100 832 148 252 141 27.4 46.6 26.1 215 25.8 342 41.1 275 33.05 262 271 49.2 50.8 410 410 303 94 108 5 56.7 17.6 20.2 0.9 7* 1.3* 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 385 47.2 6198 51.8 19745 186 22.8 1237 10.3 2938 172 21.1 3630 30.3 13184 9 1.1 292 2.4 1503 4 0.5 812 258* 2.2* 6 0.736 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 50.0 50.0 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Gila County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 148 3451 215 18812 252 4984 342 12558 141 3768 275 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 66.4 54.9 21.9 52.4 6.8 3.4 11.0 4.9 4.1 * 11.0 53.4 Grade 8 State County 56.9 53.5 39.6 42.9 6.8 9.0 26.6 33.2 11.9 10.0 2.4 3.8 4.5 4.4 2.9 3.8 1.9 1.5 * 13.0 5.5 2.4 33.2 41.3 State County 51.9 79.4 33.5 61.8 7.2 21.8 20.4 47.0 13.7 14.7 2.5 5.6 3.7 8.0 3.4 9.3 1.5 1.2 11.0 * 2.4 7.5 33.2 49.2 Grade 10 State County 72.3 68.0 49.8 44.2 10.2 20.5 41.6 33.4 10.4 9.9 8.3 5.4 8.2 6.3 6.8 5.4 3.2 1.8 * 12.4 8.2 3.3 44.5 41.8 State County 69.3 89.1 45.3 65.5 11.0 27.5 36.6 57.4 10.9 12.1 5.3 4.3 7.8 7.2 6.7 4.3 2.4 0.7 16.5 * 4.3 4.3 45.6 60.3 Grade 12 State County 80.8 87.8 61.1 62.6 16.9 31.1 50.8 57.4 10.1 9.6 12.6 6.6 12.0 12.6 8.6 7.7 3.8 3.0 * 15.6 12.0 4.1 52.8 62.4 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 39.8 18.1 16.4 4.7 8.9 22.4 14.8 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.9 3.5 3.3 2.6 3.3 1.4 1.5 * 6.6 2.5 2.1 25.7 22.1 State County 41.3 59.3 17.7 25.0 3.4 12.9 16.2 22.3 2.9 1.4 2.4 2.9 3.0 1.4 2.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 8.2 * 1.1 1.4 23.6 23.4 Grade 12 State County 58.9 58.5 23.2 23.8 5.9 12.9 25.4 19.6 2.0 1.5 3.1 2.6 4.0 3.7 2.2 4.1 1.3 0.7 * 8.2 3.2 1.5 28.6 25.6 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 25.4 3.5 3.6 State County 25.1 33.8 2.6 2.1 Grade 12 State County 32.2 41.4 6.0 4.5 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 16.9 20.5 17.9 9.9 7.5 3.6 4.7 8.0 13.2 10.8 19.0 5.0 8.6 1.3 2.4 State County 12.3 4.3 20.8 15.9 8.9 5.1 4.4 2.9 9.1 5.8 16.5 10.9 5.9 2.2 1.5 1.4 Grade 12 State County 8.1 9.1 23.8 24.5 10.0 10.6 2.1 1.8 8.2 8.6 9.1 16.8 4.9 6.2 1.0 1.8 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 41.6 15.9 14.0 32.0 3.2 2.4 4.0 0.8 4.1 * 6.7 35.5 Grade 8 State County 34.4 29.2 9.1 18.4 4.0 3.3 14.3 15.3 6.5 4.8 1.5 2.9 2.6 1.9 1.0 2.4 1.2 0.0 * 6.8 3.6 0.0 19.9 23.5 State County 25.3 50.4 10.7 20.8 2.4 7.7 9.7 25.0 5.8 4.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 3.3 0.6 0.4 5.5 * 0.8 1.7 17.9 27.8 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 22.4 1.6 Grade 8 State County 14.1 23.9 1.2 1.5 State County 16.0 24.9 0.8 3.3 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 30.7 29.2 15.8 4.3 17.3 22.1 9.3 4.3 Grade 8 State County 18.1 28.0 15.4 19.4 5.7 8.0 3.3 6.1 9.1 14.5 11.6 18.2 6.7 7.0 1.4 2.3 State County 17.7 8.4 13.2 25.3 5.0 10.0 4.8 5.2 8.7 11.7 17.8 14.3 6.5 5.6 1.5 0.8 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 37.2 64.9 39.4 52.1 50.8 44.1 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 45.5 70.0 45.3 51.2 47.5 38.5 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 50.8 42.0 48.7 39.4 56.7 38.1 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 50.2 60.4 48.0 48.3 47.9 38.5 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 53.3 44.9 51.5 29.7 57.7 50.4 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 56.7 56.6 58.6 44.5 58.3 52.1 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 59.3 62.3 73.6 57.4 27.3 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 55.4 49.7 67.0 46.7 30.0 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 42.5 35.8 51.7 49.7 48.0 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 38.8 41.7 51.4 44.1 39.9 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 40.4 28.9 35.2 52.7 41.8 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 43.2 38.2 50.4 46.4 49.8 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 66.4 47.9 52.3 41.2 62.0 40.2 49.8 39.4 52.0 51.6 46.5 45.4 58.9 39.8 49.8 43.7 42.5 49.3 43.7 44.6 45.8 55.5 43.8 47.9 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 52.7 45.8 56.9 43.4 48.3 54.6 66.7 62.1 42.3 40.0 65.6 37.1 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 35.0 45.3 49.5 52.3 39.6 58.8 68.0 62.7 57.3 53.4 55.6 29.3 54.3 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 43.4 36.5 48.2 56.2 43.4 41.1 48.0 44.8 53.2 31.2 47.6 9.2 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 37.7 43.0 36.2 42.1 34.9 30.7 58.7 40.1 60.7 38.6 48.0 23.2 43.5 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 41.4 36.4 41.7 51.1 45.3 47.9 49.3 39.6 48.9 36.7 48.2 9.4 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 32.8 42.3 49.1 47.4 32.6 40.9 58.8 44.0 60.9 55.6 45.4 18.0 30.6 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 42.6 28.8 40.7 31.9 32.4 30.7 41.1 32.0 40.7 36.3 43.6 42.3 45.5 42.5 39.2 37.3 47.4 42.3 43.2 37.4 39.6 38.2 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 46.8 42.0 54.0 52.4 59.2 61.0 46.6 50.8 59.6 50.0 59.7 60.6 48.8 60.0 56.5 49.4 57.8 56.5 50.9 60.9 60.1 47.1 55.9 56.9 64.0 58.4 57.3 61.5 56.9 57.7 63.3 57.1 61.0 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 58.2 35.4 56.2 48.9 57.8 49.5 61.8 52.2 51.6 48.6 58.6 60.8 63.7 67.0 61.7 60.8 63.6 41.1 64.2 49.5 61.7 46.2 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 37.5 47.6 48.3 43.3 31.6 58.3 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 47.8 63.1 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 50.3 53.1 69.0 56.0 45.2 63.3 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 61.4 41.4 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 73.4 57.2 52.7 45.4 32.1 47.2 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 37.0 Belief in the Moral Order 44.0 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 66.9 17.6 8.8 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.4 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 87.7 3.4 2.1 1.4 5.5 86.5 5.4 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.7 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 85.8 2.0 4.7 1.4 6.1 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 73.3 15.2 8.1 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 85.2 8.6 1.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.9 83.9 7.1 4.3 1.9 2.8 91.9 3.8 1.0 0.0 3.3 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 82.1 12.7 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 91.2 3.6 2.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.2 95.6 1.6 1.2 0.4 1.2 88.4 1.2 0.8 0.8 8.8 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 81.1 11.2 3.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 86.3 5.7 3.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.3 1.8 88.7 3.0 3.6 2.1 2.7 89.4 3.2 0.9 1.2 5.3 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 92.9 4.3 2.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.4 2.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.2 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.7 93.4 0.7 1.5 0.0 4.4 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 86.8 8.8 3.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 89.7 4.0 3.3 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.1 91.2 4.0 2.2 1.1 1.5 90.4 1.8 0.7 1.1 5.9 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Graham 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: Graham 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 388 100 500 100 12203 100 40960 100 39 206 143 10.1 53.1 36.9 169 212 119 33.8 42.4 23.8 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 178 202 46.8 53.2 223 271 45.1 54.9 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 220 3 130 6 57.7 0.8 34.1 1.6 224 45.4 6198 51.8 19745 52 10.5 1237 10.3 2938 173 35.1 3630 30.3 13184 10 2.0 292 2.4 1503 5 1.0 812 258* 2.2* 3 0.609 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 7* 1.8* * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Graham County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 39 3451 169 18812 206 4984 212 12558 143 3768 119 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 61.0 51.4 10.5 27.6 18.8 4.3 5.7 5.8 2.4 * 5.3 36.5 Grade 8 State County 56.9 54.5 39.6 38.7 6.8 11.3 26.6 22.8 11.9 16.7 2.4 1.8 4.5 4.4 2.9 4.9 1.9 3.1 * 17.8 5.5 1.3 33.2 39.9 State County 51.9 75.2 33.5 60.1 7.2 11.8 20.4 50.7 13.7 22.4 2.5 11.2 3.7 15.7 3.4 15.5 1.5 5.9 11.0 * 2.4 9.9 33.2 55.3 Grade 10 State County 72.3 64.3 49.8 44.9 10.2 13.3 41.6 40.1 10.4 14.5 8.3 4.8 8.2 6.8 6.8 7.2 3.2 2.9 * 12.4 8.2 4.4 44.5 51.2 State County 69.3 68.6 45.3 60.6 11.0 16.9 36.6 43.0 10.9 13.3 5.3 5.6 7.8 13.4 6.7 11.4 2.4 5.6 16.5 * 4.3 8.5 45.6 45.5 Grade 12 State County 80.8 71.2 61.1 57.1 16.9 20.2 50.8 50.4 10.1 17.6 12.6 2.5 12.0 17.8 8.6 10.2 3.8 5.0 * 22.4 12.0 2.6 52.8 58.1 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 40.5 18.1 16.7 4.7 3.8 22.4 13.9 3.4 4.8 3.2 2.4 3.5 3.3 2.6 4.4 1.4 1.5 * 6.8 2.5 1.0 25.7 27.8 State County 41.3 44.4 17.7 9.9 3.4 3.5 16.2 12.7 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.1 3.0 4.9 2.8 4.2 0.7 1.4 8.2 * 1.1 2.1 23.6 15.5 Grade 12 State County 58.9 44.1 23.2 25.4 5.9 10.1 25.4 21.8 2.0 0.0 3.1 1.7 4.0 5.1 2.2 3.4 1.3 0.0 * 11.1 3.2 0.0 28.6 29.6 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 24.5 3.5 2.9 State County 25.1 24.8 2.6 2.8 Grade 12 State County 32.2 33.6 6.0 1.7 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 10.0 20.5 22.7 9.9 8.1 3.6 3.3 8.0 6.7 10.8 14.7 5.0 6.2 1.3 3.8 State County 12.3 7.0 20.8 13.4 8.9 7.7 4.4 2.1 9.1 4.2 16.5 7.7 5.9 4.9 1.5 2.1 Grade 12 State County 8.1 12.7 23.8 30.5 10.0 10.9 2.1 1.7 8.2 10.9 9.1 10.2 4.9 6.8 1.0 1.7 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 39.6 15.0 3.8 15.9 9.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 * 3.9 23.2 Grade 8 State County 34.4 26.8 9.1 11.9 4.0 1.8 14.3 13.0 6.5 8.1 1.5 1.2 2.6 1.3 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.3 * 11.1 3.6 0.6 19.9 27.4 State County 25.3 49.3 10.7 19.7 2.4 4.9 9.7 26.5 5.8 7.0 1.6 7.0 1.6 8.9 1.6 8.5 0.6 4.0 5.5 * 0.8 5.1 17.9 33.5 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 21.6 1.9 Grade 8 State County 14.1 21.0 1.2 1.9 State County 16.0 27.2 0.8 3.0 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 21.3 17.9 6.8 3.4 8.7 13.6 3.9 0.5 Grade 8 State County 18.1 18.8 15.4 12.5 5.7 6.3 3.3 6.3 9.1 8.1 11.6 18.9 6.7 7.5 1.4 1.3 State County 17.7 14.3 13.2 28.6 5.0 16.3 4.8 5.4 8.7 7.8 17.8 12.4 6.5 6.4 1.5 2.0 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 37.7 38.4 38.7 44.4 55.4 59.3 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 48.8 47.8 50.6 46.9 53.1 55.8 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 47.6 44.1 40.1 52.1 67.9 36.0 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 46.6 61.7 46.6 45.0 49.0 35.4 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 39.3 37.0 33.1 19.9 53.6 39.3 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 55.9 62.4 53.4 39.7 59.5 35.3 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 52.2 54.9 52.2 47.5 28.8 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 50.3 55.8 60.3 53.2 28.2 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 41.2 41.2 57.1 46.4 36.7 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 38.2 40.4 51.2 47.1 36.0 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 35.3 28.7 25.4 41.6 30.7 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 40.2 47.9 55.6 45.8 36.4 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 46.5 49.3 52.3 41.2 57.6 54.3 49.8 39.4 46.5 45.8 46.5 45.4 49.3 39.8 49.8 43.7 44.2 38.0 43.7 44.6 45.7 34.5 43.8 47.9 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 51.7 40.9 49.8 39.0 42.9 44.3 57.9 48.8 48.8 52.7 53.9 13.5 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 40.0 37.7 42.7 56.2 43.7 53.4 66.2 54.8 62.7 63.4 55.1 23.6 40.4 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 48.5 41.0 48.5 62.0 54.4 48.3 57.3 48.5 45.6 36.8 54.2 9.2 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 42.8 31.9 41.1 42.7 34.1 36.4 57.5 41.3 56.9 37.2 52.6 25.7 40.8 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 37.1 36.6 38.5 43.3 32.6 39.3 51.0 31.5 45.1 36.9 35.9 9.2 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 40.7 40.3 41.2 43.7 31.1 44.9 60.0 44.3 47.9 51.3 49.6 19.5 26.3 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 51.5 35.5 40.7 31.9 50.0 31.1 41.1 32.0 39.8 39.2 43.6 42.3 54.1 42.2 39.2 37.3 57.4 50.0 43.2 37.4 44.1 48.3 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 53.0 59.0 60.7 52.4 59.2 61.0 45.9 53.9 53.7 50.0 59.7 60.6 44.2 50.9 55.4 49.4 57.8 56.5 54.5 64.4 60.6 47.1 55.9 56.9 64.2 60.3 62.5 61.5 56.9 57.7 54.3 59.0 55.6 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 60.4 48.6 56.2 48.9 64.1 47.6 61.8 52.2 61.6 57.1 58.6 60.8 63.3 61.8 61.7 60.8 69.5 50.0 64.2 49.5 65.5 48.7 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 57.3 51.2 42.3 50.6 43.2 53.4 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 51.2 49.0 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 53.6 53.1 60.6 52.9 40.8 61.0 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 65.5 40.1 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 83.2 60.5 49.6 50.9 37.3 55.7 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 54.9 Belief in the Moral Order 46.4 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 81.5 12.8 4.