2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Apache County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Apache County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Apache County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

412

100

689

100

146

35.4

309

81

19.7

215

185

44.9

219
186

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

871

100 60401

100

44.8

357

41.0 26872

44.5

31.2

283

32.5 19581

32.4

165

23.9

231

26.5 13948

23.1

54.1

327

48.2

424

49.4 28381

48.2

45.9

351

51.8

435

50.6 30505

51.8

1

0.3

0

0.0

6

0.7

2592

4.4

241

60.6

650

96.4

695

82.3

3394

5.8

0.1

1341

2.3

3.2 21376

36.5

3

0.8

0

0.0

1

45

11.3

4

0.6

27

0

0.0

1

108

27.1

20

3.0

96

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

18

*

*

457

0.8

11.4 26761

0.1

45.7

2.1

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Apache County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
146

309

357

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
81

215

283

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

45.8
42.5
40.8
50.4
58.0
70.8
57.3
52.8
57.9
57.3
30.8
47.5
73.1
61.0
25.4
34.6
24.6
8.0
9.9
40.1
36.9
50.0
42.1
38.6
18.3
29.6
63.3
47.7
16.2
13.5
13.0
15.2
13.6
9.5
11.6
4.9
4.3
2.9
2.1
4.9
7.1
3.6
4.8
6.9
4.2
3.6
5.0
15.0
7.6
5.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.5
2.6
n/a
n/a
8.0
n/a
7.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.1
3.4
n/a
n/a
6.1
4.8
2.0
2.8
1.4
3.8
3.4
4.5
2.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.1
9.6
10.0
n/a
12.7
8.7
5.6
4.0
3.2
1.9
3.7
6.6
3.3
n/a
n/a
2.8
1.6
n/a
n/a
0.8
n/a
n/a
9.0
9.8
n/a
n/a
10.8
54.8
49.3
48.9
36.2
37.0
66.7
57.0
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

19.7
15.7
14.4
20.5
5.3
3.1
3.8
0.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.9
1.6
n/a
4.7
n/a
n/a
24.6

2004

18.8
20.4
16.1
19.5
4.0
2.7
2.7
n/a
n/a
2.3
n/a
0.7
n/a
5.0
1.7
n/a
n/a
24.3

2006

17.9
23.4
10.3
18.9
4.5
1.5
1.8
n/a
2.2
n/a
1.9
1.6
n/a
5.6
2.2
0.6
3.7
30.1

2006

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

2002

2004

29.6
12.3
3.7
12.3
2.5
1.2
0.0
1.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.5
0.0
n/a
1.2
n/a
n/a
16.0

38.5
34.6
14.2
29.0
3.3
3.8
3.8
n/a
n/a
3.8
n/a
0.5
n/a
6.6
3.3
n/a
n/a
34.1

2006

30.7
27.2
17.1
23.5
2.3
2.4
3.7
n/a
2.9
n/a
4.5
1.6
n/a
7.0
1.6
0.8
5.3
32.7

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
185

165

231

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

73.0
69.7
40.8
60.5
11.5
5.4
9.8
8.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
1.6
n/a
7.1
n/a
n/a
62.2

75.9
79.1
35.8
70.0
7.3
10.4
21.0
n/a
n/a
14.6
n/a
4.9
n/a
10.3
6.9
n/a
n/a
70.6

71.3
69.6
37.4
57.2
13.6
8.2
20.8
n/a
16.1
n/a
8.8
3.3
n/a
14.5
5.6
1.8
14.5
63.4

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

43.8
30.0
21.5
26.8
2.4
1.2
4.2
0.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0
0.6
n/a
3.0
n/a
n/a
29.5

47.2
42.6
11.7
28.2
0.0
7.5
5.5
n/a
n/a
6.7
n/a
0.6
n/a
5.5
1.2
n/a
n/a
36.4

43.2
34.2
12.9
28.3
2.8
0.5
5.5
n/a
2.8
n/a
2.3
0.0
n/a
5.9
0.9
1.4
6.9
36.2

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
12.1
14.8
13.0
13.4
14.8
24.8
18.9
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
0.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
3.7
0.5
2.4
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
20.6
22.8
27.3
Drunk or High at School
22.5
25.0
27.9
Sold Illegal Drugs
6.4
7.8
5.4
Stolen a Vehicle
1.4
4.2
6.0
Been Arrested
7.1
10.5
10.6
Attacked to Harm
11.3
20.7
18.1
Carried a Handgun
4.9
7.9
8.6
Handgun to School
2.1
1.3
1.2
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

12.5
18.8
6.2
2.5
7.5
12.7
2.5
2.5

2004

23.7
38.4
12.4
4.7
15.7
18.0
10.5
1.4

2006

23.6
32.2
15.6
7.4
11.1
18.1
10.6
3.8

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

29.2
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

31.5
3.1

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

12.3
30.2
7.3
1.7
13.6
9.0
10.1
1.1

Grade 10
State
2006

33.3
3.1

State
2006

10.4
37.9
13.7
3.7
11.9
19.6
11.6
4.9

21.3
38.2
16.0
4.5
14.5
22.3
11.8
3.2

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

30.4
42.1

32.3
39.0

24.0
34.2

38.2
30.4

53.2
53.8

23.2
50.0

26.0
52.2

37.1
36.3

42.9
64.7

26.1
53.2

26.1
45.3

37.6
35.2

47.4
62.9
74.2

48.2
60.2
65.3

44.3
57.2
62.9

48.7
57.4
60.6

48.1
61.3
61.0

43.8
60.2
62.1

44.2
52.5
60.4

44.1
53.0
54.9

60.6
59.9
62.3

56.5
53.9
55.6

57.6
55.4
60.9

57.1
55.9
56.9

53.1
55.9

65.7
52.1

54.5
51.7

59.1
50.7

55.0
53.8

59.5
57.1

50.2
57.7

62.9
62.3

65.8
55.4

45.1
42.1

55.0
45.5

65.2
48.0

*
63.3
60.8
*
*
*

25.7
58.3
58.9
44.0
43.8
64.2

29.6
57.2
56.4
41.6
41.1
61.2

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
59.5
66.7
*
*
*

24.6
51.9
61.2
43.1
30.0
61.5

36.1
52.4
76.1
52.6
32.1
63.9

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
73.0
50.0
*
*
*

63.8
57.9
49.4
40.3
25.6
47.5

64.1
61.5
53.2
44.7
28.1
51.1

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

41.3
48.7
35.4
35.7
24.8
22.6

45.9
55.7
39.2
40.6
31.2
26.1

45.5
62.3
40.6
42.1
30.9
26.8

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

38.5
34.6
29.1
15.2
50.6
38.0

45.4
67.3
49.5
48.0
35.0
25.0

44.0
60.6
40.0
44.7
37.9
23.8

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

46.1
46.4
31.1
24.4
41.6
31.9

63.1
69.4
40.1
34.4
42.8
24.8

60.0
71.0
50.7
30.7
39.2
33.2

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

44.8
39.0
56.9
46.8
18.2

50.4
46.4
60.6
37.7
18.1

51.3
43.3
57.5
42.5
20.9

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

28.2
29.5
39.2
34.2
21.5

41.4
33.2
68.3
51.2
34.3

38.8
30.9
52.8
41.7
31.0

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

35.7
30.4
44.0
40.4
27.7

36.5
32.3
63.2
44.6
31.0

45.4
34.4
51.4
51.5
33.3

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

70.8
31.2

56.0
26.6

62.3
30.9

48.6
41.1

44.9
33.8

57.0
25.9

58.0
28.9

51.6
40.1

54.8
20.8

60.1
32.9

55.3
29.7

44.1
43.0

41.4
33.3
49.6
40.7
32.4
60.2
59.7
50.7
42.6
57.4
*
28.9

33.8
47.7
51.5
42.3
33.6
56.4
65.9
58.5
50.2
54.8
36.3
38.6

39.1
46.8
51.0
43.4
35.9
52.6
70.0
55.3
49.9
53.6
37.6
40.4

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

43.8
36.2
28.4
40.7
21.0
27.5
40.7
34.6
13.9
40.7
*
11.1

36.2
54.3
62.1
56.7
39.4
34.9
70.6
59.0
47.5
61.2
46.4
38.7

37.0
51.2
49.8
48.7
38.9
32.4
65.9
45.7
39.7
45.8
37.3
28.8

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

45.1
44.3
42.2
41.3
29.3
29.1
57.3
43.2
35.8
48.0
*
15.6

35.6
45.7
55.8
53.3
36.0
37.7
65.2
57.8
51.6
53.7
40.2
36.1

45.6
54.5
50.2
55.9
36.4
36.4
65.4
46.9
52.0
47.5
36.4
31.7

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

91.4
2.9
2.1
0.0
3.6

90.7
3.3
2.7
0.3
3.0

93.4
3.5
1.7
0.3
1.2

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

96.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.5

90.0
1.9
2.4
0.5
5.2

90.2
2.6
1.9
1.5
3.8

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

90.8
1.1
2.2
0.5
5.4

93.8
1.2
1.9
0.6
2.5

91.2
3.5
1.8
1.3
2.2

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

91.5
5.7
1.4
0.7
0.7

81.8
9.2
5.0
1.0
3.0

85.8
6.9
3.5
1.4
2.3

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

97.5
1.2
0.0
1.2
0.0

86.5
7.2
3.8
0.5
1.9

91.4
3.7
3.4
0.0
1.5

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

97.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1

85.7
8.7
2.5
1.2
1.9

94.2
3.1
1.3
0.4
0.9

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

88.8
6.3
4.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

81.0
9.8
5.6
1.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.0

86.2
6.3
4.0
1.4
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.6

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

91.4
2.5
3.7
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

84.4
6.6
6.1
0.9
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.5

86.9
6.4
4.5
1.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.7

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

95.7
1.6
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5

88.9
4.9
3.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9

87.1
6.2
4.9
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.9

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

63.2
18.1
14.6
2.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7

67.4
14.1
12.2
3.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
1.6

68.5
16.8
8.1
2.6
1.2
0.0
0.6
2.3

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

86.4
8.6
2.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2

70.2
14.9
8.2
3.4
1.4
1.0
0.5
0.5

79.6
10.0
6.3
1.9
0.0
0.4
1.5
0.4

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

93.0
3.8
1.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5

84.6
8.6
2.5
1.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.2

85.0
8.4
3.5
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Apache County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Cochise County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Cochise County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Cochise County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

760

100

1746

100

540

71.1

733

129

17.0

562

91

12.0

339
396

State 2006
Number

Percent

1576

100 60401

100

42.0

837

53.1 26872

44.5

32.2

549

34.8 19581

32.4

451

25.8

190

12.1 13948

23.1

46.1

788

45.8

712

46.2 28381

48.2

53.9

933

54.2

829

53.8 30505

51.8

13

1.8

76

4.7

68

4.5

2592

4.4

10

1.4

28

1.7

30

2.0

3394

5.8

13

1.8

45

2.8

44

2.9

1341

2.3

460

64.3

773

47.9

564

37.0 21376

36.5

24

1.5

25

219

*

30.6

*

668

41.4

717

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

78

Percent

457

0.8

47.0 26761

1.6

45.7

5.1

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Cochise County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
540

733

837

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
129

562

549

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

59.8
62.9
48.2
50.4
71.8
70.4
73.6
39.9
44.5
33.8
30.8
49.2
46.3
48.7
8.5
10.1
10.3
8.0
21.9
11.4
14.7
23.7
22.9
16.1
18.3
34.4
33.9
31.2
13.5
20.9
16.5
15.2
10.2
9.9
18.6
2.3
3.4
1.8
2.1
5.5
4.8
5.5
5.0
7.4
4.1
3.6
7.9
8.1
10.3
3.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
2.6
n/a
n/a
8.5
n/a
4.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.1
3.4
n/a
n/a
9.0
1.3
2.8
0.8
1.4
1.6
1.7
2.6
1.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
15.4
9.9
10.0
n/a
17.5
18.4
4.7
4.5
1.3
1.9
8.7
5.1
3.9
n/a
n/a
1.8
1.6
n/a
n/a
3.9
n/a
n/a
10.3
9.8
n/a
n/a
22.3
29.8
41.4
36.5
36.2
40.3
44.7
50.9
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

39.4
8.6
5.1
11.2
6.5
2.2
3.0
1.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.6
1.2
n/a
3.2
n/a
n/a
17.7

2004

31.4
14.9
2.5
11.2
9.1
2.3
4.2
n/a
n/a
2.5
n/a
1.0
n/a
8.0
1.6
n/a
n/a
22.7

2006

21.0
10.2
2.5
5.1
6.0
1.0
1.1
n/a
0.6
n/a
1.0
0.1
n/a
4.1
0.3
0.7
4.9
16.2

2006

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

2002

2004

49.2
13.0
9.0
11.6
0.8
0.8
1.7
1.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0
3.3
n/a
4.1
n/a
n/a
14.0

41.7
14.6
4.3
12.5
2.9
1.5
3.7
n/a
n/a
3.3
n/a
0.6
n/a
8.2
1.1
n/a
n/a
22.2

2006

39.7
19.7
3.7
12.6
4.9
1.9
4.9
n/a
3.3
n/a
2.8
0.7
n/a
10.1
1.3
1.7
11.1
27.3

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
91

451

190

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

84.1
57.3
27.8
43.3
14.4
5.6
17.8
7.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.1
1.1
n/a
8.9
n/a
n/a
42.9

80.0
50.1
16.2
39.1
9.9
4.5
11.3
n/a
n/a
5.9
n/a
1.6
n/a
14.3
5.2
n/a
n/a
45.0

72.4
46.2
23.7
33.1
11.2
7.2
12.3
n/a
6.5
n/a
7.1
2.3
n/a
16.7
4.1
3.4
18.4
44.5

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

57.3
13.5
7.9
20.2
3.4
1.1
2.2
2.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0
0.0
n/a
2.2
n/a
n/a
23.6

52.3
23.3
4.1
11.5
1.6
1.4
4.1
n/a
n/a
2.7
n/a
0.5
n/a
5.2
1.4
n/a
n/a
17.9

42.9
23.4
7.7
12.8
4.0
4.5
5.6
n/a
1.7
n/a
1.8
1.2
n/a
5.8
1.2
1.7
8.1
23.1

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
16.8
20.7
10.4
13.4
24.8
25.8
19.1
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.0
2.4
1.8
3.6
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
14.0
15.5
18.4
Drunk or High at School
12.4
14.1
9.8
Sold Illegal Drugs
7.2
7.2
3.4
Stolen a Vehicle
4.6
6.6
3.4
Been Arrested
8.4
10.4
7.8
Attacked to Harm
11.5
19.8
16.8
Carried a Handgun
7.8
7.5
6.0
Handgun to School
1.7
2.0
0.9
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

11.2
16.3
4.9
1.6
7.3
11.4
4.8
0.0

2004

10.2
22.4
7.8
3.6
8.2
21.5
5.8
1.4

2006

15.1
22.2
9.4
4.8
7.8
21.5
9.7
0.8

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

27.0
4.5

County County County
2002
2004
2006

23.2
3.9

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

7.9
14.6
10.1
3.4
5.6
6.7
9.0
1.1

Grade 10
State
2006

34.4
3.2

State
2006

9.1
19.7
6.7
2.9
8.9
13.3
6.2
1.3

10.0
20.8
10.1
2.8
8.4
17.3
8.8
0.6

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

35.6
35.0

45.1
31.8

42.6
31.2

38.2
30.4

40.9
48.2

41.4
37.0

42.0
32.5

37.1
36.3

44.8
53.3

43.9
34.0

39.4
48.8

37.6
35.2

47.0
55.9
55.3

49.1
60.1
59.9

50.7
60.5
59.1

48.7
57.4
60.6

46.8
60.7
50.5

47.9
53.7
53.9

41.0
47.9
52.8

44.1
53.0
54.9

60.2
58.0
60.2

58.0
54.2
54.1

60.7
57.7
54.5

57.1
55.9
56.9

58.6
55.0

61.3
51.3

53.9
43.5

59.1
50.7

54.3
71.1

54.4
53.9

55.4
56.8

62.9
62.3

54.9
36.7

56.5
40.6

65.8
59.8

65.2
48.0

*
53.7
48.2
*
*
*

50.9
53.5
50.8
46.9
44.7
64.4

53.5
62.8
58.0
50.6
37.7
63.5

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
54.1
59.7
*
*
*

49.5
48.7
62.5
50.1
41.0
62.3

45.0
51.5
59.4
52.7
43.7
58.6

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
68.9
43.3
*
*
*

77.6
61.5
47.0
51.3
37.9
53.5

77.2
69.0
57.5
59.9
37.8
58.1

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

39.9
52.7
37.9
42.4
38.5
43.7

45.7
48.7
50.3
45.2
45.7
40.3

41.9
44.0
53.8
35.5
39.1
37.5

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

51.3
60.9
35.7
33.9
47.9
31.9

57.6
58.1
60.4
47.9
60.2
33.5

54.2
57.7
60.8
43.5
50.9
31.4

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

60.7
58.9
43.3
36.0
55.6
41.6

52.6
56.4
52.0
34.7
56.2
34.6

60.7
64.1
47.7
43.5
51.1
41.5

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

54.1
45.0
44.1
42.1
29.1

48.6
58.8
54.3
49.1
30.9

46.3
49.7
44.6
48.6
28.1

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

35.4
35.7
29.5
39.8
38.9

45.5
45.9
43.6
49.6
42.2

45.7
45.0
39.7
53.4
46.4

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

40.4
34.4
41.1
53.3
53.3

42.2
38.3
37.8
46.7
38.5

36.7
37.2
39.8
48.4
41.1

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

54.5
34.7

49.3
36.4

54.9
40.4

48.6
41.1

57.6
39.5

52.1
45.1

52.0
49.5

51.6
40.1

58.9
44.0

40.6
48.6

44.1
35.4

44.1
43.0

43.4
30.9
39.1
45.2
34.8
52.1
49.6
42.0
31.8
52.2
*
27.5

42.2
38.3
48.0
49.2
36.0
50.8
61.2
51.4
53.2
57.0
41.4
26.7

41.9
36.4
35.3
42.1
29.4
42.6
54.1
41.1
45.3
52.1
33.4
24.9

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

48.0
32.3
31.2
49.2
40.6
40.8
44.9
34.1
21.6
59.2
*
21.0

43.9
45.2
38.8
52.4
40.0
44.4
65.0
49.0
44.4
51.9
47.7
26.6

53.6
45.8
37.5
57.5
39.1
41.7
60.7
41.7
45.3
50.9
47.1
24.6

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

44.4
27.8
38.2
51.1
38.9
34.1
54.5
34.1
34.8
49.4
*
6.7

36.2
37.5
35.7
46.0
34.0
42.0
52.6
33.6
56.5
44.2
29.3
16.7

41.9
43.0
33.0
39.8
28.1
38.5
57.8
34.2
48.9
42.4
27.8
16.7

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

94.1
2.3
1.1
0.6
1.9

91.9
3.2
2.1
0.6
2.2

93.7
2.5
1.6
1.0
1.1

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

83.7
1.6
3.1
2.3
9.3

92.9
1.8
1.8
0.9
2.5

88.6
2.8
1.8
1.4
5.5

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

85.6
1.1
1.1
0.0
12.2

93.1
1.1
0.4
0.0
5.4

88.9
2.6
0.5
0.5
7.4

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

93.6
3.6
1.9
0.9
0.0

87.9
6.0
3.6
0.8
1.7

88.4
6.8
3.2
0.6
0.9

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

95.3
3.1
0.0
0.8
0.8

90.8
5.1
2.2
0.7
1.3

93.1
3.3
2.2
0.6
0.8

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

96.7
1.1
1.1
0.0
1.1

92.4
3.4
2.2
0.9
1.1

96.3
2.7
0.5
0.5
0.0

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

89.4
4.1
3.7
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.7

85.8
7.8
4.2
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.4

84.7
9.2
3.1
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.5

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

92.2
4.7
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.6

81.7
8.0
6.0
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
1.8

87.2
5.4
4.6
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
1.4

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

95.6
2.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1

88.2
5.6
2.9
1.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.1

86.7
6.9
3.7
1.1
0.0
1.1
0.5
0.0

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

79.7
9.7
6.3
1.7
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.7

68.8
15.6
10.6
2.5
0.4
0.6
0.1
1.5

73.8
14.4
6.6
3.1
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.6

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

79.8
10.9
7.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.8

80.7
8.9
6.5
1.4
0.7
0.5
0.0
1.3

82.0
10.9
4.9
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.4

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

90.1
6.6
2.2
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0

88.4
6.7
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.4

86.2
8.0
4.8
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Cochise County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Coconino County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Coconino County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Coconino County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

1601

100

1225

100

412

25.7

200

717

44.8

595

472

29.5

815
759

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

1107

100 60401

100

16.3

470

42.5 26872

44.5

48.6

337

30.4 19581

32.4

430

35.1

300

27.1 13948

23.1

51.8

635

52.3

545

50.0 28381

48.2

48.2

579

47.7

545

50.0 30505

51.8

25

1.6

15

1.3

20

1.9

2592

4.4

694

45.4

414

35.9

415

38.6

3394

5.8

0.3

1341

2.3

16.7 21376

36.5

20

1.3

10

0.9

3

126

8.2

124

10.8

180

3

0.3

2

665

*

43.5

*

586

50.9

415

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

41

457

0.8

38.6 26761

0.2

45.7

3.8

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Coconino County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
412

200

470

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
717

595

337

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

50.6
46.5
50.9
50.4
71.2
69.4
71.4
54.6
51.0
41.7
30.8
55.5
53.3
59.9
18.2
19.6
12.8
8.0
18.6
17.9
20.4
37.4
37.6
28.1
18.3
44.7
43.6
44.0
13.0
11.1
17.6
15.2
12.8
12.6
12.3
2.7
5.5
3.1
2.1
8.4
5.0
3.7
8.3
7.1
4.3
3.6
8.9
6.3
7.0
4.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.4
2.6
n/a
n/a
8.3
n/a
6.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.9
3.4
n/a
n/a
2.7
3.2
0.5
2.0
1.4
3.3
3.2
1.0
1.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.1
8.8
10.0
n/a
19.2
10.2
4.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
8.3
5.8
6.0
n/a
n/a
1.7
1.6
n/a
n/a
1.4
n/a
n/a
10.0
9.8
n/a
n/a
9.8
41.7
46.1
42.4
36.2
48.3
52.6
59.9
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

29.2
15.1
9.9
21.4
5.2
2.1
4.9
1.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.1
0.8
n/a
2.9
n/a
n/a
26.4

2004

24.5
23.5
8.0
23.2
3.0
2.5
1.5
n/a
n/a
2.0
n/a
0.0
n/a
3.6
1.0
n/a
n/a
27.1

2006

26.7
14.9
3.9
13.5
5.9
1.4
1.9
n/a
1.0
n/a
2.6
0.8
n/a
4.9
0.7
0.5
5.6
24.3

2006

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

2002

2004

43.8
19.0
8.9
24.3
3.5
4.3
3.6
2.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.7
2.0
n/a
4.2
n/a
n/a
27.7

43.2
23.3
4.8
19.9
2.7
2.2
2.6
n/a
n/a
2.2
n/a
0.9
n/a
10.6
0.7
n/a
n/a
28.1

2006

37.9
23.5
6.0
19.0
3.3
1.0
2.4
n/a
1.4
n/a
0.7
0.7
n/a
2.1
1.4
0.7
2.7
28.7

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
472

430

300

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

80.2
67.2
25.6
57.4
15.6
12.6
11.9
8.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.0
5.4
n/a
9.6
n/a
n/a
58.1

76.3
58.6
19.1
49.6
10.1
10.2
11.8
n/a
n/a
11.5
n/a
3.8
n/a
23.2
8.7
n/a
n/a
56.7

79.9
70.2
26.6
57.9
11.4
4.7
12.5
n/a
9.4
n/a
7.7
1.8
n/a
18.1
5.2
0.8
17.0
65.6

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

53.8
27.1
10.9
26.4
2.6
3.9
3.7
2.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.9
1.6
n/a
3.3
n/a
n/a
29.3

47.3
28.3
5.2
19.3
0.9
2.8
4.3
n/a
n/a
4.2
n/a
1.0
n/a
10.8
0.7
n/a
n/a
28.2

48.1
26.7
8.5
21.6
1.1
1.5
1.5
n/a
1.1
n/a
3.3
0.7
n/a
8.5
0.7
0.0
9.4
29.2

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
15.3
19.8
17.4
13.4
24.8
26.4
24.7
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
2.1
0.0
0.5
1.0
3.7
2.2
2.2
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
21.0
28.6
23.1
Drunk or High at School
20.6
21.4
18.6
Sold Illegal Drugs
6.3
7.6
6.3
Stolen a Vehicle
5.5
9.5
5.5
Been Arrested
9.8
16.2
11.7
Attacked to Harm
14.4
19.6
17.8
Carried a Handgun
9.6
10.5
8.3
Handgun to School
2.5
1.5
1.9
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

14.1
26.5
8.3
5.4
11.7
11.6
7.0
1.4

2004

10.5
26.3
8.9
5.6
11.0
16.8
5.8
1.5

2006

12.3
29.3
6.2
3.9
13.2
17.4
7.3
1.0

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

27.7
4.8

County County County
2002
2004
2006

25.0
3.5

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

12.9
30.3
9.1
2.6
14.7
9.7
7.9
1.7

Grade 10
State
2006

32.9
5.5

State
2006

8.2
27.2
10.8
4.2
14.2
13.9
6.3
2.3

10.2
29.7
11.1
2.4
7.3
14.5
9.0
1.0

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

32.7
35.4

33.0
32.3

40.7
28.9

38.2
30.4

42.2
42.9

40.0
37.7

29.9
38.8

37.1
36.3

37.5
39.6

40.0
33.7

36.4
31.2

37.6
35.2

56.3
63.4
62.9

43.4
55.1
54.3

53.0
58.2
65.9

48.7
57.4
60.6

51.4
57.2
59.2

46.9
54.9
58.1

44.2
53.2
57.2

44.1
53.0
54.9

60.5
56.0
59.4

59.1
58.8
62.7

60.7
57.9
66.2

57.1
55.9
56.9

55.8
49.6

54.8
46.0

67.2
57.5

59.1
50.7

54.4
60.1

62.6
66.1

61.3
66.2

62.9
62.3

65.1
51.9

58.8
51.6

65.1
49.5

65.2
48.0

*
56.2
56.3
*
*
*

30.8
55.1
56.1
34.7
30.3
62.4

41.9
57.3
59.5
45.5
37.1
62.4

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
52.6
61.4
*
*
*

43.7
50.3
65.8
51.9
49.2
62.3

41.7
47.1
67.5
46.6
39.1
64.3

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
64.3
50.9
*
*
*

70.6
63.2
53.2
45.5
40.2
49.5

65.7
59.1
48.2
47.3
36.8
53.1

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

42.7
42.5
39.1
34.7
38.3
34.8

44.3
59.3
47.9
41.1
41.0
41.3

38.1
44.1
50.7
37.2
42.4
39.6

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

41.5
48.3
46.5
36.0
48.5
24.5

48.7
52.2
54.4
45.8
51.4
31.1

51.1
64.3
51.6
41.7
49.1
27.4

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

51.2
43.2
45.8
32.6
53.0
36.5

49.5
49.3
55.8
41.9
52.8
33.8

60.3
59.9
51.6
39.9
54.0
32.7

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

42.6
38.8
48.7
43.5
21.4

55.9
51.1
66.3
42.9
25.4

48.7
44.6
46.9
53.5
33.2

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

44.2
32.3
46.4
45.3
39.2

41.8
35.7
51.7
47.0
42.0

45.2
35.4
54.9
46.2
39.7

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

43.2
25.9
43.3
41.8
36.9

42.8
32.6
48.3
44.1
41.8

42.5
33.0
47.4
46.4
40.0

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

56.2
35.5

71.8
40.9

52.6
39.0

48.6
41.1

51.5
45.4

52.0
39.2

57.9
40.1

51.6
40.1

51.6
38.0

46.5
46.7

51.2
38.3

44.1
43.0

36.2
35.8
45.9
43.4
35.3
52.6
53.1
48.0
38.9
54.4
*
25.4

35.0
51.5
51.6
46.0
31.5
51.3
79.7
59.4
45.6
68.4
44.6
41.2

38.0
44.4
41.3
45.7
35.3
44.5
61.9
48.8
49.2
45.1
39.2
29.5

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

41.5
38.4
43.1
56.2
46.3
43.6
51.8
46.4
28.7
48.9
*
15.8

36.5
41.9
44.5
53.3
43.1
41.2
56.5
47.6
41.8
48.6
47.4
22.6

47.9
46.9
49.5
55.4
42.5
37.4
63.2
51.4
43.5
47.9
47.0
29.8

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

41.7
41.5
48.4
52.1
43.2
43.2
59.7
48.9
38.1
44.6
*
14.2

30.4
44.5
48.5
52.7
41.9
47.3
56.1
40.6
53.8
41.6
35.0
19.8

43.4
45.8
49.7
49.1
40.0
42.0
50.2
39.8
54.9
38.8
32.9
16.8

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

90.6
3.0
4.2
0.2
2.0

89.2
7.2
1.5
0.5
1.5

88.6
3.4
2.9
1.3
3.8

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

90.4
1.8
2.0
0.7
5.1

93.1
3.2
1.5
0.5
1.7

91.5
1.6
2.8
1.3
2.8

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

90.3
1.1
1.9
0.6
6.1

89.6
2.1
1.4
0.5
6.4

89.0
1.4
1.7
1.0
6.9

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

90.9
3.9
1.7
1.5
2.0

79.6
12.2
4.6
1.5
2.0

90.7
4.7
2.2
1.1
1.3

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

95.7
1.4
1.3
0.3
1.4

91.0
5.1
1.2
1.4
1.4

92.2
2.8
3.1
0.3
1.6

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

94.7
2.8
0.8
0.2
1.5

94.3
3.1
0.7
0.9
0.9

95.2
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.0

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

87.9
5.2
4.0
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.5

80.0
8.2
7.2
2.6
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0

82.0
8.8
3.9
3.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.5

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

92.0
3.2
2.4
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.0
1.4

84.3
7.6
4.4
1.2
0.7
0.5
0.2
1.2

89.4
5.0
3.4
1.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

93.2
2.3
1.7
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.1

88.7
5.2
3.3
0.9
1.2
0.0
0.2
0.5

88.9
4.2
4.8
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.7

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

72.7
14.4
7.5
1.7
1.7
0.7
0.0
1.2

57.6
18.2
15.7
4.0
2.5
0.0
0.5
1.5

71.5
12.8
10.4
2.0
0.4
0.9
0.4
1.5

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

85.7
7.3
3.9
1.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.1

79.1
12.2
4.9
1.5
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.9

80.7
10.9
5.9
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.9

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

89.1
6.4
2.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.9

86.5
6.4
3.3
1.9
0.2
0.5
0.0
1.2

88.3
6.9
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Coconino County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Gila County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Gila County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Gila County and the State. Because
not all students answer all of the
questions, the number of students in the

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

541

100

832

100

148

27.4

215

252

46.6

342

141

26.1

262
271

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

831

100 60401

100

25.8

360

43.3 26872

44.5

41.1

284

34.2 19581

32.4

275

33.1

187

22.5 13948

23.1

49.2

410

50.0

393

48.4 28381

48.2

50.8

410

50.0

419

51.6 30505

51.8

5

1.0

9

1.2

4

0.5

2592

4.4

94

18.2

186

24.4

173

21.3

3394

5.8

0.6

1341

2.3

20.0 21376

36.5

7

1.4

4

0.5

5

108

20.9

172

22.6

163

6

0.8

2

303

*

58.6

*

385

50.5

428

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

39

457

0.8

52.6 26761

0.2

45.7

4.8

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Gila County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
148

215

360

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
252

342

284

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

66.4
53.5
63.7
50.4
79.4
68.0
70.2
54.9
42.9
44.5
30.8
61.8
44.2
48.9
21.9
9.0
23.3
8.0
21.8
20.5
26.7
52.4
33.2
27.4
18.3
47.0
33.4
40.9
6.8
10.0
17.5
15.2
14.7
9.9
15.1
3.4
3.8
2.1
2.1
5.6
5.4
4.0
11.0
4.4
3.4
3.6
8.0
6.3
6.5
4.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
9.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.6
2.6
n/a
n/a
6.4
n/a
3.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.9
3.4
n/a
n/a
5.3
4.1
1.5
0.6
1.4
1.2
1.8
2.5
2.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.0
9.3
10.0
n/a
12.4
15.3
11.0
2.4
2.2
1.9
7.5
3.3
1.3
n/a
n/a
1.5
1.6
n/a
n/a
1.3
n/a
n/a
13.7
9.8
n/a
n/a
14.0
53.4
41.3
38.5
36.2
49.2
41.8
53.6
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

41.6
15.9
14.0
32.0
3.2
2.4
4.0
0.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.1
0.8
n/a
6.7
n/a
n/a
35.5