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 95.3 1.9 1.4 0.5 0.9 91.9 5.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 95.2 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 83.1 11.3 1.9 1.3 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 93.9 2.5 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 91.3 5.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 95.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.9 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 84.9 11.2 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 89.8 4.4 3.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 97.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 91.7 2.5 1.5 0.5 3.9 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 82.1 11.8 3.8 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.0 91.5 3.3 2.8 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 93.3 3.3 1.9 0.5 1.0 93.8 1.4 1.0 0.5 3.3 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 92.9 5.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 94.3 2.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 95.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.8 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 96.6 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.1 3.4 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 2.5 95.0 0.0 2.5 1.7 0.8 91.5 1.7 1.7 0.8 4.2 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Greenlee 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: Greenlee 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 263 100 84 100 79 31.9 38.0 30.0 143 115 55.4 44.6 125 118 51.4 48.6 128 7 110 2 49.4 2.7 42.5 0.8 88 7 136 0 0 0 2* 0.8* 248 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 35.6 6198 51.8 19745 2.8 1237 10.3 2938 55.1 3630 30.3 13184 0.0 292 2.4 1503 0.0 812 258* 2.2* 0 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 98 39.5 75 30.2 75 30.24 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Greenlee County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 84 3451 98 18812 100 4984 75 12558 79 3768 75 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 58.8 44.3 16.9 18.5 15.7 2.4 4.9 4.9 1.2 * 1.2 25.0 Grade 8 State County 56.9 61.5 39.6 50.5 6.8 28.9 26.6 20.0 11.9 19.8 2.4 1.0 4.5 1.1 2.9 1.0 1.9 1.0 * 7.2 5.5 1.0 33.2 35.1 State County 51.9 76.0 33.5 60.6 7.2 21.0 20.4 43.4 13.7 15.0 2.5 5.1 3.7 11.2 3.4 16.3 1.5 4.0 11.0 * 2.4 7.1 33.2 48.0 Grade 10 State County 72.3 74.3 49.8 64.9 10.2 28.4 41.6 42.5 10.4 14.9 8.3 8.1 8.2 9.6 6.8 12.2 3.2 1.4 * 21.6 8.2 5.4 44.5 52.1 State County 69.3 78.2 45.3 66.7 11.0 31.2 36.6 46.2 10.9 15.4 5.3 6.4 7.8 17.9 6.7 17.9 2.4 2.6 16.5 * 4.3 9.1 45.6 50.6 Grade 12 State County 80.8 86.5 61.1 74.0 16.9 32.9 50.8 47.3 10.1 16.2 12.6 6.8 12.0 12.2 8.6 20.3 3.8 1.4 * 28.4 12.0 1.4 52.8 58.1 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 39.7 18.1 34.2 4.7 13.5 22.4 15.3 3.4 4.1 3.2 4.1 3.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 1.4 0.0 * 9.5 2.5 1.4 25.7 26.8 State County 41.3 57.1 17.7 28.9 3.4 10.7 16.2 15.6 2.9 1.3 2.4 1.3 3.0 7.9 2.8 7.8 0.7 1.3 8.2 * 1.1 1.3 23.6 20.8 Grade 12 State County 58.9 48.6 23.2 37.3 5.9 12.3 25.4 18.1 2.0 1.4 3.1 2.7 4.0 5.4 2.2 9.5 1.3 0.0 * 10.8 3.2 0.0 28.6 25.0 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 23.0 3.5 9.5 State County 25.1 27.3 2.6 7.9 Grade 12 State County 32.2 33.3 6.0 10.7 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 14.9 20.5 28.8 9.9 10.8 3.6 8.1 8.0 13.5 10.8 21.6 5.0 4.1 1.3 0.0 State County 12.3 12.0 20.8 25.3 8.9 13.3 4.4 5.3 9.1 10.7 16.5 17.3 5.9 12.0 1.5 1.3 Grade 12 State County 8.1 6.7 23.8 33.3 10.0 9.3 2.1 0.0 8.2 10.7 9.1 17.3 4.9 6.7 1.0 0.0 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 36.6 12.2 6.1 9.8 11.0 2.4 1.2 3.7 1.2 * 1.2 15.9 Grade 8 State County 34.4 32.3 9.1 15.5 4.0 12.4 14.3 8.2 6.5 10.4 1.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 * 3.1 3.6 1.0 19.9 18.5 State County 25.3 46.9 10.7 24.5 2.4 11.3 9.7 19.8 5.8 5.2 1.6 2.1 1.6 6.2 1.6 3.1 0.6 3.1 5.5 * 0.8 2.1 17.9 27.1 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 19.5 1.2 Grade 8 State County 14.1 22.7 1.2 2.1 State County 16.0 28.1 0.8 7.1 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 18.1 14.5 4.8 6.0 4.8 18.1 10.7 1.2 Grade 8 State County 18.1 8.2 15.4 8.2 5.7 3.1 3.3 2.0 9.1 3.1 11.6 13.3 6.7 5.1 1.4 0.0 State County 17.7 16.2 13.2 33.3 5.0 11.1 4.8 5.1 8.7 10.2 17.8 13.5 6.5 6.1 1.5 2.0 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 45.7 50.6 30.4 37.8 36.3 58.5 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 28.9 45.8 44.3 37.5 47.4 48.5 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 48.9 70.2 38.9 51.6 69.8 44.3 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 47.9 71.8 40.3 49.3 59.7 31.9 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 51.3 59.2 39.0 36.8 61.0 55.8 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 62.2 68.1 37.1 37.5 57.3 39.2 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 43.8 58.3 42.1 57.9 34.2 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 33.7 49.0 56.7 43.8 30.2 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 56.1 41.9 63.6 65.9 40.9 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 34.7 43.1 54.8 51.4 48.6 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 43.5 39.1 47.8 58.7 43.5 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 47.8 36.8 54.4 63.2 57.4 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 48.0 40.2 52.3 41.2 47.4 33.7 49.8 39.4 50.5 54.6 46.5 45.4 54.3 45.2 49.8 43.7 37.7 56.4 43.7 44.6 48.6 54.1 43.8 47.9 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 37.3 43.2 45.6 43.4 36.1 42.2 48.2 47.0 48.1 39.8 45.1 6.0 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 29.9 27.8 54.2 39.8 34.7 44.9 45.9 49.5 59.8 54.7 46.9 9.4 39.2 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 54.5 44.4 52.5 63.6 56.0 43.8 63.3 54.1 46.4 41.2 51.0 10.4 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 50.7 52.7 56.8 52.1 42.5 47.2 73.5 59.4 62.2 47.8 52.8 23.6 56.2 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 59.0 48.7 44.9 67.9 55.1 50.0 72.7 39.7 49.4 46.7 46.1 15.8 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 29.3 44.0 49.3 60.0 33.3 34.2 70.7 45.3 58.1 51.4 43.8 17.6 41.1 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 53.9 44.4 40.7 31.9 62.1 51.5 41.1 32.0 50.6 43.0 43.6 42.3 43.5 49.3 39.2 37.3 48.7 47.4 43.2 37.4 39.4 35.6 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 62.3 59.7 68.6 52.4 59.2 61.0 57.9 73.5 72.9 50.0 59.7 60.6 57.9 45.0 57.5 49.4 57.8 56.5 43.7 50.0 62.3 47.1 55.9 56.9 54.3 56.5 56.5 61.5 56.9 57.7 59.1 54.4 55.2 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 72.5 60.5 56.2 48.9 73.5 73.5 61.8 52.2 52.5 63.6 58.6 60.8 63.5 70.8 61.7 60.8 70.5 48.7 64.2 49.5 62.7 52.0 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 71.1 63.3 58.2 67.3 48.0 56.7 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 44.8 48.5 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 44.6 40.5 53.4 56.7 45.9 50.7 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 43.4 26.0 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 82.4 60.8 30.1 41.3 45.3 39.2 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 56.8 Belief in the Moral Order 41.5 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 71.1 19.3 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 92.8 4.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 94.0 1.2 2.4 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 91.4 1.2 3.7 0.0 3.7 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 73.5 11.2 14.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.8 5.1 3.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 92.9 6.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 94.9 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 84.8 9.1 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.9 3.0 5.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 90.8 4.1 1.0 0.0 4.1 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 79.7 9.5 8.1 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 87.8 9.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 94.6 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 85.1 0.0 1.4 1.4 12.2 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 97.4 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.7 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 3.9 2.6 3.9 7.8 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 93.2 2.7 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 98.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 93.2 5.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey La Paz 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: La Paz 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 390 100 373 111 156 123 28.5 40.0 31.5 157 42.1 128 34.3 88 23.59 184 195 48.5 51.5 170 196 144 90 133 6 37.7 23.6 34.8 1.6 2* 0.5* 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 145 39.4 6198 51.8 19745 63 17.1 1237 10.3 2938 132 35.9 3630 30.3 13184 8 2.2 292 2.4 1503 3 0.8 812 258* 2.2* 1 0.272 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 46.4 53.6 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety La Paz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 111 3451 157 18812 156 4984 128 12558 123 3768 88 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 74.0 57.2 11.9 38.4 16.9 4.0 7.3 7.3 2.0 * 6.7 43.8 Grade 8 State County 56.9 57.1 39.6 45.3 6.8 8.6 26.6 26.5 11.9 16.2 2.4 4.0 4.5 6.1 2.9 8.0 1.9 2.0 * 9.3 5.5 2.7 33.2 34.0 State County 51.9 72.8 33.5 55.2 7.2 10.3 20.4 47.4 13.7 14.5 2.5 7.2 3.7 11.7 3.4 12.3 1.5 6.4 11.0 * 2.4 9.0 33.2 53.2 Grade 10 State County 72.3 69.0 49.8 43.1 10.2 14.6 41.6 35.2 10.4 16.1 8.3 11.3 8.2 9.8 6.8 8.1 3.2 1.6 * 13.0 8.2 5.6 44.5 43.2 State County 69.3 86.9 45.3 65.6 11.0 15.6 36.6 62.3 10.9 13.0 5.3 9.8 7.8 16.5 6.7 21.3 2.4 2.4 16.5 * 4.3 13.8 45.6 62.6 Grade 12 State County 80.8 73.6 61.1 46.4 16.9 14.3 50.8 32.2 10.1 7.1 12.6 0.0 12.0 0.0 8.6 3.5 3.8 0.0 * 11.9 12.0 2.4 52.8 37.2 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 42.7 18.1 15.6 4.7 2.5 22.4 15.3 3.4 1.6 3.2 3.3 3.5 1.6 2.6 1.7 1.4 0.0 * 7.4 2.5 1.6 25.7 22.3 State County 41.3 60.5 17.7 25.0 3.4 5.8 16.2 25.8 2.9 4.2 2.4 5.0 3.0 8.3 2.8 7.5 0.7 0.8 8.2 * 1.1 3.4 23.6 31.4 Grade 12 State County 58.9 37.9 23.2 16.5 5.9 6.0 25.4 6.9 2.0 1.2 3.1 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.2 2.3 1.3 0.0 * 2.3 3.2 0.0 28.6 10.7 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 29.2 3.5 1.7 State County 25.1 42.9 2.6 3.3 Grade 12 State County 32.2 21.4 6.0 4.7 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 13.7 20.5 18.5 9.9 8.1 3.6 8.0 8.0 13.7 10.8 16.0 5.0 7.2 1.3 2.4 State County 12.3 13.1 20.8 22.8 8.9 10.6 4.4 4.9 9.1 13.1 16.5 9.8 5.9 4.1 1.5 2.4 Grade 12 State County 8.1 4.5 23.8 14.8 10.0 3.4 2.1 1.1 8.2 5.8 9.1 10.2 4.9 3.4 1.0 1.1 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 49.0 17.0 6.5 18.4 4.6 2.0 1.3 3.9 2.0 * 3.3 21.5 Grade 8 State County 34.4 30.1 9.1 9.9 4.0 2.6 14.3 12.6 6.5 6.6 1.5 4.0 2.6 3.3 1.0 6.7 1.2 0.7 * 5.2 3.6 2.0 19.9 18.8 State County 25.3 48.7 10.7 20.1 2.4 5.2 9.7 24.0 5.8 5.2 1.6 4.5 1.6 5.2 1.6 5.8 0.6 3.3 5.5 * 0.8 3.9 17.9 33.1 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 29.1 2.0 Grade 8 State County 14.1 18.4 1.2 2.0 State County 16.0 26.8 0.8 6.5 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 15.7 19.6 8.5 4.6 12.4 11.8 9.8 3.3 Grade 8 State County 18.1 17.2 15.4 17.5 5.7 7.2 3.3 7.1 9.1 4.5 11.6 20.0 6.7 7.7 1.4 3.9 State County 17.7 11.0 13.2 20.8 5.0 7.8 4.8 5.2 8.7 10.5 17.8 10.5 6.5 3.2 1.5 1.3 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 40.1 57.0 37.8 47.1 52.3 41.7 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 46.2 51.4 48.3 47.6 46.9 50.0 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 50.3 62.5 41.2 48.6 53.4 26.0 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 43.8 70.0 47.7 49.6 52.1 42.2 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 50.0 58.4 50.5 34.5 50.4 27.4 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 61.9 67.5 36.1 36.1 41.2 28.2 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 52.4 51.7 62.3 53.7 38.1 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 46.2 48.5 59.1 41.7 25.0 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 47.6 37.8 52.0 49.2 42.1 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 44.7 39.4 55.0 52.3 48.2 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 40.2 33.3 51.1 42.7 46.1 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 35.8 45.1 48.8 39.8 31.3 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 57.9 34.6 52.3 41.2 48.0 34.2 49.8 39.4 65.3 40.3 46.5 45.4 56.3 42.1 49.8 43.7 65.5 40.7 43.7 44.6 47.6 37.6 43.8 47.9 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 45.1 37.1 55.6 48.0 47.3 47.1 61.2 62.4 38.2 47.3 60.1 13.9 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 42.4 36.4 45.8 41.3 32.3 40.0 55.0 42.0 59.0 48.0 51.3 21.9 32.7 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 43.9 41.3 43.1 50.6 36.8 50.3 52.6 44.2 42.5 30.9 51.6 15.6 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 35.5 41.9 44.4 46.8 31.5 39.2 61.5 46.0 56.2 36.6 49.6 28.4 44.7 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 46.7 39.8 47.5 47.1 34.4 43.0 57.7 37.7 43.4 40.7 45.5 18.0 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 29.4 40.9 37.5 37.5 19.3 33.3 48.3 24.1 50.0 43.7 50.6 14.1 25.6 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 50.3 43.0 40.7 31.9 43.3 40.7 41.1 32.0 32.2 43.2 43.6 42.3 48.6 42.0 39.2 37.3 36.9 47.3 43.2 37.4 31.7 44.6 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 52.4 50.3 56.6 52.4 59.2 61.0 44.1 60.3 59.2 50.0 59.7 60.6 40.3 48.4 45.5 49.4 57.8 56.5 43.7 55.0 59.4 47.1 55.9 56.9 52.4 50.0 38.6 61.5 56.9 57.7 56.3 51.9 44.4 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 54.2 53.6 56.2 48.9 65.0 56.4 61.8 52.2 54.5 54.2 58.6 60.8 56.8 61.6 61.7 60.8 65.0 57.4 64.2 49.5 60.9 55.7 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 44.2 51.3 52.9 46.0 41.6 63.8 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 50.3 63.9 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 30.4 43.7 63.3 43.5 36.0 55.2 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 59.5 49.6 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 67.4 70.9 50.0 50.0 45.5 56.3 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 44.7 Belief in the Moral Order 49.7 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 77.1 11.1 7.8 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.6 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 95.4 3.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 89.5 5.9 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 91.4 2.0 2.6 0.7 3.3 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 79.4 7.7 9.0 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 87.1 3.9 4.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.9 91.5 5.2 1.3 0.7 1.3 90.8 2.6 2.0 0.0 4.6 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 86.5 9.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.2 1.3 3.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 96.2 1.9 0.6 0.0 1.3 93.5 1.9 0.0 1.3 3.2 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 83.1 5.6 7.3 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 83.3 9.5 3.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.4 90.2 3.3 4.1 0.8 1.6 91.7 2.5 3.3 1.7 0.8 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 95.9 3.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.9 2.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 95.1 2.4 0.8 1.6 0.0 90.1 3.3 0.8 0.0 5.8 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 90.7 5.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 91.8 0.0 4.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 89.5 3.5 2.3 1.2 3.5 91.9 2.3 3.5 0.0 2.3 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey 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: 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 3354 Total Students Grade 8 1372 10 805 12 1177 Gender Male 1636 Female 1637 Ethnicity White 2172 Native American 67 Hispanic 660 African American 152 Asian 131* Pacific Islander 100 21970 100 12203 100 40960 100 40.9 11337 51.6 24.0 5918 26.9 35.1 4715 21.46 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 50.0 10270 50.0 11324 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 65.9 12047 55.7 6198 51.8 19745 2.0 466 2.2 1237 10.3 2938 20.0 6267 29.0 3630 30.3 13184 4.6 1085 5.0 292 2.4 1503 584 2.7 812 4* 258* 2.2* 181 0.837 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 47.6 52.4 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Maricopa County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 1372 3451 11337 18812 805 4984 5918 12558 1177 3768 4715 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 54.8 36.9 5.0 22.7 12.2 2.4 4.2 2.6 1.7 * 5.0 29.4 Grade 8 State County 56.9 50.2 39.6 29.7 6.8 5.3 26.6 18.7 11.9 12.6 2.4 2.2 4.5 3.2 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.3 * 10.2 5.5 2.2 33.2 30.8 State County 51.9 71.7 33.5 47.4 7.2 7.8 20.4 40.9 13.7 10.0 2.5 8.4 3.7 7.5 3.4 6.3 1.5 2.9 11.0 * 2.4 8.2 33.2 43.7 Grade 10 State County 72.3 68.3 49.8 41.2 10.2 8.9 41.6 34.2 10.4 10.0 8.3 5.0 8.2 6.8 6.8 6.1 3.2 2.4 * 16.5 8.2 3.7 44.5 42.8 State County 69.3 80.3 45.3 60.5 11.0 14.6 36.6 51.2 10.9 9.6 5.3 13.9 7.8 11.8 6.7 8.3 2.4 3.9 16.5 * 4.3 13.8 45.6 52.8 Grade 12 State County 80.8 76.1 61.1 49.9 16.9 15.2 50.8 43.0 10.1 8.8 12.6 8.1 12.0 10.4 8.6 7.4 3.8 3.4 * 21.9 12.0 6.0 52.8 50.4 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 41.5 18.1 16.4 4.7 2.7 22.4 15.5 3.4 2.6 3.2 2.1 3.5 2.3 2.6 2.4 1.4 0.7 * 8.2 2.5 0.9 25.7 22.2 State County 41.3 60.5 17.7 23.1 3.4 4.1 16.2 27.0 2.9 2.2 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.9 2.8 2.2 0.7 1.1 8.2 * 1.1 3.5 23.6 29.7 Grade 12 State County 58.9 52.1 23.2 23.0 5.9 5.1 25.4 18.5 2.0 1.4 3.1 2.1 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.4 1.3 0.9 * 10.3 3.2 0.9 28.6 25.2 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 24.5 3.5 2.6 State County 25.1 33.0 2.6 7.3 Grade 12 State County 32.2 32.4 6.0 5.2 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 10.8 20.5 18.6 9.9 8.3 3.6 3.8 8.0 7.3 10.8 15.4 5.0 5.0 1.3 1.2 State County 12.3 7.5 20.8 24.4 8.9 10.2 4.4 1.7 9.1 7.3 16.5 8.3 5.9 3.5 1.5 0.6 Grade 12 State County 8.1 8.5 23.8 20.4 10.0 9.7 2.1 2.4 8.2 7.7 9.1 12.5 4.9 4.9 1.0 1.1 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 33.5 8.8 3.0 13.2 7.2 1.4 2.4 0.9 1.0 * 3.3 18.9 Grade 8 State County 34.4 24.5 9.1 9.3 4.0 1.7 14.3 8.7 6.5 5.3 1.5 1.3 2.6 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.2 0.6 * 5.0 3.6 0.8 19.9 16.1 State County 25.3 48.2 10.7 18.4 2.4 3.5 9.7 22.4 5.8 3.4 1.6 3.3 1.6 3.7 1.6 2.7 0.6 1.3 5.5 * 0.8 2.0 17.9 25.4 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 13.5 1.2 Grade 8 State County 14.1 15.2 1.2 0.7 State County 16.0 26.2 0.8 3.4 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 16.4 13.7 5.3 3.0 8.1 11.3 6.8 1.2 Grade 8 State County 18.1 17.3 15.4 12.2 5.7 4.5 3.3 4.5 9.1 7.3 11.6 17.0 6.7 5.8 1.4 1.5 State County 17.7 10.6 13.2 18.9 5.0 9.6 4.8 3.2 8.7 6.4 17.8 9.5 6.5 4.3 1.5 1.3 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 37.6 40.0 50.0 33.3 39.3 37.0 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 38.5 44.6 53.2 35.4 39.1 35.1 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 34.5 34.3 43.0 30.9 50.1 21.2 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 42.7 47.7 60.6 38.7 51.5 24.4 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 40.0 37.1 42.6 33.3 61.9 30.9 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 48.3 43.9 58.4 34.4 54.4 33.1 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 42.7 46.6 38.2 41.9 26.2 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 45.6 52.3 42.2 44.2 27.3 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 41.7 33.1 33.7 44.4 44.1 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 42.6 40.9 40.8 47.2 41.9 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 45.5 30.3 33.3 42.9 46.8 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 46.3 38.6 38.8 43.5 42.6 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 48.4 43.3 52.3 41.2 46.2 39.4 49.8 39.4 41.4 45.2 46.5 45.4 46.3 46.9 49.8 43.7 40.0 44.2 43.7 44.6 39.9 50.1 43.8 47.9 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 38.5 31.7 36.8 45.8 36.8 47.3 49.6 38.6 41.8 35.6 46.2 17.5 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 36.5 36.3 34.8 44.9 32.4 47.0 55.9 41.6 58.2 48.0 50.7 22.7 37.1 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 38.3 27.6 37.4 55.3 48.2 44.9 46.1 45.0 44.4 37.9 39.8 12.5 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 39.4 35.8 35.0 51.4 39.3 41.2 53.0 43.6 56.4 43.2 48.7 19.9 46.8 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 37.3 28.9 40.0 52.8 48.2 46.7 44.9 42.5 46.6 42.6 37.5 8.8 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 36.8 36.4 35.9 46.6 38.2 45.7 48.0 37.5 55.5 53.6 40.9 16.9 31.7 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 40.5 32.1 40.7 31.9 41.5 32.3 41.1 32.0 46.5 43.9 43.6 42.3 40.3 36.4 39.2 37.3 43.9 34.9 43.2 37.4 40.1 35.6 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 53.7 59.9 61.1 52.4 59.2 61.0 50.6 60.1 60.8 50.0 59.7 60.6 50.9 59.5 57.7 49.4 57.8 56.5 47.7 56.9 57.0 47.1 55.9 56.9 63.8 58.9 60.1 61.5 56.9 57.7 56.9 57.2 57.2 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 54.1 46.6 56.2 48.9 62.4 51.6 61.8 52.2 62.3 63.0 58.6 60.8 63.3 60.5 61.7 60.8 68.9 51.1 64.2 49.5 64.4 42.7 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 47.6 60.4 53.9 47.4 39.9 58.3 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 55.4 57.9 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 47.8 53.3 62.6 49.9 44.8 59.3 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 65.0 46.1 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 72.6 65.0 50.2 48.1 42.9 49.7 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 61.5 Belief in the Moral Order 51.1 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 79.8 12.1 4.9 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.1 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 95.0 3.3 1.0 0.1 0.6 89.9 5.6 2.8 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.7 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 95.2 1.8 1.3 0.3 1.4 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 74.1 13.9 7.7 2.