2004

29.2
18.4
3.3
15.3
4.8
2.9
1.9
n/a
n/a
2.4
n/a
0.0
n/a
6.8
0.0
n/a
n/a
23.5

2006

34.3
15.6
13.0
11.3
5.5
1.5
1.5
n/a
1.2
n/a
1.8
0.0
n/a
4.9
1.6
0.9
5.5
20.3

2006

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

2002

2004

50.4
20.8
7.7
25.0
4.9
1.6
1.2
3.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.4
2.5
n/a
1.7
n/a
n/a
27.8

39.8
16.4
8.9
14.8
3.6
3.9
3.3
n/a
n/a
3.3
n/a
1.5
n/a
6.6
2.1
n/a
n/a
22.1

2006

48.1
22.6
14.7
22.8
4.8
1.6
3.3
n/a
2.9
n/a
2.5
1.7
n/a
6.9
0.4
1.3
3.8
32.4

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
141

275

187

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

89.1
65.5
27.5
57.4
12.1
4.3
7.2
4.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.7
4.3
n/a
4.3
n/a
n/a
60.3

87.8
62.6
31.1
57.4
9.6
6.6
12.6
n/a
n/a
7.7
n/a
3.0
n/a
15.6
4.1
n/a
n/a
62.4

78.2
50.3
29.1
43.2
9.2
3.5
12.6
n/a
6.8
n/a
5.3
0.6
n/a
15.4
2.9
2.4
14.5
54.8

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

59.3
25.0
12.9
22.3
1.4
2.9
1.4
1.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.7
3.6
n/a
1.4
n/a
n/a
23.4

58.5
23.8
12.9
19.6
1.5
2.6
3.7
n/a
n/a
4.1
n/a
0.7
n/a
8.2
1.5
n/a
n/a
25.6

42.1
20.1
7.3
16.4
2.9
0.6
2.3
n/a
2.3
n/a
1.2
0.0
n/a
8.8
0.0
0.6
7.6
23.9

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
22.4
23.9
19.3
13.4
24.9
25.4
31.9
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.6
1.5
3.2
1.0
3.3
3.6
3.8
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
30.7
28.0
28.6
Drunk or High at School
29.2
19.4
20.6
Sold Illegal Drugs
15.8
8.0
5.0
Stolen a Vehicle
4.3
6.1
4.1
Been Arrested
17.3
14.5
10.1
Attacked to Harm
22.1
18.2
20.8
Carried a Handgun
9.3
7.0
7.5
Handgun to School
4.3
2.3
1.2
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

8.4
25.3
10.0
5.2
11.7
14.3
5.6
0.8

2004

16.9
17.9
7.5
4.7
13.2
19.0
8.6
2.4

2006

20.5
30.1
10.0
7.7
11.9
17.6
10.5
2.7

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

33.8
2.1

County County County
2002
2004
2006

23.6
1.7

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

4.3
15.9
5.1
2.9
5.8
10.9
2.2
1.4

Grade 10
State
2006

41.4
4.5

State
2006

9.1
24.5
10.6
1.8
8.6
16.8
6.2
1.8

9.6
20.1
6.3
4.6
7.5
14.7
8.9
2.3

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

42.6
28.8

32.4
30.7

38.4
35.4

38.2
30.4

40.7
36.2

45.5
42.5

38.7
40.2

37.1
36.3

47.4
42.3

39.6
38.2

39.5
44.0

37.6
35.2

46.8
42.0
54.0

46.6
50.8
59.6

42.3
54.1
58.6

48.7
57.4
60.6

48.8
60.0
56.5

50.9
60.9
60.1

42.5
46.1
53.2

44.1
53.0
54.9

64.0
58.4
57.3

63.3
57.1
61.0

57.4
54.2
63.4

57.1
55.9
56.9

58.2
35.4

57.8
49.5

59.4
54.5

59.1
50.7

51.6
48.6

63.7
67.0

56.4
55.8

62.9
62.3

63.6
41.1

61.7
46.2

65.4
50.3

65.2
48.0

*
37.0
44.0
*
*
*

37.5
47.6
48.3
43.3
31.6
58.3

54.1
53.5
51.6
46.0
39.4
59.8

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
47.8
63.1
*
*
*

50.3
53.1
69.0
56.0
45.2
63.3

44.0
50.0
52.9
47.3
36.5
60.5

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
61.4
41.4
*
*
*

73.4
57.2
52.7
45.4
32.1
47.2

72.2
73.2
56.0
55.5
38.5
53.2

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

37.2
64.9
39.4
52.1
50.8
44.1

45.5
70.0
45.3
51.2
47.5
38.5

45.8
56.7
58.3
48.2
43.1
48.4

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

50.8
42.0
48.7
39.4
56.7
38.1

50.2
60.4
48.0
48.3
47.9
38.5

53.7
66.4
51.0
57.5
54.7
33.9

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

53.3
44.9
51.5
29.7
57.7
50.4

56.7
56.6
58.6
44.5
58.3
52.1

55.4
61.8
51.8
40.0
49.4
44.4

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

59.3
62.3
73.6
57.4
27.3

55.4
49.7
67.0
46.7
30.0

52.8
57.4
57.5
53.3
34.7

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

42.5
35.8
51.7
49.7
48.0

38.8
41.7
51.4
44.1
39.9

51.9
43.9
57.8
52.0
47.8

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

40.4
28.9
35.2
52.7
41.8

43.2
38.2
50.4
46.4
49.8

43.6
40.7
43.9
38.5
37.5

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

66.4
47.9

62.0
40.2

54.7
43.8

48.6
41.1

52.0
51.6

58.9
39.8

60.8
48.6

51.6
40.1

42.5
49.3

45.8
55.5

39.8
41.0

44.1
43.0

52.7
45.8
56.9
43.4
48.3
54.6
66.7
62.1
40.0
65.6
*
37.1

35.0
45.3
49.5
52.3
39.6
58.8
68.0
62.7
53.4
55.6
54.3
29.3

37.9
47.9
50.0
44.8
37.5
50.2
67.3
59.2
55.0
52.4
42.0
26.9

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

43.4
36.5
48.2
56.2
43.4
41.1
48.0
44.8
31.2
47.6
*
9.2

37.7
43.0
36.2
42.1
34.9
30.7
58.7
40.1
38.6
48.0
43.5
23.2

52.2
53.1
44.3
57.6
42.1
45.0
65.6
50.5
51.1
56.2
53.2
26.3

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

41.4
36.4
41.7
51.1
45.3
47.9
49.3
39.6
36.7
48.2
*
9.4

32.8
42.3
49.1
47.4
32.6
40.9
58.8
44.0
55.6
45.4
30.6
18.0

43.2
43.2
32.6
31.8
27.0
36.2
53.8
25.8
55.4
46.5
28.9
20.2

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

85.8
2.0
4.7
1.4
6.1

91.9
3.8
1.0
0.0
3.3

90.2
5.2
2.3
0.6
1.7

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

88.4
1.2
0.8
0.8
8.8

89.4
3.2
0.9
1.2
5.3

85.7
3.0
2.3
1.1
7.9

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

93.4
0.7
1.5
0.0
4.4

90.4
1.8
0.7
1.1
5.9

90.0
1.1
0.6
2.8
5.6

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

87.7
3.4
2.1
1.4
5.5

83.9
7.1
4.3
1.9
2.8

88.0
7.2
3.7
0.0
1.1

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

95.6
1.6
1.2
0.4
1.2

88.7
3.0
3.6
2.1
2.7

91.4
3.7
3.0
0.0
1.9

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

97.2
1.4
0.7
0.0
0.7

91.2
4.0
2.2
1.1
1.5

93.3
3.4
2.2
1.1
0.0

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

86.5
5.4
0.7
2.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
4.7

85.2
8.6
1.4
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.9

80.6
10.0
4.8
2.0
0.3
1.1
0.0
1.1

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

91.2
3.6
2.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.2

86.3
5.7
3.6
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.3
1.8

85.1
6.3
3.7
0.7
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.1

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

96.4
2.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

89.7
4.0
3.3
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.4
1.1

92.1
3.4
2.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.6

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

66.9
17.6
8.8
2.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
3.4

73.3
15.2
8.1
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0

68.6
16.3
10.9
2.6
0.0
0.3
0.3
1.1

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

82.1
12.7
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8

81.1
11.2
3.8
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4

82.5
9.3
6.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.1

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

92.9
4.3
2.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

86.8
8.8
3.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.0

86.0
10.1
1.7
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Gila County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Graham County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Graham County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Graham County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

560

100

500

100

211

37.7

169

206

36.8

212

143

25.5

250
296

State 2006
Number

Percent

885

100 60401

100

33.8

307

34.7 26872

44.5

42.4

283

32.0 19581

32.4

119

23.8

295

33.3 13948

23.1

45.8

223

45.1

417

47.8 28381

48.2

54.2

271

54.9

455

52.2 30505

51.8

11

2.1

10

2.1

11

1.3

2592

4.4

6

1.1

52

11.1

54

6.3

3394

5.8

9

1.7

5

1.1

3

0.3

1341

2.3

205

38.7

173

37.0

260

30.3 21376

36.5

3

0.6

3

299

*

56.4

*

224

48.0

491

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

36

Percent

457

0.8

57.2 26761

0.3

45.7

4.2

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Graham County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
211

169

307

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
206

212

283

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

61.0
54.5
49.2
50.4
75.2
64.3
63.6
51.4
38.7
27.3
30.8
60.1
44.9
47.6
10.5
11.3
10.5
8.0
11.8
13.3
11.9
27.6
22.8
18.0
18.3
50.7
40.1
41.7
18.8
16.7
13.9
15.2
22.4
14.5
19.5
4.3
1.8
2.8
2.1
11.2
4.8
6.7
5.7
4.4
3.7
3.6
15.7
6.8
9.5
5.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
15.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.0
2.6
n/a
n/a
9.5
n/a
4.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.2
3.4
n/a
n/a
11.3
2.4
3.1
1.8
1.4
5.9
2.9
2.1
3.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
17.8
8.9
10.0
n/a
12.4
16.3
5.3
1.3
3.0
1.9
9.9
4.4
2.5
n/a
n/a
2.6
1.6
n/a
n/a
2.9
n/a
n/a
8.1
9.8
n/a
n/a
17.5
36.5
39.9
34.2
36.2
55.3
51.2
58.7
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

39.6
15.0
3.8
15.9
9.7
2.4
2.4
2.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.4
1.9
n/a
3.9
n/a
n/a
23.2

2004

26.8
11.9
1.8
13.0
8.1
1.2
1.3
n/a
n/a
1.9
n/a
1.3
n/a
11.1
0.6
n/a
n/a
27.4

2006

25.7
9.0
3.4
8.1
4.7
1.8
2.2
n/a
1.8
n/a
1.4
0.8
n/a
4.7
1.5
1.5
4.1
18.3

2006

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

2002

2004

49.3
19.7
4.9
26.5
7.0
7.0
8.9
8.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.0
4.5
n/a
5.1
n/a
n/a
33.5

40.5
16.7
3.8
13.9
4.8
2.4
3.3
n/a
n/a
4.4
n/a
1.5
n/a
6.8
1.0
n/a
n/a
27.8

2006

38.2
14.8
2.9
20.8
3.6
2.4
3.6
n/a
4.5
n/a
4.0
0.8
n/a
7.3
1.7
2.4
10.2
33.7

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
143

119

295

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

68.6
60.6
16.9
43.0
13.3
5.6
13.4
11.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.6
2.8
n/a
8.5
n/a
n/a
45.5

71.2
57.1
20.2
50.4
17.6
2.5
17.8
n/a
n/a
10.2
n/a
5.0
n/a
22.4
2.6
n/a
n/a
58.1

64.6
48.3
17.0
41.3
18.1
7.8
18.0
n/a
11.0
n/a
8.6
1.9
n/a
17.9
2.3
3.9
21.9
52.5

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

44.4
9.9
3.5
12.7
2.8
2.1
4.9
4.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.4
2.1
n/a
2.1
n/a
n/a
15.5

44.1
25.4
10.1
21.8
0.0
1.7
5.1
n/a
n/a
3.4
n/a
0.0
n/a
11.1
0.0
n/a
n/a
29.6

40.2
21.3
8.9
20.1
4.1
1.9
9.4
n/a
5.1
n/a
2.6
1.6
n/a
8.5
0.4
1.9
9.8
33.1

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
21.6
21.0
18.8
13.4
27.2
24.5
26.9
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.0
3.0
2.9
2.6
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
21.3
18.8
18.6
Drunk or High at School
17.9
12.5
10.9
Sold Illegal Drugs
6.8
6.2
3.3
Stolen a Vehicle
3.4
6.2
2.5
Been Arrested
8.7
8.1
3.9
Attacked to Harm
13.6
18.9
12.2
Carried a Handgun
3.9
7.5
5.2
Handgun to School
0.5
1.3
1.1
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

14.3
28.6
16.3
5.4
7.8
12.4
6.4
2.0

2004

10.0
22.7
8.1
3.3
6.7
14.7
6.2
3.8

2006

18.8
27.6
7.7
5.1
7.8
20.2
8.3
1.6

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

24.8
2.8

County County County
2002
2004
2006

26.6
2.1

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

7.0
13.4
7.7
2.1
4.2
7.7
4.9
2.1

Grade 10
State
2006

33.6
1.7

State
2006

12.7
30.5
10.9
1.7
10.9
10.2
6.8
1.7

9.0
25.4
10.8
1.8
6.1
13.6
8.5
0.4

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

51.5
35.5

50.0
31.1

63.0
38.9

38.2
30.4

39.8
39.2

54.1
42.2

53.8
48.6

37.1
36.3

57.4
50.0

44.1
48.3

61.0
48.4

37.6
35.2

53.0
59.0
60.7

45.9
53.9
53.7

55.3
64.7
71.7

48.7
57.4
60.6

44.2
50.9
55.4

54.5
64.4
60.6

41.4
56.0
52.6

44.1
53.0
54.9

64.2
60.3
62.5

54.3
59.0
55.6

60.7
56.5
60.5

57.1
55.9
56.9

60.4
48.6

64.1
47.6

72.2
62.4

59.1
50.7

61.6
57.1

63.3
61.8

60.2
65.6

62.9
62.3

69.5
50.0

65.5
48.7

66.1
53.8

65.2
48.0

*
54.9
46.4
*
*
*

57.3
51.2
42.3
50.6
43.2
53.4

57.7
60.3
62.7
59.5
44.1
64.7

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
51.2
49.0
*
*
*

53.6
53.1
60.6
52.9
40.8
61.0

54.8
51.1
56.1
55.9
43.1
58.7

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
65.5
40.1
*
*
*

83.2
60.5
49.6
50.9
37.3
55.7

84.8
65.9
55.9
58.1
45.3
54.5

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

37.7
38.4
38.7
44.4
55.4
59.3

48.8
47.8
50.6
46.9
53.1
55.8

33.1
38.5
42.8
31.0
33.6
47.7

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

47.6
44.1
40.1
52.1
67.9
36.0

46.6
61.7
46.6
45.0
49.0
35.4

43.5
56.1
47.4
47.3
50.9
36.2

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

39.3
37.0
33.1
19.9
53.6
39.3

55.9
62.4
53.4
39.7
59.5
35.3

42.7
54.3
48.5
27.8
52.9
39.2

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

52.2
54.9
52.2
47.5
28.8

50.3
55.8
60.3
53.2
28.2

40.6
46.1
43.4
46.3
28.5

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

41.2
41.2
57.1
46.4
36.7

38.2
40.4
51.2
47.1
36.0

46.7
42.7
49.8
52.7
40.9

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

35.3
28.7
25.4
41.6
30.7

40.2
47.9
55.6
45.8
36.4

38.8
37.9
44.8
41.8
30.0

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

46.5
49.3

57.6
54.3

46.9
36.0

48.6
41.1

46.5
45.8

49.3
39.8

51.3
42.4

51.6
40.1

44.2
38.0

45.7
34.5

40.4
38.6

44.1
43.0

51.7
40.9
49.8
39.0
42.9
44.3
57.9
48.8
52.7
53.9
*
13.5

40.0
37.7
42.7
56.2
43.7
53.4
66.2
54.8
63.4
55.1
40.4
23.6

38.7
37.3
33.9
42.6
33.6
37.2
50.5
38.4
46.2
38.9
30.8
15.3

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

48.5
41.0
48.5
62.0
54.4
48.3
57.3
48.5
36.8
54.2
*
9.2

42.8
31.9
41.1
42.7
34.1
36.4
57.5
41.3
37.2
52.6
40.8
25.7

52.2
46.4
40.9
47.5
47.1
37.7
55.7
42.9
51.3
46.4
39.6
17.1

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

37.1
36.6
38.5
43.3
32.6
39.3
51.0
31.5
36.9
35.9
*
9.2

40.7
40.3
41.2
43.7
31.1
44.9
60.0
44.3
51.3
49.6
26.3
19.5

44.2
39.6
39.2
42.3
32.1
39.3
46.8
34.2
55.1
40.3
27.7
8.9

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

95.2
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0

95.5
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.9

96.0
0.7
2.3
0.0
1.0

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

91.7
2.5
1.5
0.5
3.9

93.8
1.4
1.0
0.5
3.3

90.5
4.0
0.7
1.5
3.3

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

95.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
2.8

91.5
1.7
1.7
0.8
4.2

91.8
1.4
0.3
0.7
5.8

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

95.3
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.9

91.2
5.0
1.9
0.0
1.9

91.4
4.3
2.0
0.7
1.7

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

97.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0

93.3
3.3
1.9
0.5
1.0

91.6
2.9
2.9
1.1
1.5

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

99.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7

95.0
0.0
2.5
1.7
0.8

94.9
3.4
0.7
0.3
0.7

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

91.9
5.2
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5

93.9
2.5
1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2

90.1
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.0

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

89.8
4.4
3.9
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5

91.5
3.3
2.8
0.5
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.5

89.8
2.9
4.4
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.7

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

94.3
2.8
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4

89.1
3.4
2.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.0
2.5

94.1
3.5
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

81.5
12.8
4.7
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5

83.1
11.2
1.9
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.0
0.6

80.4
11.6
4.7
1.3
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.7

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

84.9
11.2
2.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0

82.1
11.8
3.8
0.9
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.0

83.3
10.5
3.6
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.4

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

92.9
5.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7

96.6
1.7
0.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

92.1
5.8
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Graham County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Greenlee County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Greenlee County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Greenlee County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