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.0 84.1 8.8 3.8 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.2 89.5 5.8 2.8 0.7 1.1 94.2 2.7 1.4 0.4 1.3 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 88.8 6.4 3.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 91.0 4.1 3.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 98.3 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.2 95.6 0.6 0.8 0.1 2.9 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 85.0 8.7 4.5 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 87.3 6.7 3.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.1 93.4 3.6 1.7 0.4 0.8 95.8 1.5 0.9 0.3 1.5 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 94.5 3.0 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 95.1 2.5 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 97.7 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.7 94.7 1.3 0.4 0.8 2.8 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 90.6 5.6 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 90.2 4.7 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.7 95.2 2.4 1.4 0.5 0.6 95.8 1.1 0.8 0.4 1.9 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Mohave 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: Mohave 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 570 100 125 261 184 21.9 45.8 32.3 567 36.4 608 39.0 383 24.58 289 271 51.6 48.4 723 817 406 6 116 7 72.8 1.1 20.8 1.3 9* 1.6* 1558 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 1055 68.6 6198 51.8 19745 19 1.2 1237 10.3 2938 345 22.4 3630 30.3 13184 23 1.5 292 2.4 1503 11 0.7 812 258* 2.2* 13 0.845 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 46.9 53.1 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Mohave County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 125 3451 567 18812 261 4984 608 12558 184 3768 383 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 54.1 38.7 2.4 22.0 8.9 1.6 3.2 1.6 1.6 * 2.4 24.8 Grade 8 State County 56.9 55.5 39.6 32.9 6.8 6.6 26.6 23.8 11.9 12.5 2.4 1.5 4.5 2.0 2.9 2.6 1.9 1.1 * 11.1 5.5 1.7 33.2 35.2 State County 51.9 79.9 33.5 57.7 7.2 9.7 20.4 50.0 13.7 13.9 2.5 8.6 3.7 9.3 3.4 12.5 1.5 4.3 11.0 * 2.4 11.3 33.2 50.6 Grade 10 State County 72.3 77.8 49.8 48.7 10.2 10.2 41.6 42.1 10.4 12.8 8.3 6.0 8.2 6.3 6.8 6.5 3.2 1.2 * 19.8 8.2 3.3 44.5 51.4 State County 69.3 86.9 45.3 69.4 11.0 13.8 36.6 61.2 10.9 7.7 5.3 13.1 7.8 7.7 6.7 11.0 2.4 2.7 16.5 * 4.3 13.3 45.6 62.0 Grade 12 State County 80.8 85.8 61.1 56.0 16.9 14.3 50.8 49.2 10.1 13.2 12.6 8.7 12.0 14.0 8.6 10.6 3.8 1.6 * 23.9 12.0 7.5 52.8 55.9 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 48.2 18.1 18.1 4.7 1.5 22.4 16.0 3.4 2.9 3.2 2.2 3.5 1.5 2.6 3.3 1.4 0.7 * 10.1 2.5 0.7 25.7 24.2 State County 41.3 58.8 17.7 20.9 3.4 4.4 16.2 26.2 2.9 2.2 2.4 3.3 3.0 2.2 2.8 4.9 0.7 1.1 8.2 * 1.1 4.4 23.6 29.5 Grade 12 State County 58.9 55.9 23.2 29.7 5.9 3.2 25.4 21.0 2.0 2.6 3.1 2.4 4.0 4.0 2.2 3.2 1.3 0.8 * 14.4 3.2 0.8 28.6 28.5 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 27.9 3.5 5.0 State County 25.1 35.2 2.6 8.2 Grade 12 State County 32.2 33.7 6.0 6.2 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 12.9 20.5 21.9 9.9 9.0 3.6 3.6 8.0 8.8 10.8 16.4 5.0 3.5 1.3 1.2 State County 12.3 14.8 20.8 28.6 8.9 12.8 4.4 3.8 9.1 10.4 16.5 12.8 5.9 8.8 1.5 1.1 Grade 12 State County 8.1 10.6 23.8 23.7 10.0 13.5 2.1 3.2 8.2 12.4 9.1 14.2 4.9 5.0 1.0 1.1 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 25.6 5.8 0.8 8.3 3.3 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 * 1.7 12.0 Grade 8 State County 34.4 26.6 9.1 10.4 4.0 1.8 14.3 9.9 6.5 5.2 1.5 0.9 2.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.7 * 6.5 3.6 0.2 19.9 17.9 State County 25.3 52.3 10.7 19.1 2.4 3.9 9.7 27.3 5.8 3.5 1.6 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.6 3.9 0.6 1.6 5.5 * 0.8 3.2 17.9 31.0 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 7.5 0.8 Grade 8 State County 14.1 17.3 1.2 1.3 State County 16.0 28.9 0.8 6.6 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 9.8 9.1 4.1 2.5 5.7 8.9 3.3 0.0 Grade 8 State County 18.1 18.8 15.4 13.0 5.7 5.6 3.3 5.0 9.1 10.3 11.6 21.7 6.7 9.7 1.4 2.4 State County 17.7 18.4 13.2 28.0 5.0 9.8 4.8 5.1 8.7 14.8 17.8 13.0 6.5 6.6 1.5 1.6 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 40.5 24.8 43.3 34.5 36.6 36.0 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 50.2 46.2 56.9 38.0 46.1 40.7 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 52.0 52.8 67.4 44.1 52.4 26.9 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 56.2 58.6 69.2 50.3 59.7 26.3 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 58.0 49.2 67.2 39.9 60.1 34.5 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 57.8 48.3 62.6 40.6 60.7 39.3 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 36.2 41.2 41.0 30.5 26.1 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 45.2 54.9 48.0 46.7 31.7 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 46.5 40.5 47.2 46.4 50.2 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 49.1 44.2 55.5 51.9 49.8 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 52.0 34.7 46.3 45.1 49.4 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 48.9 40.3 51.3 52.9 52.1 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 54.1 46.7 52.3 41.2 53.1 49.9 49.8 39.4 57.0 45.8 46.5 45.4 51.5 50.6 49.8 43.7 48.3 45.6 43.7 44.6 49.3 54.5 43.8 47.9 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 28.7 26.0 37.4 38.7 32.3 44.1 41.3 37.2 39.3 33.3 37.3 14.0 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 40.0 41.8 39.4 51.5 36.5 52.1 61.6 46.4 62.6 50.0 57.1 25.8 41.0 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 44.5 46.7 49.8 53.1 49.4 48.8 54.7 51.6 40.9 26.1 50.4 10.9 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 40.2 41.1 45.1 51.0 44.1 44.9 60.2 47.6 57.1 47.1 51.9 22.9 51.1 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 48.9 47.0 51.4 58.2 51.4 58.3 53.6 35.9 52.2 33.0 43.3 11.0 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 38.2 42.6 45.8 50.9 42.5 49.6 55.6 42.8 58.9 51.6 48.8 18.3 37.0 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 50.5 36.4 40.7 31.9 45.1 25.8 41.1 32.0 30.0 32.5 43.6 42.3 39.2 30.9 39.2 37.3 39.7 35.2 43.2 37.4 30.1 24.3 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 61.3 62.8 66.1 52.4 59.2 61.0 47.6 57.5 57.5 50.0 59.7 60.6 44.1 53.0 51.4 49.4 57.8 56.5 42.6 52.6 54.0 47.1 55.9 56.9 49.4 51.5 50.9 61.5 56.9 57.7 51.9 54.9 55.3 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 54.2 49.2 56.2 48.9 54.0 43.5 61.8 52.2 54.1 61.5 58.6 60.8 52.9 55.8 61.7 60.8 59.7 46.4 64.2 49.5 48.6 36.4 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 34.6 54.3 50.7 39.5 34.8 51.9 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 48.6 61.3 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 29.8 49.9 58.9 44.7 38.6 55.3 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 56.4 38.8 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 60.2 60.4 45.9 37.5 27.3 41.1 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 64.2 Belief in the Moral Order 64.2 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 80.0 9.6 8.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 97.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 87.1 3.2 4.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 95.9 0.0 0.8 0.8 2.5 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 68.2 16.3 9.9 3.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.9 85.1 7.4 3.8 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 1.4 91.2 5.4 1.4 0.2 1.8 92.4 2.5 1.8 0.7 2.5 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 89.2 6.5 2.3 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 94.3 2.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.1 98.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.8 96.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 2.7 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 82.1 9.5 5.6 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.8 88.4 5.5 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.8 93.2 3.3 1.5 0.5 1.5 95.7 1.2 1.3 0.2 1.7 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 91.3 5.5 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 95.6 1.1 2.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 98.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 95.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 91.3 5.6 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 91.6 3.9 2.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 94.2 2.9 1.1 0.8 1.1 96.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 2.1 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Navajo 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: Navajo 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 476 100 97 254 125 20.4 53.4 26.3 449 32.1 512 36.6 438 31.31 220 250 46.8 53.2 652 732 214 211 28 4 45.5 44.9 6.0 0.9 3* 0.6* 1399 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 500 36.1 6198 51.8 19745 731 52.7 1237 10.3 2938 96 6.9 3630 30.3 13184 13 0.9 292 2.4 1503 4 0.3 812 258* 2.2* 5 0.361 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 47.1 52.9 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Navajo County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 97 3451 449 18812 254 4984 512 12558 125 3768 438 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 44.3 44.4 13.8 27.6 11.9 1.8 4.7 2.3 1.9 * 3.5 34.1 Grade 8 State County 56.9 42.9 39.6 45.6 6.8 18.0 26.6 27.0 11.9 13.2 2.4 4.3 4.5 6.2 2.9 4.8 1.9 2.8 * 13.7 5.5 3.5 33.2 41.0 State County 51.9 70.9 33.5 63.2 7.2 25.4 20.4 51.4 13.7 12.7 2.5 5.1 3.7 7.5 3.4 9.4 1.5 4.7 11.0 * 2.4 7.1 33.2 53.7 Grade 10 State County 72.3 65.0 49.8 57.4 10.2 19.1 41.6 45.7 10.4 12.9 8.3 7.1 8.2 12.2 6.8 11.6 3.2 2.6 * 9.6 8.2 6.6 44.5 52.4 State County 69.3 67.7 45.3 62.4 11.0 22.1 36.6 49.0 10.9 13.0 5.3 8.3 7.8 10.3 6.7 12.3 2.4 4.5 16.5 * 4.3 8.4 45.6 53.2 Grade 12 State County 80.8 75.1 61.1 70.1 16.9 28.2 50.8 60.9 10.1 12.0 12.6 9.7 12.0 16.4 8.6 14.7 3.8 1.4 * 15.6 12.0 4.9 52.8 65.2 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 35.1 18.1 23.8 4.7 6.4 22.4 21.7 3.4 2.4 3.2 3.8 3.5 4.4 2.6 4.4 1.4 0.0 * 4.2 2.5 0.6 25.7 28.0 State County 41.3 42.8 17.7 27.2 3.4 12.0 16.2 22.5 2.9 4.0 2.4 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.8 2.0 0.7 2.0 8.2 * 1.1 2.6 23.6 26.7 Grade 12 State County 58.9 40.9 23.2 29.6 5.9 7.9 25.4 24.9 2.0 1.4 3.1 2.5 4.0 3.9 2.2 6.1 1.3 0.2 * 5.8 3.2 1.2 28.6 29.4 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 25.2 3.5 0.8 State County 25.1 21.5 2.6 2.0 Grade 12 State County 32.2 26.6 6.0 4.0 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 13.8 20.5 32.3 9.9 10.9 3.6 4.9 8.0 11.3 10.8 18.7 5.0 7.9 1.3 1.0 State County 12.3 14.9 20.8 25.5 8.9 9.7 4.4 5.9 9.1 9.8 16.5 12.0 5.9 12.3 1.5 4.6 Grade 12 State County 8.1 14.3 23.8 32.4 10.0 12.1 2.1 3.0 8.2 11.3 9.1 17.5 4.9 7.9 1.0 1.4 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 24.5 12.9 7.7 14.7 4.6 1.1 2.8 1.0 1.5 * 1.8 20.1 Grade 8 State County 34.4 19.8 9.1 17.7 4.0 6.1 14.3 14.8 6.5 5.5 1.5 3.0 2.6 3.0 1.0 1.8 1.2 1.1 * 5.5 3.6 1.4 19.9 23.0 State County 25.3 36.1 10.7 25.5 2.4 15.7 9.7 26.8 5.8 3.2 1.6 3.2 1.6 2.8 1.6 2.8 0.6 3.2 5.5 * 0.8 1.6 17.9 30.6 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 11.8 2.5 Grade 8 State County 14.1 17.7 1.2 0.9 State County 16.0 23.4 0.8 2.4 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 15.3 14.9 4.2 2.9 7.5 11.0 6.1 1.4 Grade 8 State County 18.1 15.4 15.4 20.2 5.7 8.2 3.3 5.0 9.1 10.2 11.6 16.1 6.7 8.6 1.4 1.6 State County 17.7 20.4 13.2 30.0 5.0 10.6 4.8 5.9 8.7 14.5 17.8 17.4 6.5 9.5 1.5 2.0 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 42.5 36.1 39.6 30.1 34.1 41.1 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 41.5 44.7 44.8 33.1 39.4 33.3 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 49.4 52.4 47.3 42.3 32.7 35.1 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 52.1 63.0 48.4 49.2 49.2 31.0 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 49.7 51.7 54.2 28.1 38.9 34.7 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 52.5 57.9 45.5 39.3 49.3 35.2 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 40.6 38.6 44.3 36.5 20.3 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 43.6 48.5 53.7 39.1 18.6 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 43.1 40.8 47.5 42.9 37.6 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 42.2 39.3 57.9 47.0 34.9 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 41.5 29.8 39.2 37.8 34.3 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 35.5 34.6 53.3 41.9 33.9 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 52.4 38.7 52.3 41.2 53.6 37.0 49.8 39.4 51.0 40.3 46.5 45.4 57.1 37.6 49.8 43.7 54.2 33.8 43.7 44.6 47.3 33.3 43.8 47.9 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 32.5 28.9 37.2 40.6 29.9 42.2 49.0 40.0 36.9 32.8 52.3 20.2 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 31.8 37.4 42.4 47.6 30.9 42.8 58.6 44.7 55.8 46.5 55.3 26.1 31.6 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 49.6 46.7 47.2 52.4 40.9 42.5 53.9 43.0 43.7 30.9 55.1 30.2 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 42.4 41.7 48.3 52.1 39.8 37.2 63.1 51.0 49.2 38.0 56.6 31.8 48.2 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 45.5 46.1 38.9 47.4 30.1 36.7 50.0 32.7 44.5 24.2 45.0 23.9 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 34.5 47.4 53.2 48.0 33.1 37.8 63.3 40.4 48.1 50.9 48.2 29.3 33.2 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 46.7 37.9 40.7 31.9 45.8 42.1 41.1 32.0 37.1 45.5 43.6 42.3 37.8 52.2 39.2 37.3 40.4 52.1 43.2 37.4 40.8 55.1 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 57.3 62.4 63.5 52.4 59.2 61.0 54.3 60.7 66.0 50.0 59.7 60.6 44.7 51.5 52.0 49.4 57.8 56.5 47.0 53.3 57.1 47.1 55.9 56.9 62.1 54.2 51.8 61.5 56.9 57.7 62.3 57.2 63.4 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 64.6 58.2 56.2 48.9 61.2 51.0 61.8 52.2 47.6 50.8 58.6 60.8 61.1 55.2 61.7 60.8 53.5 41.0 64.2 49.5 61.9 45.2 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 53.0 60.0 60.0 49.4 45.4 61.8 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 49.0 59.0 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 49.0 49.7 65.3 50.1 42.6 60.7 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 69.1 50.0 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 79.2 63.7 55.4 54.3 42.0 53.5 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 66.5 Belief in the Moral Order 59.2 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 76.2 13.3 6.8 2.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.8 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 93.7 3.0 2.4 0.3 0.6 90.4 4.9 2.4 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.3 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 92.3 1.9 2.1 1.0 2.7 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 69.5 16.0 9.0 2.3 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.4 83.4 7.5 5.2 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.4 84.6 7.3 5.0 1.1 2.0 90.6 4.8 1.4 0.7 2.5 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 84.0 9.0 4.7 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.8 85.9 8.2 3.1 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.8 93.7 3.1 1.2 0.8 1.2 90.6 2.4 1.2 0.8 5.1 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 82.4 9.7 5.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 89.1 4.7 3.2 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.4 89.7 4.8 3.0 0.8 1.8 92.1 3.4 1.6 0.2 2.8 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 89.1 6.4 2.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 93.0 3.2 1.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 93.6 1.3 2.5 0.0 2.5 80.3 1.3 3.2 0.0 15.3 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 89.2 6.4 3.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 88.8 5.3 4.1 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.2 93.3 2.8 2.5 0.7 0.7 90.6 2.1 1.6 0.5 5.3 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Pima 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: Pima 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 1326 100 5430 212 655 459 16.0 49.4 34.6 2250 41.4 1797 33.1 1383 25.47 612 688 47.1 52.9 2489 2864 805 28 354 34 62.5 2.2 27.5 2.6 30* 2.3* 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 2554 47.9 6198 51.8 19745 104 1.9 1237 10.3 2938 2072 38.8 3630 30.3 13184 176 3.3 292 2.4 1503 114 2.1 812 258* 2.2* 39 0.731 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 46.5 53.5 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Pima County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 212 3451 2250 18812 655 4984 1797 12558 459 3768 1383 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 69.7 40.9 6.7 37.3 10.3 1.6 5.5 3.6 2.0 * 7.5 43.5 Grade 8 State County 56.9 55.4 39.6 35.5 6.8 6.0 26.6 22.9 11.9 16.8 2.4 2.2 4.5 3.6 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.7 * 13.1 5.5 2.9 33.2 36.8 State County 51.9 72.8 33.5 48.4 7.2 10.9 20.4 44.0 13.7 8.6 2.5 11.2 3.7 9.9 3.4 7.0 1.5 4.4 11.0 * 2.4 8.2 33.2 45.5 Grade 10 State County 72.3 68.8 49.8 40.7 10.2 6.1 41.6 36.3 10.4 10.1 8.3 4.3 8.2 8.5 6.8 5.8 3.2 2.7 * 17.8 8.2 4.7 44.5 45.9 State County 69.3 81.9 45.3 58.9 11.0 16.4 36.6 50.6 10.9 9.4 5.3 13.5 7.8 13.9 6.7 8.2 2.4 4.7 16.5 * 4.3 9.2 45.6 53.1 Grade 12 State County 80.8 77.0 61.1 49.1 16.9 12.4 50.8 45.6 10.1 5.9 12.6 7.2 12.0 10.1 8.6 6.0 3.8 2.9 * 17.9 12.0 5.3 52.8 52.2 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 38.0 18.1 13.8 4.7 2.1 22.4 16.4 3.4 3.1 3.2 2.2 3.5 3.6 2.6 2.7 1.4 0.9 * 8.4 2.5 1.1 25.7 24.4 State County 41.3 58.8 17.7 27.1 3.4 7.2 16.2 23.8 2.9 1.8 2.4 3.7 3.0 5.1 2.8 1.8 0.7 1.9 8.2 * 1.1 2.7 23.6 29.1 Grade 12 State County 58.9 48.4 23.2 18.3 5.9 3.6 25.4 17.9 2.0 1.3 3.1 1.5 4.0 3.5 2.2 2.4 1.3 0.5 * 7.0 3.2 0.9 28.6 23.7 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 22.5 3.5 1.4 State County 25.1 30.7 2.6 5.4 Grade 12 State County 32.2 29.4 6.0 3.2 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 12.0 20.5 20.4 9.9 10.1 3.6 4.4 8.0 9.7 10.8 15.3 5.0 6.3 1.3 2.0 State County 12.3 6.2 20.8 23.9 8.9 10.5 4.4 1.9 9.1 9.4 16.5 10.8 5.9 5.3 1.5 1.2 Grade 12 State County 8.1 8.3 23.8 20.9 10.0 9.4 2.1 2.3 8.2 9.0 9.1 12.6 4.9 5.0 1.0 1.0 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 41.6 8.4 3.8 18.9 5.9 0.8 3.0 0.9 1.3 * 5.2 24.4 Grade 8 State County 34.4 27.7 9.1 9.9 4.0 1.8 14.3 11.2 6.5 7.5 1.5 1.3 2.6 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.2 0.5 * 7.0 3.6 0.8 19.9 21.2 State County 25.3 49.6 10.7 17.0 2.4 4.2 9.7 24.1 5.8 2.8 1.6 3.8 1.6 3.6 1.6 2.8 0.6 1.6 5.5 * 0.8 2.8 17.9 27.1 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 16.0 0.8 Grade 8 State County 14.1 16.6 1.2 0.8 State County 16.0 25.0 0.8 3.0 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 27.9 22.8 6.4 3.6 9.6 14.6 7.2 2.0 Grade 8 State County 18.1 17.5 15.4 14.6 5.7 6.5 3.3 5.1 9.1 10.4 11.6 20.1 6.7 7.7 1.4 1.2 State County 17.7 11.1 13.2 23.0 5.0 13.2 4.8 3.9 8.7 8.9 17.8 11.5 6.5 4.8 1.5 0.7 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 36.3 56.5 49.3 36.3 42.9 35.7 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 41.4 50.4 52.6 42.6 44.6 41.0 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 43.6 44.1 51.4 44.9 53.4 27.7 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 46.4 58.5 53.1 45.4 51.9 27.5 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 48.6 34.0 46.9 30.8 63.9 31.0 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 51.1 52.5 53.2 39.0 55.9 33.9 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 44.9 67.3 51.0 38.8 28.6 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 45.2 53.1 49.1 48.5 29.6 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 40.7 36.6 43.2 45.5 50.2 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 44.1 42.6 44.5 48.0 41.5 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 53.2 35.0 35.8 40.3 43.9 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 46.9 38.9 41.0 43.0 43.5 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 62.4 39.8 52.3 41.2 54.8 41.1 49.8 39.4 51.7 48.3 46.5 45.4 49.4 43.6 49.8 43.7 45.2 52.8 43.7 44.6 46.7 48.7 43.8 47.9 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 49.2 45.3 50.0 49.8 40.3 50.9 65.6 50.0 44.4 49.8 48.8 32.1 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 39.6 42.2 41.0 48.2 37.3 52.7 60.9 48.4 60.4 54.0 53.3 28.8 42.7 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 40.8 33.8 40.0 53.7 48.9 51.1 50.6 44.8 46.1 33.2 46.4 10.4 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 39.2 40.9 35.2 49.9 38.3 40.2 56.6 40.6 54.3 42.6 48.5 19.3 46.3 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 38.0 35.0 40.5 60.9 50.8 57.3 49.8 42.7 47.1 40.6 40.4 11.5 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 34.8 39.7 37.6 44.9 35.8 45.5 51.7 36.9 53.5 52.3 42.4 17.1 30.1 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 36.4 24.1 40.7 31.9 36.5 28.8 41.1 32.0 37.1 36.1 43.6 42.3 36.8 33.3 39.2 37.3 40.5 32.7 43.2 37.4 36.0 30.2 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 51.0 55.1 53.1 52.4 59.2 61.0 51.2 60.2 63.0 50.0 59.7 60.6 47.7 54.2 55.6 49.4 57.8 56.5 47.1 55.9 57.0 47.1 55.9 56.9 55.7 48.2 49.4 61.5 56.9 57.7 56.7 55.5 55.4 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 59.4 51.0 56.2 48.9 62.3 54.0 61.8 52.2 55.3 58.3 58.6 60.8 65.6 64.4 61.7 60.8 54.9 44.3 64.2 49.5 62.5 44.8 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 44.6 58.2 52.9 44.0 39.1 58.8 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 52.8 62.0 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 44.8 53.0 64.0 51.3 45.9 61.9 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 59.6 43.4 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 70.3 66.2 51.3 48.9 45.6 55.3 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 55.1 Belief in the Moral Order 38.6 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 74.6 14.6 8.1 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 93.4 3.9 1.2 0.4 1.2 89.1 7.0 2.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 94.6 2.3 0.0 1.2 1.9 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 68.8 15.2 10.2 2.7 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.5 82.0 9.6 4.5 1.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.6 87.9 6.7 3.4 0.7 1.3 93.8 3.1 1.8 0.3 1.1 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 87.6 8.4 2.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 90.8 3.7 3.0 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.2 97.3 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 93.8 1.2 1.7 0.6 2.7 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 84.4 8.8 3.