263

100

248

100

239

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

100 60401

100

84

31.9

98

39.5

85

35.6 26872

44.5

100

38.0

75

30.2

85

35.6 19581

32.4

79

30.0

75

30.2

69

28.9 13948

23.1

143

55.4

125

51.4

108

47.0 28381

48.2

115

44.6

118

48.6

122

53.0 30505

51.8

2

0.8

0

0.0

5

2.2

2592

4.4

7

2.8

7

3.0

4

1.7

3394

5.8

2

0.8

0

0.0

1

0.4

1341

2.3

110

44.2

136

58.9

108

47.0 21376

36.5

0

0.0

0

128

*

51.4

*

88

38.1

92

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

20

457

0.8

40.0 26761

0.0

45.7

8.7

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Greenlee County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

Grade 10

County County County
2002
2004
2006
84

98

85

State
2006
26872

Grade 12

County County County
2002
2004
2006
100

75

85

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

58.8
61.5
65.5
50.4
76.0
74.3
69.5
44.3
50.5
44.6
30.8
60.6
64.9
55.4
16.9
28.9
34.6
8.0
21.0
28.4
43.8
18.5
20.0
15.5
18.3
43.4
42.5
38.8
15.7
19.8
14.5
15.2
15.0
14.9
23.1
2.4
1.0
0.0
2.1
5.1
8.1
1.2
4.9
1.1
4.8
3.6
11.2
9.6
2.5
4.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
16.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.9
2.6
n/a
n/a
6.3
n/a
1.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.2
3.4
n/a
n/a
3.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.4
4.0
1.4
0.0
2.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.2
14.8
10.0
n/a
21.6
13.3
1.2
1.0
2.7
1.9
7.1
5.4
1.3
n/a
n/a
2.6
1.6
n/a
n/a
0.0
n/a
n/a
14.7
9.8
n/a
n/a
20.8
25.0
35.1
36.4
36.2
48.0
52.1
52.1
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

36.6
12.2
6.1
9.8
11.0
2.4
1.2
3.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.2
1.2
n/a
1.2
n/a
n/a
15.9

2004

32.3
15.5
12.4
8.2
10.4
0.0
0.0
n/a
n/a
0.0
n/a
0.0
n/a
3.1
1.0
n/a
n/a
18.5

2006

37.6
19.3
24.1
6.0
6.1
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
n/a
1.2
1.3
n/a
5.1
1.4
1.3
6.5
20.6

2006

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

2002

2004

46.9
24.5
11.3
19.8
5.2
2.1
6.2
3.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.1
3.1
n/a
2.1
n/a
n/a
27.1

39.7
34.2
13.5
15.3
4.1
4.1
2.7
n/a
n/a
2.7
n/a
0.0
n/a
9.5
1.4
n/a
n/a
26.8

2006

48.1
29.8
24.4
14.7
5.3
0.0
0.0
n/a
1.3
n/a
1.2
0.0
n/a
5.1
0.0
0.0
12.7
26.6

State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
79

75

69

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

78.2
66.7
31.2
46.2
15.4
6.4
17.9
17.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.6
10.3
n/a
9.1
n/a
n/a
50.6

86.5
74.0
32.9
47.3
16.2
6.8
12.2
n/a
n/a
20.3
n/a
1.4
n/a
28.4
1.4
n/a
n/a
58.1

86.6
63.2
37.9
55.4
15.4
3.1
9.4
n/a
4.6
n/a
3.1
1.6
n/a
21.5
3.2
3.1
25.8
70.0

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

57.1
28.9
10.7
15.6
1.3
1.3
7.9
7.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.3
5.2
n/a
1.3
n/a
n/a
20.8

48.6
37.3
12.3
18.1
1.4
2.7
5.4
n/a
n/a
9.5
n/a
0.0
n/a
10.8
0.0
n/a
n/a
25.0

55.4
32.8
16.4
22.7
4.7
1.5
1.6
n/a
0.0
n/a
1.5
1.6
n/a
9.2
0.0
3.1
17.2
32.2

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
19.5
22.7
25.3
13.4
28.1
23.0
34.1
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.2
2.1
2.5
1.0
7.1
9.5
3.6
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
18.1
8.2
15.3
Drunk or High at School
14.5
8.2
18.3
Sold Illegal Drugs
4.8
3.1
0.0
Stolen a Vehicle
6.0
2.0
1.2
Been Arrested
4.8
3.1
4.8
Attacked to Harm
18.1
13.3
13.1
Carried a Handgun
10.7
5.1
4.8
Handgun to School
1.2
0.0
0.0
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

16.2
33.3
11.1
5.1
10.2
13.5
6.1
2.0

2004

14.9
28.8
10.8
8.1
13.5
21.6
4.1
0.0

2006

23.8
31.0
4.9
6.2
7.4
20.2
1.2
0.0

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

27.3
7.9

County County County
2002
2004
2006

29.9
4.5

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

12.0
25.3
13.3
5.3
10.7
17.3
12.0
1.3

Grade 10
State
2006

33.3
10.7

State
2006

6.7
33.3
9.3
0.0
10.7
17.3
6.7
0.0

13.4
37.3
9.1
3.0
4.5
23.5
8.8
1.5

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

53.9
44.4

62.1
51.5

58.1
43.4

38.2
30.4

50.6
43.0

43.5
49.3

52.1
54.9

37.1
36.3

48.7
47.4

39.4
35.6

55.0
45.5

37.6
35.2

62.3
59.7
68.6

57.9
73.5
72.9

49.4
53.7
54.3

48.7
57.4
60.6

57.9
45.0
57.5

43.7
50.0
62.3

43.2
62.3
60.0

44.1
53.0
54.9

54.3
56.5
56.5

59.1
54.4
55.2

56.5
49.2
59.7

57.1
55.9
56.9

72.5
60.5

73.5
73.5

77.4
60.7

59.1
50.7

52.5
63.6

63.5
70.8

67.1
71.8

62.9
62.3

70.5
48.7

62.7
52.0

77.9
50.0

65.2
48.0

*
56.8
41.5
*
*
*

71.1
63.3
58.2
67.3
48.0
56.7

52.4
51.2
58.8
60.7
38.6
64.6

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
44.8
48.5
*
*
*

44.6
40.5
53.4
56.7
45.9
50.7

53.7
44.7
55.6
57.1
53.6
62.3

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
43.4
26.0
*
*
*

82.4
60.8
30.1
41.3
45.3
39.2

77.9
58.2
39.7
46.3
41.8
53.0

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

45.7
50.6
30.4
37.8
36.2
58.5

28.9
45.8
44.3
37.5
47.4
48.5

36.2
56.2
36.7
37.8
47.4
52.1

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

48.9
70.2
38.9
51.6
69.8
44.3

47.9
71.8
40.3
49.3
59.7
31.9

37.8
69.4
42.5
48.8
61.8
32.4

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

51.3
59.2
39.0
36.8
61.0
55.8

62.2
68.1
37.1
37.5
57.3
39.2

57.6
80.6
33.8
48.5
49.2
27.3

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

43.8
58.3
42.1
57.9
34.2

33.7
49.0
56.7
43.8
30.2

44.4
52.5
55.7
55.8
48.1

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

56.1
41.9
63.6
65.9
40.9

34.7
43.1
54.8
51.4
48.6

37.0
38.8
50.0
55.1
53.4

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

43.5
39.1
47.8
58.7
43.5

47.8
36.8
54.4
63.2
57.4

44.6
37.5
36.9
56.7
49.2

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

48.0
40.2

47.4
33.7

54.3
43.9

48.6
41.1

50.5
54.6

54.3
45.2

44.7
39.3

51.6
40.1

37.7
56.4

48.6
54.1

29.0
46.4

44.1
43.0

37.3
43.2
45.6
43.4
36.1
42.2
48.2
47.0
39.8
45.1
*
6.0

29.9
27.8
54.2
39.8
34.7
44.9
45.9
49.5
54.7
46.9
39.2
9.4

40.0
31.7
38.8
46.2
36.2
45.1
43.5
47.1
48.8
44.2
34.5
13.6

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

54.5
44.4
52.5
63.6
56.0
43.8
63.3
54.1
41.2
51.0
*
10.4

50.7
52.7
56.8
52.1
42.5
47.2
73.5
59.4
47.8
52.8
56.2
23.6

42.4
43.0
53.0
58.3
48.7
41.5
60.7
44.7
43.6
40.6
46.2
15.2

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

59.0
48.7
44.9
67.9
55.1
50.0
72.7
39.7
46.7
46.1
*
15.8

29.3
44.0
49.3
60.0
33.3
34.2
70.7
45.3
51.4
43.8
41.1
17.6

52.9
50.0
43.3
59.7
41.5
48.5
65.7
53.7
62.1
38.1
40.9
9.1

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

91.4
1.2
3.7
0.0
3.7

94.9
1.0
2.0
1.0
1.0

90.1
3.7
2.5
0.0
3.7

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

90.8
4.1
1.0
0.0
4.1

85.1
0.0
1.4
1.4
12.2

95.2
1.2
0.0
0.0
3.6

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

81.8
3.9
2.6
3.9
7.8

93.2
5.5
0.0
0.0
1.4

94.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

92.8
4.8
2.4
0.0
0.0

92.9
6.1
1.0
0.0
0.0

94.0
2.4
2.4
1.2
0.0

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

96.9
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.0

94.6
2.7
2.7
0.0
0.0

98.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

92.2 100.0
4.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.1
0.0

98.6
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0

95.5
3.0
0.0
0.0
1.5

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

94.0
1.2
2.4
1.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0

89.8
5.1
3.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0

91.7
3.6
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

90.9
3.0
5.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

87.8
9.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4

92.9
2.4
2.4
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

93.7
2.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

93.2
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.4

90.9
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

71.1
19.3
7.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4

73.5
11.2
14.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

76.2
10.7
9.5
1.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

84.8
9.1
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

79.7
9.5
8.1
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0

78.8
10.6
10.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

97.4
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

93.2
2.7
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

88.2
7.4
2.9
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Greenlee County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

La Paz County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

La Paz County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in La Paz County and the State. Because
not all students answer all of the
questions, the number of students in the

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

432

100

373

100

153

35.4

157

156

36.1

128

123

28.5

206
215

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

376

100 60401

100

42.1

145

38.6 26872

44.5

34.3

167

44.4 19581

32.4

88

23.6

64

17.0 13948

23.1

48.9

170

46.4

172

47.4 28381

48.2

51.1

196

53.6

191

52.6 30505

51.8

8

1.9

8

2.3

7

1.9

2592

4.4

90

21.6

63

17.9

59

16.3

3394

5.8

0.6

1341

2.3

35.9 21376

36.5

2

0.5

3

0.9

2

149

35.8

132

37.5

130

1

0.3

3

167

*

40.1

*

145

41.2

146

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

15

457

0.8

40.3 26761

0.8

45.7

4.1

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 La Paz County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
153

157

145

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
156

128

167

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

74.0
57.1
53.0
50.4
72.8
69.0
66.2
57.2
45.3
37.0
30.8
55.2
43.1
44.5
11.9
8.6
8.1
8.0
10.3
14.6
22.3
38.4
26.5
23.7
18.3
47.4
35.2
34.2
16.9
16.2
13.2
15.2
14.5
16.1
12.1
4.0
4.0
1.6
2.1
7.2
11.3
2.1
7.3
6.1
3.1
3.6
11.7
9.8
7.8
7.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.6
2.6
n/a
n/a
5.2
n/a
8.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0
3.4
n/a
n/a
5.7
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.4
6.4
1.6
2.9
3.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
9.3
4.2
10.0
n/a
13.0
15.6
6.7
2.7
0.0
1.9
9.0
5.6
2.1
n/a
n/a
0.0
1.6
n/a
n/a
2.9
n/a
n/a
7.7
9.8
n/a
n/a
18.6
43.8
34.0
41.5
36.2
53.2
43.2
48.8
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

49.0
17.0
6.5
18.4
4.6
2.0
1.3
3.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.0
0.7
n/a
3.3
n/a
n/a
21.5

2004

30.1
9.9
2.6
12.6
6.6
4.0
3.3
n/a
n/a
6.7
n/a
0.7
n/a
5.2
2.0
n/a
n/a
18.8

2006

28.5
8.7
1.6
14.1
6.5
0.8
1.6
n/a
4.8
n/a
0.0
1.6
n/a
1.7
0.0
0.0
2.5
22.9

2006

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

2002

2004

48.7
20.1
5.2
24.0
5.2
4.5
5.2
5.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.3
2.0
n/a
3.9
n/a
n/a
33.1

42.7
15.6
2.5
15.3
1.6
3.3
1.6
n/a
n/a
1.7
n/a
0.0
n/a
7.4
1.6
n/a
n/a
22.3

2006

37.1
19.9
7.9
11.5
2.2
0.7
0.7
n/a
0.7
n/a
2.2
1.4
n/a
8.0
1.4
0.0
9.4
23.3

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
123

88

64

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

86.9
65.6
15.6
62.3
13.0
9.8
16.5
21.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.4
6.5
n/a
13.8
n/a
n/a
62.6

73.6
46.4
14.3
32.2
7.1
0.0
0.0
n/a
n/a
3.5
n/a
0.0
n/a
11.9
2.4
n/a
n/a
37.2

69.4
46.8
23.8
38.3
13.8
1.8
6.9
n/a
6.9
n/a
7.0
0.0
n/a
12.3
5.1
3.3
17.7
48.1

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

60.5
25.0
5.8
25.8
4.2
5.0
8.3
7.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.8
1.7
n/a
3.4
n/a
n/a
31.4

37.9
16.5
6.0
6.9
1.2
0.0
0.0
n/a
n/a
2.3
n/a
0.0
n/a
2.3
0.0
n/a
n/a
10.7

42.6
14.3
8.1
16.7
0.0
0.0
3.4
n/a
5.2
n/a
1.9
0.0
n/a
6.8
1.8
1.6
8.3
24.5

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
29.1
18.4
15.7
13.4
26.8
29.2
22.7
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
2.0
2.0
0.8
1.0
6.5
1.7
2.0
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
15.7
17.2
18.1
Drunk or High at School
19.6
17.5
16.2
Sold Illegal Drugs
8.5
7.2
6.8
Stolen a Vehicle
4.6
7.1
4.4
Been Arrested
12.4
4.5
11.5
Attacked to Harm
11.8
20.0
16.0
Carried a Handgun
9.8
7.7
15.7
Handgun to School
3.3
3.9
1.5
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

11.0
20.8
7.8
5.2
10.5
10.5
3.2
1.3

2004

13.7
18.5
8.1
8.0
13.7
16.0
7.2
2.4

2006

11.8
19.3
4.6
3.2
7.2
14.5
6.6
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