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 1.0 87.0 7.4 3.0 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 93.5 2.8 1.6 1.0 1.2 94.1 1.9 1.2 0.4 2.4 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 94.5 2.6 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 93.1 2.4 1.8 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.2 98.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 93.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 4.7 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 92.2 4.3 2.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 90.9 4.6 2.3 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.6 95.1 2.8 1.4 0.3 0.4 95.3 1.4 0.6 0.3 2.5 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Pinal 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: Pinal 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 521 100 118 327 76 22.6 62.8 14.6 574 35.5 650 40.2 392 24.26 261 250 51.1 48.9 703 894 44.0 56.0 341 16 119 17 67.1 3.1 23.4 3.3 687 152 580 65 13 6 6* 1.2* 1616 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 43.5 6198 51.8 19745 9.6 1237 10.3 2938 36.7 3630 30.3 13184 4.1 292 2.4 1503 0.8 812 258* 2.2* 0.38 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Pinal County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 118 3451 574 18812 327 4984 650 12558 76 3768 392 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 62.3 48.4 8.2 30.6 14.8 3.1 5.4 4.2 3.2 * 5.3 37.7 Grade 8 State County 56.9 58.4 39.6 43.2 6.8 10.9 26.6 29.0 11.9 18.3 2.4 5.1 4.5 7.7 2.9 7.7 1.9 2.4 * 12.7 5.5 3.3 33.2 42.2 State County 51.9 79.5 33.5 60.0 7.2 14.3 20.4 53.7 13.7 13.5 2.5 8.7 3.7 9.9 3.4 11.5 1.5 4.5 11.0 * 2.4 13.1 33.2 57.2 Grade 10 State County 72.3 70.4 49.8 51.8 10.2 10.5 41.6 45.4 10.4 16.0 8.3 7.1 8.2 11.0 6.8 8.6 3.2 3.2 * 16.5 8.2 5.0 44.5 52.0 State County 69.3 83.8 45.3 69.8 11.0 16.0 36.6 56.3 10.9 15.4 5.3 14.1 7.8 20.8 6.7 15.5 2.4 5.6 16.5 * 4.3 8.1 45.6 60.1 Grade 12 State County 80.8 77.6 61.1 56.8 16.9 16.1 50.8 50.8 10.1 12.1 12.6 7.0 12.0 12.5 8.6 11.3 3.8 4.2 * 16.4 12.0 6.6 52.8 56.1 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 43.1 18.1 20.8 4.7 3.3 22.4 20.7 3.4 4.5 3.2 4.0 3.5 4.2 2.6 3.8 1.4 1.1 * 9.1 2.5 1.6 25.7 26.4 State County 41.3 55.6 17.7 23.9 3.4 5.0 16.2 29.3 2.9 2.5 2.4 3.8 3.0 7.0 2.8 4.4 0.7 3.2 8.2 * 1.1 2.5 23.6 35.5 Grade 12 State County 58.9 46.9 23.2 23.5 5.9 5.3 25.4 20.7 2.0 1.3 3.1 2.9 4.0 3.2 2.2 4.7 1.3 0.8 * 8.8 3.2 1.3 28.6 27.0 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 27.1 3.5 4.6 State County 25.1 34.6 2.6 11.3 Grade 12 State County 32.2 27.9 6.0 5.6 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 18.0 20.5 25.4 9.9 12.6 3.6 6.8 8.0 10.8 10.8 22.5 5.0 8.0 1.3 2.5 State County 12.3 14.4 20.8 24.4 8.9 11.8 4.4 5.7 9.1 14.4 16.5 15.2 5.9 10.1 1.5 2.5 Grade 12 State County 8.1 10.8 23.8 23.7 10.0 9.5 2.1 4.1 8.2 9.7 9.1 16.2 4.9 6.7 1.0 2.3 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 42.4 11.8 5.5 16.3 6.7 2.2 3.5 1.7 2.1 * 3.3 23.3 Grade 8 State County 34.4 29.4 9.1 15.6 4.0 3.1 14.3 15.6 6.5 7.1 1.5 4.9 2.6 2.7 1.0 5.1 1.2 0.9 * 5.8 3.6 1.3 19.9 23.9 State County 25.3 51.5 10.7 20.8 2.4 7.1 9.7 26.6 5.8 4.8 1.6 4.1 1.6 5.0 1.6 5.7 0.6 1.6 5.5 * 0.8 4.8 17.9 32.2 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 17.9 1.9 Grade 8 State County 14.1 18.6 1.2 1.5 State County 16.0 29.5 0.8 6.4 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 20.4 18.2 5.6 5.5 11.1 13.4 6.2 1.1 Grade 8 State County 18.1 23.1 15.4 19.5 5.7 4.6 3.3 6.7 9.1 15.3 11.6 22.2 6.7 6.7 1.4 2.0 State County 17.7 18.7 13.2 30.5 5.0 12.1 4.8 6.8 8.7 11.5 17.8 15.9 6.5 8.4 1.5 2.0 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 41.8 53.3 50.7 43.5 41.8 39.1 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 45.8 58.6 60.8 46.8 43.6 39.1 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 52.2 62.0 56.4 54.0 57.0 37.4 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 52.7 67.8 59.9 52.4 55.7 31.3 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 61.5 65.2 50.3 51.6 65.0 44.9 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 59.5 69.5 56.9 48.9 59.4 41.3 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 53.6 48.2 50.5 46.5 32.8 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 51.5 56.4 59.0 46.7 32.4 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 52.8 39.0 54.3 48.6 48.1 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 46.4 43.1 54.1 46.8 39.9 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 52.3 36.2 52.5 52.9 46.8 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 43.1 38.4 49.1 40.9 42.0 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 54.1 42.2 52.3 41.2 59.9 44.3 49.8 39.4 57.0 49.4 46.5 45.4 52.3 42.1 49.8 43.7 55.8 44.7 43.7 44.6 41.4 45.0 43.8 47.9 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 43.4 39.2 46.8 48.2 41.4 55.7 59.1 50.0 41.3 41.2 55.4 27.6 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 40.2 47.5 51.0 50.3 40.3 56.8 69.6 56.2 60.7 55.3 56.2 34.2 46.9 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 49.8 45.4 53.6 57.2 54.0 54.0 62.0 55.4 48.2 32.2 51.7 21.0 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 42.0 47.0 45.6 51.4 40.8 44.5 63.0 50.3 54.5 43.5 52.2 30.9 48.6 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 46.9 48.1 51.2 51.2 45.1 53.2 64.2 44.7 46.9 37.1 53.1 22.4 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 39.9 41.8 47.6 40.1 32.1 40.5 60.3 39.2 55.3 47.4 45.5 30.1 34.4 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 33.4 31.6 40.7 31.9 38.9 31.0 41.1 32.0 33.6 38.2 43.6 42.3 31.8 36.2 39.2 37.3 19.6 33.3 43.2 37.4 31.3 34.7 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 44.2 51.2 54.5 52.4 59.2 61.0 43.9 54.1 52.5 50.0 59.7 60.6 40.3 51.2 48.6 49.4 57.8 56.5 43.6 52.4 55.2 47.1 55.9 56.9 48.7 47.1 42.1 61.5 56.9 57.7 54.2 54.2 52.7 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 57.4 48.7 56.2 48.9 59.2 53.4 61.8 52.2 45.6 49.5 58.6 60.8 54.4 51.5 61.7 60.8 50.0 46.9 64.2 49.5 53.5 41.3 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 42.8 50.1 47.2 42.8 35.8 57.3 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 41.6 49.5 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 42.2 49.4 58.8 45.2 38.5 55.5 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 52.8 40.0 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 73.6 60.8 49.2 48.6 32.9 49.5 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 55.1 Belief in the Moral Order 49.2 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 75.9 13.1 7.8 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.8 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 95.3 2.5 1.5 0.4 0.3 84.8 7.7 4.2 1.2 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.0 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 93.7 3.4 1.1 0.4 1.4 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 68.8 16.4 9.5 1.8 0.7 1.1 0.4 1.4 80.8 9.1 6.1 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.0 2.0 88.3 5.9 3.4 0.5 2.0 93.8 2.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 82.1 9.8 6.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 89.3 2.7 3.3 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.4 2.2 97.1 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.7 88.4 4.2 2.0 0.7 4.7 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 80.1 10.0 6.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.9 83.8 7.3 4.7 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 89.0 5.8 2.4 0.9 1.9 93.1 2.4 1.9 0.6 2.0 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 90.2 6.7 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.7 4.3 3.7 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 95.7 1.2 0.6 1.2 1.2 90.7 1.9 0.6 0.0 6.8 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 89.4 5.9 3.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 87.8 5.7 4.7 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.8 93.3 2.8 2.3 0.8 0.8 95.0 1.6 1.0 0.5 1.8 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Santa Cruz 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: Santa Cruz 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 409 100 161 142 106 39.4 34.7 25.9 509 38.3 444 33.4 375 28.24 196 198 49.7 50.3 675 641 27 2 360 2 6.8 0.5 90.2 0.5 2* 0.5* 1328 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 64 4.8 6198 51.8 19745 5 0.4 1237 10.3 2938 1211 91.7 3630 30.3 13184 6 0.5 292 2.4 1503 2 0.2 812 258* 2.2* 4 0.303 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 51.3 48.7 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Santa Cruz County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 161 3451 509 18812 142 4984 444 12558 106 3768 375 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 51.0 34.0 4.4 8.9 10.1 1.9 1.9 3.8 1.3 * 2.0 18.0 Grade 8 State County 56.9 59.2 39.6 36.6 6.8 8.0 26.6 12.5 11.9 14.7 2.4 2.4 4.5 3.9 2.9 3.9 1.9 1.0 * 11.9 5.5 2.1 33.2 30.5 State County 51.9 81.3 33.5 61.9 7.2 8.5 20.4 25.2 13.7 11.3 2.5 1.4 3.7 7.2 3.4 2.8 1.5 2.8 11.0 * 2.4 4.3 33.2 30.3 Grade 10 State County 72.3 80.2 49.8 62.3 10.2 14.3 41.6 30.7 10.4 13.1 8.3 5.7 8.2 10.5 6.8 6.4 3.2 1.4 * 14.5 8.2 5.1 44.5 42.5 State County 69.3 84.8 45.3 69.2 11.0 8.6 36.6 47.6 10.9 3.8 5.3 12.3 7.8 24.8 6.7 6.7 2.4 1.9 16.5 * 4.3 8.5 45.6 50.9 Grade 12 State County 80.8 87.6 61.1 68.3 16.9 13.4 50.8 34.8 10.1 6.2 12.6 3.3 12.0 13.6 8.6 3.0 3.8 1.9 * 15.2 12.0 4.9 52.8 42.4 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 50.9 18.1 30.6 4.7 4.5 22.4 11.3 3.4 4.5 3.2 2.3 3.5 5.9 2.6 2.1 1.4 0.7 * 7.3 2.5 0.9 25.7 20.5 State County 41.3 63.3 17.7 23.5 3.4 4.1 16.2 22.4 2.9 1.0 2.4 2.0 3.0 9.2 2.8 2.0 0.7 1.0 8.2 * 1.1 3.1 23.6 24.5 Grade 12 State County 58.9 60.5 23.2 35.5 5.9 6.3 25.4 13.4 2.0 1.9 3.1 3.0 4.0 7.4 2.2 2.2 1.3 0.8 * 8.4 3.2 1.9 28.6 20.8 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 34.6 3.5 2.8 State County 25.1 36.7 2.6 1.0 Grade 12 State County 32.2 43.6 6.0 2.8 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 14.4 20.5 17.7 9.9 8.2 3.6 4.3 8.0 8.9 10.8 14.4 5.0 7.8 1.3 1.1 State County 12.3 13.0 20.8 19.0 8.9 12.0 4.4 1.0 9.1 11.0 16.5 9.0 5.9 6.0 1.5 0.0 Grade 12 State County 8.1 15.3 23.8 19.5 10.0 7.3 2.1 1.6 8.2 9.9 9.1 12.1 4.9 4.0 1.0 0.8 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 33.6 12.9 4.3 5.7 5.8 2.9 2.2 2.9 1.4 * 1.5 11.8 Grade 8 State County 34.4 25.4 9.1 14.1 4.0 2.5 14.3 5.6 6.5 5.5 1.5 1.6 2.6 1.8 1.0 2.5 1.2 0.6 * 7.3 3.6 1.2 19.9 17.4 State County 25.3 51.5 10.7 16.3 2.4 5.9 9.7 11.9 5.8 5.2 1.6 0.7 1.6 2.3 1.6 0.7 0.6 2.2 5.5 * 0.8 2.2 17.9 17.3 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 15.9 1.4 Grade 8 State County 14.1 17.7 1.2 0.9 State County 16.0 29.6 0.8 1.5 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 17.2 3.8 1.9 3.8 5.1 7.7 5.1 1.3 Grade 8 State County 18.1 23.9 15.4 11.9 5.7 5.1 3.3 6.3 9.1 9.2 11.6 16.4 6.7 7.8 1.4 1.8 State County 17.7 9.6 13.2 12.5 5.0 7.3 4.8 3.7 8.7 5.2 17.8 11.9 6.5 7.3 1.5 4.4 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 36.4 36.7 31.7 30.8 20.7 25.7 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 43.2 47.2 46.5 39.3 39.1 34.7 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 50.4 50.8 34.1 39.8 47.3 25.4 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 47.4 54.8 48.3 44.8 56.7 22.1 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 41.7 33.3 43.8 32.0 53.1 21.9 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 46.2 49.4 43.9 35.1 60.5 29.9 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 40.7 43.2 29.8 30.6 19.0 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 49.1 54.2 44.8 50.0 27.6 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 41.2 31.1 36.2 50.4 45.7 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 38.9 34.6 47.2 47.5 41.9 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 38.5 30.2 37.5 43.8 43.2 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 34.8 37.7 41.6 45.6 44.9 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 47.3 23.9 52.3 41.2 56.4 33.6 49.8 39.4 63.0 38.6 46.5 45.4 60.4 32.7 49.8 43.7 51.5 23.8 43.7 44.6 57.5 37.1 43.8 47.9 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 34.8 25.9 28.9 31.2 29.9 42.8 40.9 24.2 35.3 30.5 49.7 18.5 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 46.4 40.0 38.0 46.5 34.3 42.9 67.9 42.9 58.8 47.0 56.2 36.1 42.5 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 52.5 26.4 35.3 57.9 43.2 41.7 52.5 40.7 47.4 25.0 52.2 22.6 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 36.1 35.9 38.0 55.1 43.5 39.5 62.9 51.9 48.4 41.4 57.5 34.1 49.4 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 32.7 40.4 40.0 50.9 41.5 36.7 62.9 48.6 52.9 27.3 41.4 13.9 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 35.4 40.9 34.1 48.5 34.0 35.1 59.5 41.8 49.1 56.4 45.4 17.1 29.6 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 42.1 40.8 40.7 31.9 40.0 29.2 41.1 32.0 32.3 32.8 43.6 42.3 32.8 36.8 39.2 37.3 34.4 45.8 43.2 37.4 40.8 36.1 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 50.0 57.6 58.5 52.4 59.2 61.0 49.3 61.1 58.3 50.0 59.7 60.6 51.6 64.6 57.7 49.4 57.8 56.5 50.9 57.1 61.5 47.1 55.9 56.9 63.5 59.4 59.4 61.5 56.9 57.7 62.9 70.8 64.3 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 55.7 61.4 56.2 48.9 55.9 53.0 61.8 52.2 49.6 46.8 58.6 60.8 55.7 60.1 61.7 60.8 65.1 51.9 64.2 49.5 60.4 44.0 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 54.9 60.2 49.5 51.4 37.2 63.7 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 49.6 53.6 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 52.4 48.9 61.3 50.7 35.6 62.0 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 68.7 47.1 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 84.9 65.8 52.7 54.9 36.5 56.9 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 65.1 Belief in the Moral Order 53.2 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 80.4 12.0 5.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 92.9 5.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 92.5 4.4 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 96.2 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 65.1 18.0 9.4 4.2 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.0 80.5 11.8 3.8 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 85.0 8.6 3.6 1.4 1.4 92.2 3.6 1.6 0.8 1.8 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 84.4 10.6 2.1 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 87.9 7.1 3.5 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 95.0 3.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 95.0 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.0 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 77.7 12.6 7.7 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 84.6 6.6 5.7 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 88.9 5.7 3.2 0.5 1.8 92.5 1.8 2.5 0.9 2.3 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 90.6 4.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 94.3 0.0 2.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 97.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 86.4 9.3 2.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.5 89.0 7.5 2.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 94.9 2.2 1.3 0.8 0.8 97.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.8 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Yavapai 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: Yavapai 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 426 100 746 228 134 64 53.5 31.5 15.0 467 62.6 146 19.6 133 17.83 189 224 45.8 54.2 364 370 330 15 39 8 79.3 3.6 9.4 1.9 5* 1.2* 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 560 77.1 6198 51.8 19745 39 5.4 1237 10.3 2938 95 13.1 3630 30.3 13184 4 0.6 292 2.4 1503 3 0.4 812 258* 2.2* 2 0.275 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 49.6 50.4 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Yavapai County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 228 3451 467 18812 134 4984 146 12558 64 3768 133 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 63.9 45.5 9.5 26.8 14.5 5.0 5.5 4.9 2.1 * 5.0 37.8 Grade 8 State County 56.9 57.5 39.6 36.5 6.8 10.9 26.6 20.2 11.9 13.8 2.4 2.0 4.5 2.0 2.9 3.3 1.9 1.3 * 10.7 5.5 1.1 33.2 31.7 State County 51.9 76.8 33.5 54.4 7.2 11.1 20.4 45.0 13.7 10.4 2.5 9.3 3.7 13.5 3.4 9.3 1.5 3.7 11.0 * 2.4 10.6 33.2 48.8 Grade 10 State County 72.3 77.2 49.8 61.5 10.2 21.1 41.6 43.0 10.4 13.6 8.3 6.5 8.2 12.0 6.8 11.3 3.2 3.6 * 24.3 8.2 3.6 44.5 54.3 State County 69.3 83.9 45.3 64.6 11.0 20.8 36.6 50.5 10.9 15.6 5.3 6.3 7.8 13.5 6.7 9.5 2.4 2.1 16.5 * 4.3 14.7 45.6 54.6 Grade 12 State County 80.8 77.3 61.1 69.7 16.9 22.7 50.8 51.1 10.1 17.8 12.6 10.9 12.0 16.9 8.6 18.2 3.8 3.8 * 24.6 12.0 9.8 52.8 58.9 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 49.0 18.1 23.0 4.7 4.9 22.4 19.1 3.4 5.6 3.2 2.9 3.5 4.3 2.6 5.0 1.4 0.7 * 13.7 2.5 0.7 25.7 31.1 State County 41.3 57.8 17.7 21.4 3.4 7.1 16.2 27.7 2.9 0.0 2.4 1.2 3.0 3.6 2.8 1.2 0.7 2.5 8.2 * 1.1 2.4 23.6 29.6 Grade 12 State County 58.9 49.6 23.2 38.5 5.9 6.8 25.4 17.7 2.0 0.8 3.1 2.3 4.0 4.6 2.2 4.6 1.3 0.8 * 10.8 3.2 0.8 28.6 24.8 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 29.7 3.5 8.1 State County 25.1 31.3 2.6 3.6 Grade 12 State County 32.2 30.8 6.0 15.5 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 23.4 20.5 23.1 9.9 10.5 3.6 6.9 8.0 14.7 10.8 22.1 5.0 11.2 1.3 2.2 State County 12.3 12.2 20.8 23.3 8.9 12.4 4.4 2.2 9.1 11.1 16.5 12.4 5.9 6.7 1.5 0.0 Grade 12 State County 8.1 7.6 23.8 18.6 10.0 9.2 2.1 3.8 8.2 12.2 9.1 12.4 4.9 9.2 1.0 0.8 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 37.5 13.6 5.7 15.9 6.0 3.8 3.5 2.5 1.6 * 3.5 21.8 Grade 8 State County 34.4 26.8 9.1 9.3 4.0 2.6 14.3 6.1 6.5 6.6 1.5 0.9 2.6 0.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.7 * 4.4 3.6 0.4 19.9 15.6 State County 25.3 54.3 10.7 19.6 2.4 4.6 9.7 24.5 5.8 4.0 1.6 4.7 1.6 6.6 1.6 3.3 0.6 2.0 5.5 * 0.8 6.1 17.9 30.6 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 17.7 1.6 Grade 8 State County 14.1 13.0 1.2 0.9 State County 16.0 34.6 0.8 5.9 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 16.9 14.5 6.2 5.6 11.7 14.3 7.7 1.8 Grade 8 State County 18.1 15.3 15.4 11.2 5.7 2.2 3.3 3.7 9.1 9.1 11.6 15.2 6.7 8.2 1.4 0.4 State County 17.7 17.2 13.2 18.5 5.0 9.6 4.8 3.2 8.7 11.5 17.8 11.7 6.5 6.5 1.5 1.9 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 42.2 34.6 50.3 42.4 41.1 46.4 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 46.6 42.5 57.7 40.0 42.7 50.2 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 46.8 45.8 51.8 45.4 56.9 27.8 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 66.7 58.1 71.0 62.8 57.8 44.4 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 50.6 44.3 54.4 38.5 66.7 44.3 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 54.8 58.4 64.8 49.2 56.6 51.6 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 46.0 53.7 48.1 46.7 33.4 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 40.1 47.3 50.5 50.7 32.1 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 36.8 33.1 50.7 42.6 47.5 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 49.6 43.9 66.7 58.2 52.1 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 38.8 31.3 41.8 53.2 54.4 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 45.8 47.9 57.5 52.4 56.5 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 52.1 50.0 52.3 41.2 56.1 44.5 49.8 39.4 55.7 57.1 46.5 45.4 62.0 51.4 49.8 43.7 41.1 50.0 43.7 44.6 40.6 47.7 43.8 47.9 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 38.7 33.2 44.5 47.5 39.6 46.2 50.3 41.7 42.3 38.8 53.5 17.1 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 32.5 39.0 43.8 44.8 31.7 51.0 56.5 46.1 60.7 47.5 49.3 13.9 37.1 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 48.4 33.1 50.3 55.3 54.0 43.0 54.3 52.5 44.0 32.9 49.0 14.4 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 46.0 52.4 50.7 54.5 48.3 48.9 68.1 47.6 61.1 43.7 54.3 24.8 58.5 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 34.0 38.3 45.3 53.8 46.7 57.6 50.0 42.6 52.7 50.0 30.2 8.7 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 35.4 55.0 54.2 45.0 39.8 55.4 60.8 42.0 53.4 44.5 52.0 23.4 36.2 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 49.5 35.0 40.7 31.9 47.0 32.6 41.1 32.0 50.0 44.1 43.6 42.3 32.8 34.9 39.2 37.3 54.5 47.5 43.2 37.4 41.3 39.2 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 49.8 52.2 60.0 52.4 59.2 61.0 55.2 64.5 67.1 50.0 59.7 60.6 50.8 57.4 58.5 49.4 57.8 56.5 39.3 49.1 50.4 47.1 55.9 56.9 68.4 62.8 65.8 61.5 56.9 57.7 54.3 52.1 49.1 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 58.4 49.5 56.2 48.9 67.8 62.5 61.8 52.2 48.4 61.1 58.6 60.8 53.1 61.5 61.7 60.8 67.7 62.4 64.2 49.5 53.8 53.4 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 46.7 59.3 63.4 45.2 45.6 64.6 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 49.3 57.9 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 29.3 43.7 45.4 43.8 41.7 58.0 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 62.5 39.1 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 64.6 61.5 48.8 36.2 35.4 42.6 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 58.0 Belief in the Moral Order 54.9 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 72.2 13.9 9.6 2.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.9 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 96.0 2.5 0.9 0.0 0.6 90.7 4.0 3.7 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 92.5 2.2 0.9 0.3 4.0 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 76.3 12.4 6.7 2.2 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.9 87.7 5.8 3.9 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.1 92.0 2.4 4.3 0.2 1.1 93.9 2.8 1.3 1.1 0.9 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 85.3 10.4 1.8 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 94.4 2.5 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 89.5 1.2 3.1 1.2 4.9 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 75.7 13.2 7.6 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 86.1 6.9 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 91.0 5.5 2.1 0.7 0.7 91.0 2.1 0.7 1.4 4.9 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 86.6 8.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 93.8 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 97.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.4 2.1 2.1 1.1 6.3 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 92.2 5.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 93.1 3.8 2.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.9 0.