42.9
3.3

County County County
2002
2004
2006

23.7
3.2

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

13.1
22.8
10.6
4.9
13.1
9.8
4.1
2.4

Grade 10
State
2006

21.4
4.7

State
2006

4.5
14.8
3.4
1.1
5.8
10.2
3.4
1.1

11.7
21.7
7.0
3.4
8.3
13.3
6.7
3.3

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

50.3
43.0

43.3
40.7

43.5
31.5

38.2
30.4

32.2
43.2

48.6
42.0

43.6
43.4

37.1
36.3

36.9
47.3

31.7
44.6

44.4
40.7

37.6
35.2

52.4
50.3
56.6

44.1
60.3
59.2

45.9
56.4
65.3

48.7
57.4
60.6

40.3
48.4
45.5

43.7
55.0
59.4

45.3
51.7
53.9

44.1
53.0
54.9

52.4
50.0
38.6

56.2
51.9
44.4

57.6
59.6
58.3

57.1
55.9
56.9

54.2
53.6

65.0
56.4

60.8
57.3

59.1
50.7

54.5
54.2

56.8
61.6

58.8
66.5

62.9
62.3

65.0
57.4

60.9
55.7

51.6
63.5

65.2
48.0

*
44.7
49.7
*
*
*

44.2
51.3
52.9
46.0
41.6
63.8

48.6
54.9
56.8
48.9
37.6
60.1

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
50.3
63.9
*
*
*

30.4
43.7
63.3
43.5
36.0
55.2

35.2
50.6
66.4
47.5
40.6
67.5

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
59.5
49.6
*
*
*

67.4
70.9
50.0
50.0
45.5
56.3

61.3
65.6
55.0
52.4
37.7
50.8

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

40.1
57.0
37.8
47.1
52.3
41.7

46.2
51.4
48.3
47.6
46.9
50.0

41.1
54.1
51.8
35.7
33.0
38.2

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

50.3
62.5
41.2
48.6
53.4
26.0

43.8
70.0
47.7
49.6
52.1
42.2

48.5
70.5
50.8
53.4
43.3
28.5

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

50.0
58.4
50.5
34.5
50.4
27.4

61.9
67.5
36.1
36.1
41.2
28.2

61.7
70.9
57.4
60.0
49.1
40.0

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

52.4
51.7
62.3
53.7
38.1

46.2
48.5
59.1
41.7
25.0

42.5
53.4
56.1
45.7
29.0

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

47.6
37.8
52.0
49.2
42.1

44.7
39.4
55.0
52.3
48.2

44.3
40.2
44.5
52.7
44.2

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

40.2
33.3
51.1
42.7
46.1

35.8
45.1
48.8
39.8
31.3

41.0
48.3
44.8
56.1
57.9

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

57.9
34.6

48.0
34.2

57.0
42.1

48.6
41.1

65.3
40.3

56.3
42.1

56.8
36.4

51.6
40.1

65.5
40.7

47.6
37.6

40.7
38.7

44.1
43.0

45.1
37.1
55.6
48.0
47.3
47.1
61.2
62.4
47.3
60.1
*
13.9

42.4
36.4
45.8
41.3
32.3
40.0
55.0
42.0
48.0
51.3
32.7
21.9

45.4
45.5
42.3
34.9
25.8
32.5
54.2
44.4
48.6
49.2
36.7
25.0

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

43.9
41.3
43.1
50.6
36.8
50.3
52.6
44.2
30.9
51.6
*
15.6

35.5
41.9
44.4
46.8
31.5
39.2
61.5
46.0
36.6
49.6
44.7
28.4

46.9
42.9
40.4
48.1
37.4
39.7
60.7
41.7
35.0
46.7
45.3
16.4

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

46.7
39.8
47.5
47.1
34.4
43.0
57.7
37.7
40.7
45.5
*
18.0

29.4
40.9
37.5
37.5
19.3
33.3
48.3
24.1
43.7
50.6
25.6
14.1

41.9
43.3
40.3
46.6
31.0
43.1
61.9
28.6
42.9
38.7
21.9
18.3

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

91.4
2.0
2.6
0.7
3.3

90.8
2.6
2.0
0.0
4.6

92.8
4.3
2.2
0.0
0.7

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

93.5
1.9
0.0
1.3
3.2

91.7
2.5
3.3
1.7
0.8

88.8
5.0
2.5
0.0
3.8

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

90.1
3.3
0.8
0.0
5.8

91.9
2.3
3.5
0.0
2.3

90.5
1.6
3.2
0.0
4.8

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

95.4
3.3
1.3
0.0
0.0

91.5
5.2
1.3
0.7
1.3

84.9
8.6
2.2
2.9
1.4

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

96.2
1.9
0.6
0.0
1.3

90.2
3.3
4.1
0.8
1.6

92.5
5.0
1.9
0.6
0.0

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

95.1
2.4
0.8
1.6
0.0

89.5
3.5
2.3
1.2
3.5

93.8
4.7
0.0
0.0
1.6

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

89.5
5.9
0.7
1.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
2.0

87.1
3.9
4.5
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.6
1.9

80.7
12.9
4.3
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

94.2
1.3
3.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0

83.3
9.5
3.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
2.4

84.4
8.1
1.9
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.0
2.5

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

95.9
2.4
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0

91.8
0.0
4.7
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2

90.5
3.2
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

77.1
11.1
7.8
0.7
0.0
0.7
0.0
2.6

79.4
7.7
9.0
2.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6

73.7
11.7
9.5
2.2
1.5
0.7
0.0
0.7

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

86.5
9.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

83.1
5.6
7.3
0.8
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.6

86.9
7.5
3.1
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.6

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

95.9
3.3
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

90.7
5.8
1.2
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0

93.8
3.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

La Paz County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Maricopa County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Maricopa County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Maricopa County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

Number

Percent

County 2004
Number

Percent

County 2006
Number

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

3678

100 21970

100 36136

100 60401

100

1571

44.5

42.7 11337

51.6 17172

47.5 26872

854

23.2

5918

26.9 11079

30.7 19581

32.4

1253

34.1

4715

21.5

7885

21.8 13948

23.1

1814

50.7 10270

47.6 16972

48.2 28381

48.2

1766

49.3 11324

52.4 18265

51.8 30505

51.8

165

4.7

1085

5.3

1894

5.4

2592

82

2.4

466

2.3

832

2.4

3394

5.8

133

3.8

584

2.8

998

2.8

1341

2.3

789

22.6

6267

34.0 21376

36.5

*
2318
n/a

*

181

30.4 11950
0.9

319

66.5 12047

58.4 17484

n/a

n/a

n/a

1664

0.9

4.4

457

0.8

49.8 26761

45.7

4.7

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Maricopa County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
1571

11337

17172

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
854

5918

11079

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

55.4
50.2
49.1
50.4
71.8
68.3
64.7
38.0
29.7
28.0
30.8
47.8
41.2
39.8
5.8
5.3
6.5
8.0
9.0
8.9
9.6
23.6
18.7
16.6
18.3
41.6
34.2
31.0
12.5
12.6
14.6
15.2
10.8
10.0
10.8
2.8
2.2
1.8
2.1
9.0
5.0
3.7
4.3
3.2
3.4
3.6
8.1
6.8
6.3
2.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.3
2.6
n/a
n/a
4.1
n/a
2.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.2
3.4
n/a
n/a
7.0
1.9
1.3
1.3
1.4
3.4
2.4
2.0
2.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.2
9.6
10.0
n/a
16.5
14.0
5.3
2.2
1.7
1.9
8.8
3.7
2.8
n/a
n/a
1.6
1.6
n/a
n/a
1.9
n/a
n/a
9.4
9.8
n/a
n/a
15.8
30.1
30.8
34.1
36.2
44.4
42.8
43.6
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

34.7
9.6
3.5
13.7
7.0
1.5
2.5
1.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.1
1.1
n/a
3.4
n/a
n/a
19.4

2004

24.5
9.3
1.7
8.7
5.3
1.3
1.5
n/a
n/a
1.3
n/a
0.6
n/a
5.0
0.8
n/a
n/a
16.1

2006

23.0
9.3
2.1
7.7
5.9
0.9
1.7
n/a
0.9
n/a
1.4
0.6
n/a
4.4
0.7
0.8
4.1
18.3

2006

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

2002

2004

48.5
18.8
4.2
22.7
3.6
3.5
4.0
3.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.7
2.9
n/a
2.4
n/a
n/a
26.0

41.5
16.4
2.7
15.5
2.6
2.1
2.3
n/a
n/a
2.4
n/a
0.7
n/a
8.2
0.9
n/a
n/a
22.2

2006

36.4
15.2
3.2
14.3
2.8
1.6
2.2
n/a
1.3
n/a
2.9
0.6
n/a
6.3
0.8
1.0
7.1
23.2

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
1253

4715

7885

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

81.3
62.1
15.4
53.5
10.3
15.2
13.8
9.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.0
9.2
n/a
15.4
n/a
n/a
55.1

76.1
49.9
15.2
43.0
8.8
8.1
10.4
n/a
n/a
7.4
n/a
3.4
n/a
21.9
6.0
n/a
n/a
50.4

72.8
47.4
13.6
41.0
9.2
5.4
10.8
n/a
6.1
n/a
8.9
3.0
n/a
18.2
4.3
2.4
20.8
51.2

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

61.6
25.0
4.5
29.4
2.5
3.5
4.7
2.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.1
4.3
n/a
3.8
n/a
n/a
32.1

52.1
23.0
5.1
18.5
1.4
2.1
3.3
n/a
n/a
2.4
n/a
0.9
n/a
10.3
0.9
n/a
n/a
25.2

46.0
21.3
4.9
18.3
1.4
1.5
2.9
n/a
1.3
n/a
2.7
0.8
n/a
7.5
0.9
1.0
8.4
26.3

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
14.4
15.2
12.3
13.4
27.1
24.5
20.3
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.3
0.7
1.0
1.0
4.3
2.6
2.0
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
17.2
17.3
19.4
Drunk or High at School
14.3
12.2
11.7
Sold Illegal Drugs
5.6
4.5
4.7
Stolen a Vehicle
3.5
4.5
4.4
Been Arrested
8.6
7.3
7.1
Attacked to Harm
12.2
17.0
17.2
Carried a Handgun
7.5
5.8
7.3
Handgun to School
1.4
1.5
1.5
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

12.5
19.6
10.3
3.6
7.3
10.2
4.5
1.2

2004

10.8
18.6
8.3
3.8
7.3
15.4
5.0
1.2

2006

14.6
18.6
8.6
4.3
7.9
15.1
7.1
1.6

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

34.8
8.5

County County County
2002
2004
2006

26.9
4.2

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

10.0
26.5
11.8
2.3
8.9
10.3
4.2
0.9

Grade 10
State
2006

32.4
5.2

State
2006

8.5
20.4
9.7
2.4
7.7
12.5
4.9
1.1

8.7
20.1
9.7
3.0
6.8
12.5
6.3
1.2

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

39.6
31.8

41.5
32.3

38.2
30.5

38.2
30.4

45.6
44.2

40.3
36.4

38.2
36.3

37.1
36.3

43.2
34.3

40.1
35.6

38.5
34.8

37.6
35.2

51.6
59.0
59.9

50.6
60.1
60.8

49.7
58.1
61.1

48.7
57.4
60.6

50.2
59.3
57.4

47.7
56.9
57.0

44.8
54.1
55.4

44.1
53.0
54.9

62.4
58.1
58.6

56.9
57.2
57.2

57.6
56.4
56.5

57.1
55.9
56.9

54.6
48.7

62.4
51.6

59.9
51.1

59.1
50.7

60.9
62.9

63.3
60.5

66.9
63.7

62.9
62.3

67.2
51.2

64.4
42.7

67.5
47.6

65.2
48.0

*
60.1
51.1
*
*
*

47.6
60.4
53.9
47.4
39.9
58.3

46.8
59.3
54.4
46.3
37.4
57.7

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
54.6
57.5
*
*
*

47.8
53.3
62.6
49.9
44.8
59.3

46.1
55.0
63.5
50.9
41.0
61.4

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
62.4
44.5
*
*
*

72.6
65.0
50.2
48.1
42.9
49.7

70.7
67.0
51.7
48.6
40.5
53.9

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

37.9
41.5
51.2
34.6
39.8
38.7

38.5
44.6
53.2
35.4
39.1
35.1

39.2
46.3
53.0
36.5
37.6
36.0

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

35.5
35.6
44.9
31.9
50.1
23.2

42.7
47.7
60.6
38.7
51.5
24.4

44.0
54.4
63.0
39.3
47.2
26.2

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

40.4
38.0
44.8
34.5
63.4
32.5

48.3
43.9
58.4
34.4
54.4
33.1

47.8
48.1
56.5
31.6
50.2
33.1

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

44.9
47.4
40.1
42.9
27.0

45.6
52.3
42.2
44.2
27.3

47.2
52.0
39.4
47.9
28.3

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

41.8
33.9
34.5
45.0
44.1

42.6
40.9
40.8
47.2
41.9

43.1
42.1
39.8
48.4
38.9

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

46.4
31.2
35.1
43.8
48.0

46.3
38.6
38.8
43.5
42.6

44.8
38.3
35.4
44.9
38.6

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

50.9
44.1

46.2
39.4

45.8
40.6

48.6
41.1

43.2
45.8

46.3
46.9

48.5
38.3

51.6
40.1

41.2
45.8

39.9
50.1

42.4
43.7

44.1
43.0

39.5
33.4
37.9
45.7
37.6
48.5
50.1
39.5
36.3
47.9
*
19.3

36.5
36.3
34.8
44.9
32.4
47.0
55.9
41.6
48.0
50.7
37.1
22.7

43.1
39.0
32.7
46.0
31.0
44.3
56.9
39.2
48.5
43.8
35.1
24.9

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

39.6
29.8
38.0
55.7
48.4
45.8
48.2
46.0
37.6
40.8
*
13.8

39.4
35.8
35.0
51.4
39.3
41.2
53.0
43.6
43.2
48.7
46.8
19.9

45.9
40.0
33.1
47.4
34.4
38.8
54.9
40.3
44.5
44.1
42.3
22.0

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

38.3
31.7
42.4
54.4
49.8
48.1
47.1
44.6
42.7
38.1
*
9.7

36.8
36.4
35.9
46.6
38.2
45.7
48.0
37.5
53.6
40.9
31.7
16.9

43.5
36.3
32.0
45.2
34.6
40.5
50.1
35.0
53.8
36.9
29.5
15.2

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

94.7
2.2
1.5
0.3
1.3

94.2
2.7
1.4
0.4
1.3

93.4
3.1
1.5
0.6
1.5

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

95.5
0.7
0.8
0.1
2.8

95.8
1.5
0.9
0.3
1.5

93.8
2.2
1.3
0.6
2.1

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

94.5
1.4
0.5
0.7
3.0

95.8
1.1
0.8
0.4
1.9

95.2
1.2
0.8
0.5
2.3

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

95.1
3.2
1.0
0.2
0.5

89.5
5.8
2.8
0.7
1.1

90.0
5.6
2.6
0.6
1.1

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

98.1
0.6
0.9
0.0
0.4

93.4
3.6
1.7
0.4
0.8

92.5
3.9
2.0
0.5
1.0

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

97.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.8

95.2
2.4
1.4
0.5
0.6

95.4
2.3
1.2
0.4
0.7

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

89.8
5.3
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.8

84.1
8.8
3.8
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
1.2

85.0
7.3
4.1
1.2
0.6
0.3
0.3
1.2

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

91.2
4.1
3.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6

87.3
6.7
3.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
1.1

86.5
6.4
3.9
1.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.1

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

94.3
2.7
1.5
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.8

90.2
4.7
3.0
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.7

91.0
4.1
2.9
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

78.0
12.6
5.7
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.3
1.2

74.1
13.9
7.7
2.1
0.7
0.3
0.2
1.0

77.1
12.4
6.7
1.8
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.9

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

88.3
6.6
4.0
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.6

85.0
8.7
4.5
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4

85.9
8.1
3.9
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

93.3
3.5
1.8
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2

90.6
5.6
2.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3

92.1
5.0
1.8
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Maricopa County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Mohave County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Mohave County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Mohave County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

570

100

1558

100

125

21.9

567

261

45.8

608

184

32.3

289
271

State 2006
Number

Percent

1877

100 60401

100

36.4

459

24.5 26872

44.5

39.0

835

44.5 19581

32.4

383

24.6

583

31.1 13948

23.1

51.6

723

46.9

894

48.9 28381

48.2

48.4

817

53.1

934

51.1 30505

51.8

7

1.3

23

1.6

24

1.3

2592

4.4

6

1.1

19

1.3

44

2.4

3394

5.8

9

1.7

11

0.8

13

0.7

1341

2.3

116

21.3

345

23.5

343

18.8 21376

36.5

13

0.9

10

406

*

74.6

*

1055

72.0

1288

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

99

Percent

457

0.8

70.7 26761

0.5

45.7

5.4

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Mohave County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
125

567

459

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
261

608

835

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

54.1
55.5
64.1
50.4
79.9
77.8
75.5
38.7
32.9
36.8
30.8
57.7
48.7
47.1
2.4
6.6
5.6
8.0
9.7
10.2
11.6
22.0
23.8
23.4
18.3
50.0
42.1
40.8
8.9
12.5
16.6
15.2
13.9
12.8
13.3
1.6
1.5
2.7
2.1
8.6
6.0
6.6
3.2
2.0
3.0
3.6
9.3
6.3
8.8
1.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.8
2.6
n/a
n/a
9.7
n/a
2.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.4
3.4
n/a
n/a
8.9
1.6
1.1
1.3
1.4
4.3
1.2
2.9
1.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.1
12.7
10.0
n/a
19.8
18.8
2.4
1.7
1.8
1.9
11.3
3.3
6.0
n/a
n/a
1.0
1.6
n/a
n/a
1.9
n/a
n/a
14.5
9.8
n/a
n/a
22.7
24.8
35.2
43.4
36.2
50.6
51.4
54.5
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

25.6
5.8
0.8
8.3
3.3
0.8
0.8
0.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.8
0.0
n/a
1.7
n/a
n/a
12.0

2004

26.6
10.4
1.8
9.9
5.2
0.9
0.4
n/a
n/a
0.8
n/a
0.7
n/a
6.5
0.2
n/a
n/a
17.9

2006

34.6
13.1
1.6
10.0
6.4
1.0
0.5
n/a
0.8
n/a
1.5
1.0
n/a
5.0
0.8
0.5
6.8
23.3

2006

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

2002

2004

52.3
19.1
3.9
27.3
3.5
2.4
2.0
3.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
4.0
n/a
3.2
n/a
n/a
31.0

48.2
18.1
1.5
16.0
2.9
2.2
1.5
n/a
n/a
3.3
n/a
0.7
n/a
10.1
0.7
n/a
n/a
24.2

2006

46.2
19.9
3.1
19.1
3.3
2.3
2.7
n/a
3.6
n/a
3.7
1.0
n/a
9.8
1.4
0.8
10.5
31.0

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
184

383

583

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

86.9
69.4
13.8
61.2
7.7
13.1
7.7
11.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.7
8.8
n/a
13.3
n/a
n/a
62.0

85.8
56.0
14.3
49.2
13.2
8.7
14.0
n/a
n/a
10.6
n/a
1.6
n/a
23.9
7.5
n/a
n/a
55.9

78.3
52.3
17.2
46.1
11.2
7.0
10.4
n/a
9.2
n/a
8.1
2.6
n/a
21.1
5.7
3.2
24.4
56.8

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

58.8
20.9
4.4
26.2
2.2
3.3
2.2
4.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.1
4.9
n/a
4.4
n/a
n/a
29.5

55.9
29.7
3.2
21.0
2.6
2.4
4.0
n/a
n/a
3.2
n/a
0.8
n/a
14.4
0.8
n/a
n/a
28.5

50.7
20.6
5.9
18.4
1.8
4.5
4.0
n/a
2.4
n/a
2.9
0.8
n/a
10.1
1.4
1.4
10.7
29.7

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
7.5
17.3
21.3
13.4
28.9
27.9
28.5
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
0.8
1.3
1.2
1.0
6.6
5.0
5.4
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
9.8
18.8
24.0
Drunk or High at School
9.1
13.0
16.0
Sold Illegal Drugs
4.1
5.6
4.2
Stolen a Vehicle
2.5
5.0
6.7
Been Arrested
5.7
10.3
11.9
Attacked to Harm
8.9
21.7
19.3
Carried a Handgun
3.3
9.7
6.3
Handgun to School
0.0
2.4
1.5
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

18.4
28.0
9.8
5.1
14.8
13.0
6.6
1.6

2004

12.9
21.9
9.0
3.6
8.8
16.4
3.5
1.2

2006

17.3
23.0
9.8
4.1
10.3
19.9
5.9
1.0

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

35.2
8.2

County County County
2002
2004
2006

33.1
6.7

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

14.8
28.6
12.8
3.8
10.4
12.8
8.8
1.1

Grade 10
State
2006

33.7
6.2

State
2006

10.6
23.7
13.5
3.2
12.4
14.2
5.0
1.1

11.0
22.3
10.1
3.2
8.1
12.7
7.7
1.7

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

50.5
36.4

45.1
25.8

37.9
27.6

38.2
30.4

30.0
32.5

39.2
30.9

39.2
33.0

37.1
36.3

39.7
35.2

30.1
24.3

36.3
27.0

37.6
35.2

61.3
62.8
66.1

47.6
57.5
57.5

42.7
54.5
56.7

48.7
57.4
60.6

44.1
53.0
51.4

42.6
52.6
54.0

43.2
48.2
51.7

44.1
53.0
54.9

49.4
51.5
50.9

51.9
54.9
55.3

51.5
49.2
49.9

57.1
55.9
56.9

54.2
49.2

54.0
43.5

54.0
46.2

59.1
50.7

54.1
61.5

52.9
55.8

53.5
52.7

62.9
62.3

59.7
46.4

48.6
36.4

56.6
40.2

65.2
48.0

*
64.2
64.2
*
*
*

34.6
54.3
50.7
39.5
34.8
51.9

34.8
48.0
45.1
38.8
30.0
52.7

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
48.6
61.3
*
*
*

29.8
49.9
58.9
44.7
38.6
55.3

28.3
44.9
57.5
39.1
32.8
54.2

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
56.4
38.8
*
*
*

60.2
60.4
45.9
37.5
27.3
41.1

54.6
62.7
46.1
35.2
29.2
40.6

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

40.5
24.8
43.3
34.5
36.6
36.0

50.2
46.2
56.9
38.0
46.1
40.7

47.8
48.2
62.1
48.4
46.6
43.6

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

52.0
52.8
67.4
44.1
52.4
26.9

56.2
58.6
69.2
50.3
59.7
26.3

53.9
58.3
69.9
50.9
58.9
33.2

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

58.0
49.2
67.2
39.9
60.1
34.5

57.8
48.3
62.6
40.6
60.7
39.3

62.9
55.3
67.0
45.0
58.5
36.1

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

36.2
41.2
41.0
30.5
26.1

45.2
54.9
48.0
46.7
31.7

49.3
58.4
56.7
55.8
40.4

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

46.5
40.5
47.2
46.4
50.2

49.1
44.2
55.5
51.9
49.8

45.2
46.6
53.4
58.7
53.4

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

52.0
34.7
46.3
45.1
49.4

48.9
40.3
51.3
52.9
52.1

49.6
43.8
48.2
55.5
54.3

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

54.1
46.7

53.1
49.9

54.1
51.2

48.6
41.1

57.0
45.8

51.5
50.6

56.7
49.2

51.6
40.1

48.3
45.6

49.3
54.5

45.6
48.1

44.1
43.0

28.7
26.0
37.4
38.7
32.3
44.1
41.3
37.2
33.3
37.3
*
14.0

40.0
41.8
39.4
51.5
36.5
52.1
61.6
46.4
50.0
57.1
41.0
25.8

50.5
46.0
42.6
52.9
42.6
50.1
66.3
52.4
57.0
48.2
43.2
19.8

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

44.5
46.7
49.8
53.1
49.4
48.8
54.7
51.6
26.1
50.4
*
10.9

40.2
41.1
45.1
51.0
44.1
44.9
60.2
47.6
47.1
51.9
51.1
22.9

51.2
48.3
44.0
55.6
42.9
43.9
61.3
48.5
47.8
50.4
50.2
19.0

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

48.9
47.0
51.4
58.2
51.4
58.3
53.6
35.9
33.0
43.3
*
11.0

38.2
42.6
45.8
50.9
42.5
49.6
55.6
42.8
51.6
48.8
37.0
18.3

46.2
39.6
37.9
49.3
37.3
44.6
53.0
35.9
54.7
42.2
30.8
15.2

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

95.9
0.0
0.8
0.8
2.5

92.4
2.5
1.8
0.7
2.5

93.4
2.3
1.6
0.7
2.1

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

96.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
2.7

95.7
1.2
1.3
0.2
1.7

93.7
2.0
1.0
0.2
3.1

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

95.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.3

96.3
1.3
0.3
0.0
2.1

93.5
1.7
0.7
0.4
3.7

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

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

97.6
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.8

91.2
5.4
1.4
0.2
1.8

88.9
6.3
1.6
0.7
2.5

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

98.5
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.8

93.2
3.3
1.5
0.5
1.5

94.9
2.6
1.5
0.2
0.7

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

98.4
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.5

94.2
2.9
1.1
0.8
1.1

96.3
2.0
0.4
0.6
0.7

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

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

87.1
3.2
4.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
4.8

85.1
7.4
3.8
1.3
0.4
0.2
0.5
1.4

82.6
7.7
5.4
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.2
1.8

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

94.3
2.7
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.1

88.4
5.5
3.3
1.7
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.8

83.4
7.2
5.6
1.1
0.4
0.1
0.0
2.2

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

95.6
1.1
2.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5

91.6
3.9
2.4
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.1

91.7
3.5
2.0
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.4
1.1

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

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

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

80.0
9.6
8.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6

68.2
16.3
9.9
3.1
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.9

70.8
16.3
8.8
1.8
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.9

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

89.2
6.5
2.3
0.8
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8

82.1
9.5
5.6
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.8

82.0
10.3
5.3
1.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
1.0

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

91.3
5.5
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5

91.3
5.6
2.4
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3

91.3
4.4
2.6
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.7

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Mohave County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

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

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

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

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

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

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

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

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

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

Other State and National Contacts:

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

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

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

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

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Navajo County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

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

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Navajo County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

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

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Navajo County and the State. Because
not all students answer all of the
questions, the number of students in the

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

1048

100

1399

100

633

60.4

449

257

24.5

512

158

15.1

505
515

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

1415

100 60401

100

32.1

558

39.4 26872

44.5

36.6

496

35.1 19581

32.4

438

31.3

361

25.5 13948

23.1

49.5

652

47.1

664

47.7 28381

48.2

50.5

732

52.9

727

52.3 30505

51.8

9

0.9

13

1.0

20

1.5

2592

4.4

424

41.8

731

54.2

607

44.0

3394

5.8

10

1.0

4

0.3

6

0.4

1341

2.3

72

7.1

96

7.1

95

6.9 21376

36.5

5

0.4

6

499

49.2

500

37.1

592

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

52

*

*

457

0.8

43.0 26761

0.4

45.7

3.8

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

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

9

9

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

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

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

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

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

•

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

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

5

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

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

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

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

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

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

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

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

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

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

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

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

•

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

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

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

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

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

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

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

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Navajo County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

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

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

Community Disorganization

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

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

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

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

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

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

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

21

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

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

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

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

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

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

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

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

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

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

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

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

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

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

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

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

Rebelliousness

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

Intention to Use ATODs

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

Depressive Symptoms

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

Gang Involvement

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

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.

22

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006
633

449

558

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
257

512

496

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

44.3
42.9
49.7
50.4
70.9
65.0
61.8
44.4
45.6
46.5
30.8
63.2
57.4
51.7
13.8
18.0
18.4
8.0
25.4
19.1
22.6
27.6
27.0
31.2
18.3
51.4
45.7
43.9
11.9
13.2
14.4
15.2
12.7
12.9
13.8
1.8
4.3
4.1
2.1
5.1
7.1
4.3
4.7
6.2
4.8
3.6
7.5
12.2
11.5
2.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
9.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.2
2.6
n/a
n/a
10.6
n/a
4.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.4
3.4
n/a
n/a
5.0
1.9
2.8
1.1
1.4
4.7
2.6
2.0
2.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.7
11.5
10.0
n/a
9.6
12.9
3.5
3.5
2.8
1.9
7.1
6.6
3.4
n/a
n/a
2.4
1.6
n/a
n/a
1.6
n/a
n/a
8.3
9.8
n/a
n/a
15.2
34.1
41.0
44.7
36.2
53.7
52.4
55.2
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

24.5
12.9
7.7
14.7
4.6
1.1
2.8
1.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.5
1.5
n/a
1.8
n/a
n/a
20.1

2004

19.8
17.7
6.1
14.8
5.5
3.0
3.0
n/a
n/a
1.8
n/a
1.1
n/a
5.5
1.4
n/a
n/a
23.0

2006

26.6
20.4
5.3
17.6
5.7
1.7
2.5
n/a
2.6
n/a
1.3
0.2
n/a
5.5
1.1
0.6
3.8
28.2

2006

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

2002

2004

36.1
25.5
15.7
26.8
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.2
1.2
n/a
1.6
n/a
n/a
30.6

35.1
23.8
6.4
21.7
2.4
3.8
4.4
n/a
n/a
4.4
n/a
0.0
n/a
4.2
0.6
n/a
n/a
28.0

2006

33.7
20.4
7.8
20.8
3.1
2.2
3.3
n/a
3.7
n/a
2.7
0.2
n/a
4.5
1.4
0.7
5.0
31.2

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
158

438

361

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

67.7
62.4
22.1
49.0
13.0
8.3
10.3
12.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.5
2.6
n/a
8.4
n/a
n/a
53.2

75.1
70.1
28.2
60.9
12.0
9.7
16.4
n/a
n/a
14.7
n/a
1.4
n/a
15.6
4.9
n/a
n/a
65.2

61.5
50.3
25.9
44.7
11.6
6.3
15.2
n/a
16.5
n/a
7.8
2.9
n/a
13.1
5.1
3.1
20.4
57.9

State
2006

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

Grade 12
State
2006

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

County County County
2002
2004
2006

42.8
27.2
12.0
22.5
4.0
3.3
2.6
2.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.0
1.3
n/a
2.6
n/a
n/a
26.7

40.9
29.6
7.9
24.9
1.4
2.5
3.9
n/a
n/a
6.1
n/a
0.2
n/a
5.8
1.2
n/a
n/a
29.4

30.4
18.3
6.5
17.1
2.1
0.3
2.1
n/a
2.5
n/a
2.1
0.0
n/a
3.8
0.0
0.3
7.6
27.8

State
2006

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

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
11.8
17.7
15.7
13.4
23.4
25.2
22.4
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
2.5
0.9
1.4
1.0
2.4
0.8
2.3
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
15.3
15.4
23.5
Drunk or High at School
14.9
20.2
21.6
Sold Illegal Drugs
4.2
8.2
6.0
Stolen a Vehicle
2.9
5.0
4.6
Been Arrested
7.5
10.2
13.2
Attacked to Harm
11.0
16.1
18.8
Carried a Handgun
6.1
8.6
9.5
Handgun to School
1.4
1.6
1.4
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