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 94.5 1.6 0.0 1.6 2.3 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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 2004 Arizona Youth Survey Yuma 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: Yuma 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 county 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 County 2002 2004 Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the State. Introduction: • Demographics • Risk & Protective Framework 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 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity White Native American Hispanic African American Asian Pacific Islander 1771 100 213 1008 550 12.0 56.9 31.1 778 59.8 354 27.2 168 12.92 816 898 47.6 52.4 618 661 487 13 1128 36 27.7 0.7 64.2 2.1 36* 2.1* 1300 100 12203 100 40960 100 3451 4984 3768 28.3 18812 40.8 12558 30.9 9590 45.9 30.7 23.4 5881 6043 49.3 19172 50.7 21161 47.5 52.5 162 12.8 6198 51.8 19745 22 1.7 1237 10.3 2938 1004 79.2 3630 30.3 13184 13 1.0 292 2.4 1503 14 1.1 812 258* 2.2* 2 0.158 289 49.0 7.3 32.7 3.7 2.0 0.7 48.3 51.7 * 2002 survey combined 'Asian' and '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 county 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 county 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 county 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 county 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Opportunities 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 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Elevated Risk and Protection Risk Factors Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 7 State Norm 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Protective Factors Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Peer / Individual County 2002 County 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 Heavy Use Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking 30-Day Use 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Alcohol 12 Cocaine 90 80 Carried a Handgun Heavy Use Handgun to School 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 Attacked to Harm Heroin Sedatives* 90 Been Arrested Cocaine Stimulants Heavy Use Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School 30-Day Use Suspended from School Inhalants Hallucinogens 30-Day Use 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 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 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 Antisocial Behavior County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 Antisocial County 2002 County 2004 State 2004 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 School Safety Profile School Safety Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 8 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 10 100 County 2002 90 County 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 School Safety Yuma County 2004 Student Survey, Grade 12 100 County 2002 90 County 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. Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes 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 12 Grade 8 Grade 10 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 County State County State County State County State County State County State 213 3451 778 18812 1008 4984 354 12558 550 3768 168 9590 Table 4. Percentage Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 57.7 31.9 3.8 12.7 12.8 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.9 * 2.4 22.5 Grade 8 State County 56.9 47.8 39.6 31.3 6.8 7.0 26.6 11.1 11.9 12.5 2.4 2.6 4.5 2.7 2.9 2.8 1.9 1.2 * 8.7 5.5 1.5 33.2 26.2 State County 51.9 75.6 33.5 52.6 7.2 11.1 20.4 34.2 13.7 10.6 2.5 3.6 3.7 5.9 3.4 5.5 1.5 2.7 11.0 * 2.4 6.8 33.2 38.5 Grade 10 State County 72.3 62.9 49.8 37.6 10.2 8.3 41.6 19.7 10.4 5.4 8.3 3.4 8.2 4.8 6.8 6.0 3.2 1.7 * 15.9 8.2 3.4 44.5 34.4 State County 69.3 84.7 45.3 67.1 11.0 15.4 36.6 41.6 10.9 6.8 5.3 5.0 7.8 6.8 6.7 8.5 2.4 2.4 16.5 * 4.3 7.5 45.6 44.9 Grade 12 State County 80.8 89.7 61.1 74.1 16.9 17.7 50.8 48.8 10.1 7.3 12.6 8.6 12.0 14.5 8.6 12.1 3.8 2.4 * 13.3 12.0 5.5 52.8 54.9 State 77.9 54.2 16.7 45.7 9.1 7.6 11.5 8.2 3.0 19.8 5.9 52.4 Grade 10 State County 47.9 32.1 18.1 12.0 4.7 2.9 22.4 10.0 3.4 1.7 3.2 1.4 3.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 1.4 0.9 * 6.8 2.5 1.7 25.7 17.7 State County 41.3 56.7 17.7 19.2 3.4 7.3 16.2 15.9 2.9 0.4 2.4 1.7 3.0 1.7 2.8 2.2 0.7 0.9 8.2 * 1.1 3.6 23.6 18.1 Grade 12 State County 58.9 61.0 23.2 29.4 5.9 4.9 25.4 19.0 2.0 1.2 3.1 4.2 4.0 3.6 2.2 4.2 1.3 0.6 * 5.5 3.2 0.6 28.6 23.8 State 51.1 24.4 5.4 18.5 1.4 2.3 3.7 3.0 0.7 9.2 1.0 25.1 Grade 10 State County 26.0 22.1 3.5 1.2 State County 25.1 32.1 2.6 3.7 Grade 12 State County 32.2 43.2 6.0 5.6 State 32.5 4.8 Grade 10 State County 11.6 14.8 20.5 12.7 9.9 6.6 3.6 6.3 8.0 16.6 10.8 17.2 5.0 8.3 1.3 2.6 State County 12.3 8.1 20.8 15.4 8.9 6.1 4.4 2.2 9.1 7.5 16.5 7.6 5.9 4.1 1.5 0.4 Grade 12 State County 8.1 16.7 23.8 27.4 10.0 15.1 2.1 4.8 8.2 15.2 9.1 13.1 4.9 7.1 1.0 2.4 State 9.3 22.2 9.8 2.6 9.1 13.3 5.5 1.3 Table 5. Percentage Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Stimulants Heroin Sedatives* Ecstasy Any Drug County 32.7 5.2 2.4 5.8 6.7 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 * 0.5 12.9 Grade 8 State County 34.4 22.5 9.1 10.9 4.0 2.9 14.3 5.3 6.5 5.5 1.5 1.2 2.6 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.7 * 4.3 3.6 0.4 19.9 14.3 State County 25.3 50.1 10.7 14.2 2.4 5.4 9.7 16.7 5.8 3.3 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.8 1.6 2.3 0.6 1.6 5.5 * 0.8 3.5 17.9 21.0 Table 6. Percentage With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Drug Used Binge Drinking 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day County 7.1 0.0 Grade 8 State County 14.1 14.1 1.2 1.0 State County 16.0 27.1 0.8 1.8 Table 7. Percentage With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Behavior Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School County 10.4 5.2 2.4 1.9 5.7 9.6 2.4 0.0 Grade 8 State County 18.1 11.9 15.4 7.6 5.7 2.8 3.3 4.6 9.1 11.6 11.6 15.9 6.7 6.3 1.4 1.5 State County 17.7 11.9 13.2 17.3 5.0 7.2 4.8 4.2 8.7 8.6 17.8 12.4 6.5 6.3 1.5 2.4 * 2002 sedative question asked about Quaaludes, Barbiturates, and Tranqualizers and is not comparable to the 2004 question 17 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Risk Factor Year Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain 45.5 35.1 48.0 22.2 39.3 37.8 38.1 43.1 47.4 34.9 39.9 37.5 43.7 57.0 52.9 28.9 35.9 33.9 40.7 47.2 52.5 37.6 40.6 37.0 45.9 51.3 48.0 36.1 48.7 27.5 39.3 40.0 45.3 35.1 50.5 24.7 47.0 60.8 57.7 30.8 44.1 23.9 46.7 54.2 57.6 43.1 52.1 27.3 49.7 49.3 51.1 31.9 49.0 30.2 44.3 39.5 45.1 33.1 60.1 32.7 56.2 65.1 66.7 40.3 56.9 33.3 51.0 50.1 55.7 37.2 55.0 34.6 Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain 37.2 40.1 35.4 44.9 23.2 43.1 46.1 40.5 41.7 25.8 55.3 52.0 43.0 44.4 24.3 46.4 52.5 46.2 45.3 27.7 46.3 40.0 41.9 40.9 35.9 41.5 34.3 37.7 44.3 44.0 47.5 37.4 40.3 45.2 34.8 43.2 40.9 45.8 47.7 41.6 44.4 34.0 35.0 40.0 39.4 46.2 31.4 35.5 42.9 45.2 53.4 34.5 52.4 54.4 49.0 44.8 38.3 42.9 44.4 42.8 Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain 52.4 39.3 52.3 41.2 55.3 30.2 49.8 39.4 59.0 37.5 46.5 45.4 49.0 25.4 49.8 43.7 54.2 38.3 43.7 44.6 62.2 46.4 43.8 47.9 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 42.7 29.1 28.6 46.0 25.8 37.4 40.1 39.0 39.4 32.2 55.3 16.5 * 40.0 33.6 40.3 46.3 37.4 47.9 52.1 41.9 41.6 38.0 48.2 21.7 * 38.0 33.5 32.7 44.8 28.3 45.9 53.2 35.2 51.9 41.0 59.0 34.4 37.5 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 46.4 34.6 37.1 52.9 42.8 41.0 55.3 41.1 41.1 29.6 57.9 25.0 * 40.9 31.1 39.0 54.5 47.2 45.3 48.2 44.8 44.6 34.6 43.8 13.6 * 35.2 34.6 26.6 46.4 26.9 33.5 58.7 32.1 49.3 27.2 59.5 33.7 35.2 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 41.1 30.9 36.9 44.5 36.2 37.9 53.6 37.5 39.9 32.0 49.5 18.1 * 38.6 32.2 40.6 53.3 46.4 47.6 47.8 41.3 46.5 40.1 39.7 10.7 * 37.5 51.2 50.3 47.3 40.7 47.0 70.4 48.1 56.5 40.2 55.4 32.3 40.0 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 County Grade 8 State County State County Grade 10 State County State County Grade 12 State County State Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain 55.7 31.0 40.7 31.9 39.9 31.8 41.1 32.0 40.4 40.1 43.6 42.3 43.7 43.4 39.2 37.3 45.6 40.0 43.2 37.4 35.4 37.5 38.6 35.8 Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 49.5 59.9 60.4 52.4 59.2 61.0 43.3 55.2 52.3 50.0 59.7 60.6 40.6 51.0 48.1 49.4 57.8 56.5 44.7 52.4 51.5 47.1 55.9 56.9 55.1 56.0 50.1 61.5 56.9 57.7 48.6 47.3 44.2 57.2 56.8 56.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain 66.2 57.3 56.2 48.9 58.5 55.6 61.8 52.2 51.2 61.1 58.6 60.8 64.8 78.6 61.7 60.8 52.4 50.2 64.2 49.5 47.3 58.9 61.3 43.9 * 59.5 50.0 * * * 54.2 62.9 53.7 46.0 38.2 64.3 46.9 59.1 53.6 46.5 39.8 59.2 * 52.2 59.7 * * * * 53.8 58.9 * * * 42.2 63.2 67.9 49.1 28.6 69.8 45.5 52.2 62.7 49.7 43.1 60.1 * 69.5 50.8 * * * * 64.1 45.4 * * * 76.1 53.9 47.9 35.8 22.6 47.6 72.7 63.9 50.3 47.8 40.5 50.6 Religiosity * Social Skills 64.1 Belief in the Moral Order 54.9 Interaction with Prosocial Peers * Prosocial Involvement * Rewards for Prosocial Involvement * * no data available, scale not included in 2002 survey 18 88.2 9.0 2.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 During the past 12 months, how many times were 0 times you in a physical fight on school property? 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 98.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.8 1.4 3.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 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? 97.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.0 19 78.5 12.7 5.9 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 90.0 5.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.8 94.7 3.2 1.2 0.2 0.7 94.6 1.8 1.3 0.5 1.7 72.5 13.7 8.5 3.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.9 85.3 9.1 3.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 86.9 6.6 4.4 0.8 1.3 95.3 2.5 0.7 0.3 1.3 72.4 14.4 8.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1.1 83.9 8.7 4.0 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 88.7 6.1 3.1 0.7 1.3 93.7 2.9 1.5 0.5 1.5 Grade 8 2002 2004 County State County State During the past 12 months, how many times has 0 times someone threatened or injured you with a weapon 1 time such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? Safety Response Year Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Safety and School Issues 86.0 7.0 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 90.2 4.3 3.6 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.5 96.4 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.8 93.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 2.7 87.6 7.3 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 91.0 4.0 3.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 97.7 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 94.2 1.0 1.2 0.4 3.2 77.2 12.8 6.0 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 82.3 7.7 3.7 2.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 2.6 88.9 7.7 2.6 0.0 0.9 94.3 1.7 1.7 0.6 1.7 82.9 9.5 5.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 86.5 6.8 3.5 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.2 92.2 4.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.5 2.1 Grade 10 2002 2004 County State County State 92.0 3.8 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 92.7 3.6 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 96.2 2.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 94.7 0.7 0.9 0.2 3.5 93.5 3.6 1.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3 94.4 2.6 1.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.7 97.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 93.2 1.2 0.8 0.6 4.1 84.8 6.7 5.5 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 84.9 7.8 4.8 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 90.9 1.8 3.0 3.6 0.6 93.9 1.8 0.6 1.8 1.8 90.1 5.8 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 89.9 4.9 3.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 94.4 2.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 94.8 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.6 Grade 12 2002 2004 County State County State Contacts For Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division 602-542-8700 www.ade.az.gov 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 Francis Garcia 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 Theresa Ybarrez 520-879-6085 Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Navajo Nation Char James 928-729-4470 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