20.4
30.0
10.6
5.9
14.5
17.4
9.5
2.0

2004

13.8
32.3
10.9
4.9
11.3
18.7
7.9
1.0

2006

17.1
32.4
7.4
4.9
10.0
15.2
8.8
1.3

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

21.5
2.0

County County County
2002
2004
2006

19.4
1.7

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

14.9
25.5
9.7
5.9
9.8
12.0
12.3
4.6

Grade 10
State
2006

26.6
4.0

State
2006

14.3
32.4
12.1
3.0
11.3
17.5
7.9
1.4

10.9
25.1
8.4
4.3
9.2
11.1
8.8
1.2

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

46.7
37.9

45.8
42.1

42.4
40.4

38.2
30.4

37.1
45.5

37.8
52.2

40.4
48.0

37.1
36.3

40.4
52.1

40.8
55.1

45.0
57.0

37.6
35.2

57.3
62.4
63.5

54.3
60.7
66.0

47.2
60.9
65.1

48.7
57.4
60.6

44.7
51.5
52.0

47.0
53.3
57.1

46.4
50.9
60.6

44.1
53.0
54.9

62.1
54.2
51.8

62.3
57.2
63.4

63.1
60.0
62.3

57.1
55.9
56.9

64.6
58.2

61.2
51.0

64.8
56.4

59.1
50.7

47.6
50.8

61.1
55.2

63.1
66.2

62.9
62.3

53.5
41.0

61.9
45.2

65.5
51.0

65.2
48.0

*
66.5
59.2
*
*
*

53.0
60.0
60.0
49.4
45.4
61.8

47.7
58.6
58.8
49.6
44.3
65.2

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
49.0
59.0
*
*
*

49.0
49.7
65.3
50.1
42.6
60.7

56.3
58.1
68.0
59.2
38.9
60.8

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
69.1
50.0
*
*
*

79.2
63.7
55.4
54.3
42.0
53.5

83.9
75.6
59.7
58.6
36.6
57.3

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

42.5
36.1
39.6
30.1
34.1
41.1

41.5
44.7
44.8
33.1
39.4
33.3

36.3
48.2
50.0
38.4
36.0
33.9

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

49.4
52.4
47.3
42.3
32.7
35.1

52.1
63.0
48.4
49.2
49.2
31.0

46.0
60.7
47.3
51.2
48.8
32.7

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

49.7
51.7
54.2
28.1
38.9
34.7

52.5
57.9
45.5
39.3
49.3
35.2

53.3
55.2
44.0
30.0
44.9
44.2

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

40.6
38.6
44.3
36.5
20.3

43.6
48.5
53.7
39.1
18.6

45.9
47.2
51.9
48.4
29.6

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

43.1
40.8
47.5
42.9
37.6

42.2
39.3
57.9
47.0
34.9

39.8
36.1
53.3
46.5
32.3

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

41.5
29.8
39.2
37.8
34.3

35.5
34.6
53.3
41.9
33.9

37.2
35.3
45.7
39.6
26.3

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

52.4
38.7

53.6
37.0

52.4
38.4

48.6
41.1

51.0
40.3

57.1
37.6

48.3
34.5

51.6
40.1

54.2
33.8

47.3
33.3

45.4
36.3

44.1
43.0

32.5
28.9
37.2
40.6
29.9
42.2
49.0
40.0
32.8
52.3
*
20.2

31.8
37.4
42.4
47.6
30.9
42.8
58.6
44.7
46.5
55.3
31.6
26.1

41.4
45.6
45.0
45.1
32.9
46.1
65.1
46.4
46.7
53.0
39.9
26.5

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

49.6
46.7
47.2
52.4
40.9
42.5
53.9
43.0
30.9
55.1
*
30.2

42.4
41.7
48.3
52.1
39.8
37.2
63.1
51.0
38.0
56.6
48.2
31.8

40.6
44.5
42.6
49.4
31.6
34.6
59.1
46.0
41.3
46.4
38.9
21.8

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

45.5
46.1
38.9
47.4
30.1
36.7
50.0
32.7
24.2
45.0
*
23.9

34.5
47.4
53.2
48.0
33.1
37.8
63.3
40.4
50.9
48.2
33.2
29.3

42.2
45.3
37.7
37.1
25.7
27.7
53.0
35.8
45.4
42.1
23.5
16.7

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

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

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

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

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

92.3
1.9
2.1
1.0
2.7

90.6
4.8
1.4
0.7
2.5

92.0
2.7
1.9
0.6
2.7

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

90.6
2.4
1.2
0.8
5.1

92.1
3.4
1.6
0.2
2.8

89.3
2.7
2.5
1.0
4.5

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

80.3
1.3
3.2
0.0
15.3

90.6
2.1
1.6
0.5
5.3

88.1
2.0
2.3
0.9
6.8

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

93.7
3.0
2.4
0.3
0.6

84.6
7.3
5.0
1.1
2.0

86.7
7.1
2.7
2.1
1.3

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

93.7
3.1
1.2
0.8
1.2

89.7
4.8
3.0
0.8
1.8

92.6
3.7
2.7
0.0
1.0

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

93.6
1.3
2.5
0.0
2.5

93.3
2.8
2.5
0.7
0.7

96.9
1.4
0.8
0.0
0.8

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

90.4
4.9
2.4
1.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.3

83.4
7.5
5.2
1.6
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.4

85.0
7.4
4.3
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.0

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

85.9
8.2
3.1
1.2
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.8

89.1
4.7
3.2
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.4

86.5
7.9
2.7
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
1.2

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

93.0
3.2
1.9
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6

88.8
5.3
4.1
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.2

90.8
3.3
3.1
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.0
1.4

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times were you in a physical
fight on school property? (q40)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

76.2
13.3
6.8
2.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
0.8

69.5
16.0
9.0
2.3
0.9
0.9
0.0
1.4

70.4
13.8
9.4
2.9
1.3
0.6
0.2
1.3

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

84.0
9.0
4.7
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.8

82.4
9.7
5.3
1.8
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.4

84.6
10.1
2.9
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

89.1
6.4
2.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.6

89.2
6.4
3.0
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5

89.4
6.2
2.0
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.6

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Navajo County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4594
www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa
Cruz Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-618-8807

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
1-800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties
Linda Weinberg
Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona
480-231-7504

Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety
Steve Ballance/Charles Katz
602-543-6174/602-543-6618
steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
928-214-2177

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
http://prevention.samhsa.gov

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and
Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of
Problem Gambling
Paula Burns
602-266-8299 ext. 351
www.problemgambling.az.gov

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA)
www.samhsa.gov

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

Other State and National Contacts:

Western Regional Center for the Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPT)
www.westcapt.org

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson
602-364-1173/602-364-1157
www.azcjc.gov

Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
www.ade.az.gov

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Pima County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling
Arizona State University
Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Pima County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

Tools for Assessment
and Planning
How to Read the
Charts
Data Charts:
• Risk & Protective
Factor Profiles
• Substance Use &
Antisocial Behavior
• School Safety

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Pima County and the State. Because
not all students answer all of the
questions, the number of students in the

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

1449

100

5430

100

260

17.9

2250

696

48.0

1797

493

34.0

666
753

State 2006
Number

Percent

7600

100 60401

100

41.4

2563

33.7 26872

44.5

33.1

2686

35.3 19581

32.4

1383

25.5

2351

30.9 13948

23.1

46.9

2489

46.5

3514

47.6 28381

48.2

53.1

2864

53.5

3862

52.4 30505

51.8

44

3.2

176

3.5

337

4.6

2592

4.4

30

2.2

104

2.1

227

3.1

3394

5.8

32

2.3

114

2.3

184

2.5

1341

2.3

386

28.3

2072

41.0

3521

48.1 21376

36.5

39

0.8

51

873

*

64.0

*

2554

50.5

2696

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

309

Percent

457

0.8

36.8 26761

0.7

45.7

4.2

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

The chart at the right shows the links
between the 19 risk factors and the five
problem behaviors. The check marks have
been placed in the chart to indicate where
at least two well designed, published
research studies have shown a link
between the risk factor and the problem
behavior.

9

9

Community laws and norms
favorable toward drug use,
firearms and crime

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

Family
Family history of the problem
behavior
Family management problems
Family conflict
Favorable parental attitudes and
involvement in the problem
behavior

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

The Arizona Youth Survey as a Tool for
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
The Prevention Needs Assessment Survey is an important part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention
Framework Process. CSAP created this 5-step model to guide states and communities through the process of
creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programming. The information presented in
this section is taken from CSAP’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant description.
Step 1: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in
Service Delivery
•

•

Community Needs Assessment: The results of this survey (presented in this Profile Report and in
results reported at the State level) will identify needs for prevention. States should consider
administering a survey to assess adolescent substance use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk
and protective factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors. While planning prevention services,
communities are urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including archival and social
indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant interviews, as well as survey data.
Community Resource Assessment: It is likely that existing agencies and programs are already
addressing some of the prioritized risk and protective factors. It is important to identify the assets and
resources already available in the community and the gaps in services and capacity.
Community Readiness Assessment: It is very important for states and communities to have the
commitment and support of their members and ample resources to implement effective prevention
efforts. Therefore, the readiness and capacity of communities and resources to act should also be
assessed.

Step 2: Mobilize and/or Build Capacity to Address Needs: Engagement of key stakeholders at the state and
community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be
sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with
leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain
prevention activities.
Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan: States and communities should develop a strategic plan
that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and
implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on documented needs, build on
identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored.
Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The issue of
sustainability should be kept in mind throughout each step of planning and implementation.
Step 4: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities: By
measuring risk and protective factors in a population, prevention programs can be implemented that
will reduce the elevated risk factors and increase the protective factors. For example, if academic
failure is identified as a prioritized risk factor in a community, then mentoring, tutoring, and increased
opportunities and rewards for classroom participation can be provided to improve academic
performance. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention
programs that fit the Strategic Framework of the community, match the population served, and are
scientifically proven to work. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology
website (www.westcapt.org) contains a search engine for identifying Best Practice Programs.
Step 5: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or
Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the
outcomes desired are achieved and to assess program effectiveness, assess service delivery quality,
identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies,
programs, and practices.

5

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
Why the Arizona Youth
Survey?
Data from the Arizona Youth
Survey can be used to help
school and community
planners assess current
conditions and prioritize
areas of greatest need.
Each risk and protective
factor can be linked to
specific types of
interventions that have been
shown to be effective in
either reducing risk(s) or
enhancing protection(s). The
steps outlined here will help
your county and community
make key decisions regarding
allocation of resources, how
and when to address specific
needs, and which strategies
are most effective and known
to produce results.

What are the numbers telling you?
Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Using the table
below, note your findings as you discuss the following questions.
•
Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want?
•
Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want?
•
Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which substances are your students using the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?
•
Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to decide if a rate is “unacceptable.”
•
•
•

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or
much lower than the other?
Compare your data with statewide, and national data – differences of
5% between local and other data are probably significant.
Determine the standards and values held within your community – For
example: Is it acceptable in your community for a percentage of high
school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage is
lower than the overall state rate?

Substance use and antisocial behavior data – raise awareness about the
problems and promote dialogue.
Risk and protective factor data – identify exactly where the community
needs to take action.
Promising approaches – talk with resources listed on the last page of
this report for ideas about programs that have proven effective in
addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and
improving the protective factors that are low.

Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate
#1
#2
#3
#4

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

Practical Implications of the AYS
No Child Left Behind
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that
schools and communities use six Principles of Effectiveness to guide their decisions and spending on federally funded
prevention and intervention programs. First introduced in 1998 by the Department of Education, the Principles of
Effectiveness outline a data-driven process for ensuring that prevention programs achieve the desired results. The
Principles of Effectiveness stipulate that local prevention programs and activities must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

be based on a needs assessment using objective data regarding the incidence of drug use and violence,
target specific performance objectives,
be based on scientific research and be proven to reduce violence or drug use,
be based on the analysis of predictor variables such as risk and protective factors,
include meaningful and on-going parental input in program implementation, and
have periodic evaluations of established performance measures.

The results of the Arizona Youth Survey presented in this report can help schools and communities comply with the
NCLB Act. The Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior charts provide information related to Principle 1 above. The
Risk and Protective Factor charts provide information related to Principle 4. Overall, using the Risk and Protective
factors planning framework helps schools meet all of the Principles of Effectiveness, and thereby assists schools in
complying with the NCLB Act.

How to Read the Charts: Substance Use and
Antisocial Behavior Charts
There are four types of charts presented in this
report: 1) substance use and antisocial behavior
charts, 2) risk factor charts, 3) protective factor
charts, and 4) school safety charts. All the charts
show the results of the AYS, and the actual
percentages from the charts are presented in Tables
3 through 10.

•

30-day use is a measure of the percentage of
students who used the substance at least once in
the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a
more sensitive indicator of the level of current
use of the substance.

•

Binge drinking and a Pack or more of
cigarettes per day are measures of heavy use of
alcohol and tobacco. Binge drinking is defined as
having five or more drinks in a row during the
two weeks prior to taking the survey.

•

Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the
percentage of students who report any
involvement with the eight antisocial behaviors
listed in the charts in the past year. In the charts,
antisocial behavior will often be abbreviated as
ASB.

•

Dots are used on the charts to show the overall
average of all of the youth in each grade who
participated in the survey for each behavior. More
information about the dots is contained on the
following page.

Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts
This report contains information about alcohol,
tobacco and other drug use (referred to as ATOD
use throughout this report) and other problem
behaviors of students. The bars on each chart
represent the percentage of students in that grade
who reported the behavior. The four sections in the
charts represent different types of problem
behaviors. The definitions of each of the types of
behavior are provided below.
•

Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of
students who tried the particular substance at
least once in their lifetime and is used to show
the percentage of students who have had
experience with a particular substance.

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

Cut-Points
Before the percentage of youth at risk on a given
scale could be calculated, a scale value or cut-point
needed to be determined that would separate the atrisk group from the not-at-risk group. The
Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) survey was
designed to assess adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors
that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. The
Arizona Youth Survey, and surveys designed for
other states and areas, follow the PNA format and
have the same goal of gathering information on the
prevention needs of students, schools, communities,
and states. Since PNA surveys have been given to
over 200,000 youth nationwide, it was possible to
select two groups of youth, one that was more at risk
for problem behaviors and another group that was
less at risk. A cut-point score was then determined
for each risk and protective factor scale that best
divided the youth from the two groups into their
appropriate group, more at-risk or less at-risk. The
criteria for selecting the more at-risk and the less atrisk groups included academic grades (the more atrisk group received “D” and “F” grades, the less atrisk group received “A” and “B” grades), ATOD use
(the more at-risk group had more regular use, the
less at-risk group had no drug use and use of alcohol
or tobacco on only a few occasions), and antisocial
behavior (the more at-risk group had two or more
serious delinquent acts in the past year, the less atrisk group had no serious delinquent acts).
The cut-points that were determined by analyzing
the results of the more at-risk and less at-risk groups
will remain constant and will be used to produce the
profiles for future surveys.
Since the cut-points for each scale will remain fixed,
the percentage of youth above the cut-point on a
scale (at-risk) will provide a method for evaluating

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Pima County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions
Community Domain
Risk Factors
Community and Personal
Transitions & Mobility

Neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility have been shown to have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling, while children who experience frequent residential moves and stressful life
transitions have been shown to have higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and drug use.

Community Disorganization

Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of
public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling.

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

A low level of bonding to the neighborhood is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling.

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking
age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in
consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative
attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use.

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance
use and other problem behaviors.

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities
and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by
their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6) academic failure increases the risk of both drug
abuse and delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the
risk of problem behaviors.

21

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions (Continued)
Low Commitment to School

Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, stimulants, and
sedatives or non-medically prescribed tranquilizers is significantly lower among students who expect to
attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework,
and perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use.
Protective Factors

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at
school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to
be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors.

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the
involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15
is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict
lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes
Attitudes Favorable Toward
Antisocial Behavior and Drug and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in
middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior,
Use
their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive
attitudes toward drug use and antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem
behaviors, including drug use.
Friends' Use of Drugs

Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely
to engage in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest
predictors of substance use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families
and do not experience other risk factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the
risk of that problem developing.

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging
in antisocial behavior themselves.

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use.

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in
antisocial behavior and substance use.

Rebelliousness

Young people who do not feel part of society, are not bound by rules, don’t believe in trying to be
successful or responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of
abusing drugs. In addition, high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and
normlessness have all been linked with drug use.

Intention to Use ATODs

Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life.
Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions.

Depressive Symptoms

Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely
to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth
problem behaviors.

Gang Involvement

Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.
Protective Factors

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.

22

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
Grade 8
Total Students

County County County
2002
2004
2006
260

2250

2563

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
696

1797

2686

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

69.7
55.4
50.7
50.4
72.8
68.8
73.0
40.9
35.5
32.1
30.8
48.4
40.7
45.6
6.7
6.0
7.2
8.0
10.9
6.1
8.1
37.3
22.9
21.7
18.3
44.0
36.3
39.8
10.3
16.8
17.1
15.2
8.6
10.1
12.3
1.6
2.2
2.6
2.1
11.2
4.3
5.0
5.5
3.6
4.2
3.6
9.9
8.5
10.7
3.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.0
2.6
n/a
n/a
3.9
n/a
2.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.4
3.4
n/a
n/a
8.6
2.0
1.7
1.4
1.4
4.4
2.7
2.4
1.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
13.1
10.3
10.0
n/a
17.8
15.8
7.5
2.9
3.0
1.9
8.2
4.7
4.7
n/a
n/a
1.7
1.6
n/a
n/a
2.0
n/a
n/a
10.3
9.8
n/a
n/a
17.8
43.5
36.8
40.7
36.2
45.5
45.9
52.0
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

41.6
8.4
3.8
18.9
5.9
0.8
3.0
0.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.3
0.0
n/a
5.2
n/a
n/a
24.4

2004

27.7
9.9
1.8
11.2
7.5
1.3
1.4
n/a
n/a
1.4
n/a
0.5
n/a
7.0
0.8
n/a
n/a
21.2

2006

24.2
11.5
2.3
10.6
7.5
1.3
1.9
n/a
0.6
n/a
1.8
1.0
n/a
4.4
1.2
0.8
5.4
22.8

2006

24.1
10.5
2.7
8.5
6.2
1.0
1.7
n/a
1.0
n/a
1.5
0.7
n/a
4.5
0.8
0.8
4.5
19.7

2002

2004

49.6
17.0
4.2
24.1
2.8
3.8
3.6
2.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
2.3
n/a
2.8
n/a
n/a
27.1

38.0
13.8
2.1
16.4
3.1
2.2
3.6
n/a
n/a
2.7
n/a
0.9
n/a
8.4
1.1
n/a
n/a
24.4

2006

43.3
16.4
2.2
18.1
3.4
1.9
4.3
n/a
1.2
n/a
3.6
1.0
n/a
7.2
1.4
1.1
8.2
28.7

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
493

1383

2351

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

67.6
43.8
11.8
34.0
11.9
4.1
7.6
n/a
5.0
n/a
7.1
2.1
n/a
14.3
3.4
2.0
16.0
47.0

County County County
2002
2004
2006

81.9
58.9
16.4
50.6
9.4
13.5
13.9
8.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.7
8.4
n/a
9.2
n/a
n/a
53.1

77.0
49.1
12.4
45.6
5.9
7.2
10.1
n/a
n/a
6.0
n/a
2.9
n/a
17.9
5.3
n/a
n/a
52.2

78.5
49.3
11.9
44.9
9.2
6.1
11.6
n/a
4.8
n/a
9.0
3.1
n/a
16.8
5.1
1.5
19.6
54.8

State
2006

74.5
50.0
15.6
42.6
9.8
5.6
11.6
n/a
6.6
n/a
8.5
2.8
n/a
17.4
4.4
2.2
20.0
52.8

Grade 12
State
2006

39.2
17.1
4.0
15.7
3.1
1.7
2.9
n/a
1.7
n/a
2.9
0.7
n/a
6.6
1.0
1.0
7.3
25.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

58.8
27.1
7.2
23.8
1.8
3.7
5.1
1.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.9
3.5
n/a
2.7
n/a
n/a
29.1

48.4
18.3
3.6
17.9
1.3
1.5
3.5
n/a
n/a
2.4
n/a
0.5
n/a
7.0
0.9
n/a
n/a
23.7

49.8
20.5
3.7
18.7
2.0
2.0
3.7
n/a
0.8
n/a
2.2
1.0
n/a
6.1
1.3
0.8
7.4
26.5

State
2006

47.0
21.8
5.4
18.1
1.7
1.7
3.3
n/a
1.4
n/a
2.6
0.8
n/a
7.1
0.9
1.0
8.1
26.6

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
16.0
16.6
14.0
13.4
25.0
22.5
22.1
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.0
3.0
1.4
2.1
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
27.9
17.5
19.8
Drunk or High at School
22.8
14.6
15.0
Sold Illegal Drugs
6.4
6.5
7.0
Stolen a Vehicle
3.6
5.1
6.1
Been Arrested
9.6
10.4
12.4
Attacked to Harm
14.6
20.1
19.9
Carried a Handgun
7.2
7.7
9.0
Handgun to School
2.0
1.2
2.9
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

11.1
23.0
13.2
3.9
8.9
11.5
4.8
0.7

2004

12.0
20.4
10.1
4.4
9.7
15.3
6.3
2.0

2006

13.8
23.2
11.2
4.8
11.8
18.4
8.4
2.0

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

30.7
5.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

30.0
3.4

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

6.2
23.9
10.5
1.9
9.4
10.8
5.3
1.2

Grade 10
State
2006

29.4
3.2

State
2006

8.3
20.9
9.4
2.3
9.0
12.6
5.0
1.0

8.9
21.1
9.6
3.1
9.8
12.8
7.2
1.7

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

36.4
24.1

36.5
28.8

31.5
27.7

38.2
30.4

37.1
36.1

36.8
33.3

30.5
31.5

37.1
36.3

40.5
32.7

36.0
30.2

31.9
30.0

37.6
35.2

51.0
55.1
53.1

51.2
60.2
63.0

46.6
55.8
59.1

48.7
57.4
60.6

47.7
54.2
55.6

47.1
55.9
57.0

43.3
52.7
55.5

44.1
53.0
54.9

55.7
48.2
49.4

56.7
55.5
55.4

54.4
54.9
56.2

57.1
55.9
56.9

59.4
51.0

62.3
54.0

56.8
48.4

59.1
50.7

55.3
58.3

65.6
64.4

61.3
59.8

62.9
62.3

54.9
44.3

62.5
44.8

64.1
47.0

65.2
48.0

*
55.1
38.6
*
*
*

44.6
58.2
52.9
44.0
39.1
58.8

42.0
56.3
53.9
40.5
36.6
59.9

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
52.8
62.0
*
*
*

44.8
53.0
64.0
51.3
45.9
61.9

40.6
50.8
61.4
47.7
40.8
62.2

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
59.6
43.4
*
*
*

70.3
66.2
51.3
48.9
45.6
55.3

69.2
64.9
48.6
45.8
39.4
54.5

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

36.3
56.5
49.3
36.3
42.9
35.7

41.4
50.4
52.6
42.6
44.6
41.0

46.1
56.1
52.9
43.9
39.0
37.8

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

43.6
44.1
51.4
44.9
53.4
27.7

46.4
58.5
53.1
45.4
51.9
27.5

49.8
61.8
55.8
45.3
50.9
27.9

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

48.6
34.0
46.9
30.8
63.9
31.0

51.1
52.5
53.2
39.0
55.9
33.9

49.1
56.9
51.9
37.3
53.6
33.6

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

44.9
67.3
51.0
38.8
28.6

45.2
53.1
49.1
48.5
29.6

51.6
52.2
47.2
48.7
28.2

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

40.7
36.6
43.2
45.5
50.2

44.1
42.6
44.5
48.0
41.5

49.6
44.5
46.2
52.1
43.2

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

53.2
35.0
35.8
40.3
43.9

46.9
38.9
41.0
43.0
43.5

46.9
38.6
39.6
47.5
42.9

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

62.4
39.8

54.8
41.1

55.1
44.1

48.6
41.1

51.7
48.3

49.4
43.6

55.7
44.6

51.6
40.1

45.2
52.8

46.7
48.7

45.2
48.1

44.1
43.0

49.2
45.3
50.0
49.8
40.3
50.9
65.6
50.0
49.8
48.8
*
32.1

39.6
42.2
41.0
48.2
37.3
52.7
60.9
48.4
54.0
53.3
42.7
28.8

46.6
43.7
38.4
49.0
37.2
51.2
62.7
42.9
50.9
47.9
40.3
30.8

43.8
40.2
35.2
46.2
32.4
45.4
58.4
41.3
48.7
45.7
36.5
26.3

40.8
33.8
40.0
53.7
48.9
51.1
50.6
44.8
33.2
46.4
*
10.4

39.2
40.9
35.2
49.9
38.3
40.2
56.6
40.6
42.6
48.5
46.3
19.3

50.7
43.9
39.8
52.5
37.4
39.7
61.6
47.7
47.7
45.0
49.0
25.7

47.5
42.4
36.6
49.7
36.6
39.2
58.1
43.2
45.0
45.5
44.9
23.9

38.0
35.0
40.5
60.9
50.8
57.3
49.8
42.7
40.6
40.4
*
11.5

34.8
39.7
37.6
44.9
35.8
45.5
51.7
36.9
52.3
42.4
30.1
17.1

45.8
41.8
33.3
47.2
35.0
42.3
54.7
37.3
55.4
39.2
30.2
17.0

44.3
38.8
34.1
45.6
34.6
40.5
52.0
35.9
53.8
38.6
29.9
16.3

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety Issues
Grade 8
Question

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

0 days
During the past 30 days, on how
1 day
many days did you carry a weapon
2-3 days
such as a gun, knife, or club on
4-5 days
school property? (q43)
6 or more days

94.6
2.3
0.0
1.2
1.9

93.8
3.1
1.8
0.3
1.1

92.3
3.5
1.9
0.7
1.6

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

93.8
1.2
1.7
0.6
2.7

94.1
1.9
1.2
0.4
2.4

92.2
2.7
1.6
0.5
3.0

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

93.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
4.7

95.3
1.4
0.6
0.3
2.5

94.3
1.6
0.9
0.5
2.6

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

93.4
3.9
1.2
0.4
1.2

87.9
6.7
3.4
0.7
1.3

86.8
7.3
3.0
1.2
1.8

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

97.3
2.0
0.4
0.0
0.3

93.5
2.8
1.6
1.0
1.2

90.9
5.0
2.2
0.6
1.3

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

98.4
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.4

95.1
2.8
1.4
0.3
0.4

94.1
3.1
1.5
0.4
0.8

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

89.1
7.0
2.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8

82.0
9.6
4.5
1.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
1.6

83.5
8.3
4.4
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.3

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

90.8
3.7
3.0
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.0
1.2

87.0
7.4
3.0
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.8

84.7
8.0
3.7
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.5

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

93.1
2.4
1.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.2

90.9
4.6
2.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.6

88.9
5.2
3.7
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.6

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times were you in a physical
fight on school property? (q40)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

74.6
14.6
8.1
1.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8

68.8
15.2
10.2
2.7
0.6
0.7
0.3
1.5

73.4
14.2
7.0
2.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.1

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

87.6
8.4
2.9
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.4

84.4
8.8
3.7
1.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
1.0

84.7
9.0
4.0
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.7

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

94.5
2.6
1.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2

92.2
4.3
2.1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1

91.1
5.6
2.0
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.5

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Pima County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4594
www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa
Cruz Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-618-8807

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
1-800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties
Linda Weinberg
Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona
480-231-7504

Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety
Steve Ballance/Charles Katz
602-543-6174/602-543-6618
steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
928-214-2177

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
http://prevention.samhsa.gov

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and
Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of
Problem Gambling
Paula Burns
602-266-8299 ext. 351
www.problemgambling.az.gov

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA)
www.samhsa.gov

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

Other State and National Contacts:

Western Regional Center for the Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPT)
www.westcapt.org

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson
602-364-1173/602-364-1157
www.azcjc.gov

Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
www.ade.az.gov

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Pinal County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling
Arizona State University
Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Pinal County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

Tools for Assessment
and Planning
How to Read the
Charts
Data Charts:
• Risk & Protective
Factor Profiles
• Substance Use &
Antisocial Behavior
• School Safety

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Pinal County and the State. Because
not all students answer all of the
questions, the number of students in the

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Number

1347

100

1616

100

Percent

1848

100 60401

100

735

54.6

574

449

33.3

650

35.5

1079

58.4 26872

44.5

40.2

481

26.0 19581

163

12.1

32.4

392

24.3

288

15.6 13948

23.1

617
685

47.4

703

44.0

862

48.1 28381

48.2

52.6

894

56.0

931

51.9 30505

51.8

34

2.7

65

4.3

111

6.2

2592

4.4

83

6.5

152

10.1

157

8.8

3394

5.8

1.5

1341

2.3

38.3 21376

36.5

14

1.1

13

0.9

27

402

31.7

580

38.6

682

6

0.4

6

737

*

58.0

*

687

45.7

697

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

100

Percent

State 2006

Number

457

0.8

39.2 26761

0.3

45.7

5.6

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

The chart at the right shows the links
between the 19 risk factors and the five
problem behaviors. The check marks have
been placed in the chart to indicate where
at least two well designed, published
research studies have shown a link
between the risk factor and the problem
behavior.

9

9

Community laws and norms
favorable toward drug use,
firearms and crime

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

Family
Family history of the problem
behavior
Family management problems
Family conflict
Favorable parental attitudes and
involvement in the problem
behavior

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

The Arizona Youth Survey as a Tool for
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
The Prevention Needs Assessment Survey is an important part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention
Framework Process. CSAP created this 5-step model to guide states and communities through the process of
creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programming. The information presented in
this section is taken from CSAP’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant description.
Step 1: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in
Service Delivery
•

•

Community Needs Assessment: The results of this survey (presented in this Profile Report and in
results reported at the State level) will identify needs for prevention. States should consider
administering a survey to assess adolescent substance use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk
and protective factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors. While planning prevention services,
communities are urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including archival and social
indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant interviews, as well as survey data.
Community Resource Assessment: It is likely that existing agencies and programs are already
addressing some of the prioritized risk and protective factors. It is important to identify the assets and
resources already available in the community and the gaps in services and capacity.
Community Readiness Assessment: It is very important for states and communities to have the
commitment and support of their members and ample resources to implement effective prevention
efforts. Therefore, the readiness and capacity of communities and resources to act should also be
assessed.

Step 2: Mobilize and/or Build Capacity to Address Needs: Engagement of key stakeholders at the state and
community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be
sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with
leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain
prevention activities.
Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan: States and communities should develop a strategic plan
that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and
implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on documented needs, build on
identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored.
Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The issue of
sustainability should be kept in mind throughout each step of planning and implementation.
Step 4: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities: By
measuring risk and protective factors in a population, prevention programs can be implemented that
will reduce the elevated risk factors and increase the protective factors. For example, if academic
failure is identified as a prioritized risk factor in a community, then mentoring, tutoring, and increased
opportunities and rewards for classroom participation can be provided to improve academic
performance. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention
programs that fit the Strategic Framework of the community, match the population served, and are
scientifically proven to work. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology
website (www.westcapt.org) contains a search engine for identifying Best Practice Programs.
Step 5: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or
Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the
outcomes desired are achieved and to assess program effectiveness, assess service delivery quality,
identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies,
programs, and practices.

5

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
Why the Arizona Youth
Survey?
Data from the Arizona Youth
Survey can be used to help
school and community
planners assess current
conditions and prioritize
areas of greatest need.
Each risk and protective
factor can be linked to
specific types of
interventions that have been
shown to be effective in
either reducing risk(s) or
enhancing protection(s). The
steps outlined here will help
your county and community
make key decisions regarding
allocation of resources, how
and when to address specific
needs, and which strategies
are most effective and known
to produce results.

What are the numbers telling you?
Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Using the table
below, note your findings as you discuss the following questions.
•
Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want?
•
Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want?
•
Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which substances are your students using the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?
•
Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to decide if a rate is “unacceptable.”
•
•
•

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or
much lower than the other?
Compare your data with statewide, and national data – differences of
5% between local and other data are probably significant.
Determine the standards and values held within your community – For
example: Is it acceptable in your community for a percentage of high
school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage is
lower than the overall state rate?

Substance use and antisocial behavior data – raise awareness about the
problems and promote dialogue.
Risk and protective factor data – identify exactly where the community
needs to take action.
Promising approaches – talk with resources listed on the last page of
this report for ideas about programs that have proven effective in
addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and
improving the protective factors that are low.

Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate
#1
#2
#3
#4

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

Practical Implications of the AYS
No Child Left Behind
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that
schools and communities use six Principles of Effectiveness to guide their decisions and spending on federally funded
prevention and intervention programs. First introduced in 1998 by the Department of Education, the Principles of
Effectiveness outline a data-driven process for ensuring that prevention programs achieve the desired results. The
Principles of Effectiveness stipulate that local prevention programs and activities must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

be based on a needs assessment using objective data regarding the incidence of drug use and violence,
target specific performance objectives,
be based on scientific research and be proven to reduce violence or drug use,
be based on the analysis of predictor variables such as risk and protective factors,
include meaningful and on-going parental input in program implementation, and
have periodic evaluations of established performance measures.

The results of the Arizona Youth Survey presented in this report can help schools and communities comply with the
NCLB Act. The Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior charts provide information related to Principle 1 above. The
Risk and Protective Factor charts provide information related to Principle 4. Overall, using the Risk and Protective
factors planning framework helps schools meet all of the Principles of Effectiveness, and thereby assists schools in
complying with the NCLB Act.

How to Read the Charts: Substance Use and
Antisocial Behavior Charts
There are four types of charts presented in this
report: 1) substance use and antisocial behavior
charts, 2) risk factor charts, 3) protective factor
charts, and 4) school safety charts. All the charts
show the results of the AYS, and the actual
percentages from the charts are presented in Tables
3 through 10.

•

30-day use is a measure of the percentage of
students who used the substance at least once in
the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a
more sensitive indicator of the level of current
use of the substance.

•

Binge drinking and a Pack or more of
cigarettes per day are measures of heavy use of
alcohol and tobacco. Binge drinking is defined as
having five or more drinks in a row during the
two weeks prior to taking the survey.

•

Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the
percentage of students who report any
involvement with the eight antisocial behaviors
listed in the charts in the past year. In the charts,
antisocial behavior will often be abbreviated as
ASB.

•

Dots are used on the charts to show the overall
average of all of the youth in each grade who
participated in the survey for each behavior. More
information about the dots is contained on the
following page.

Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts
This report contains information about alcohol,
tobacco and other drug use (referred to as ATOD
use throughout this report) and other problem
behaviors of students. The bars on each chart
represent the percentage of students in that grade
who reported the behavior. The four sections in the
charts represent different types of problem
behaviors. The definitions of each of the types of
behavior are provided below.
•

Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of
students who tried the particular substance at
least once in their lifetime and is used to show
the percentage of students who have had
experience with a particular substance.

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

Cut-Points
Before the percentage of youth at risk on a given
scale could be calculated, a scale value or cut-point
needed to be determined that would separate the atrisk group from the not-at-risk group. The
Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) survey was
designed to assess adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors
that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. The
Arizona Youth Survey, and surveys designed for
other states and areas, follow the PNA format and
have the same goal of gathering information on the
prevention needs of students, schools, communities,
and states. Since PNA surveys have been given to
over 200,000 youth nationwide, it was possible to
select two groups of youth, one that was more at risk
for problem behaviors and another group that was
less at risk. A cut-point score was then determined
for each risk and protective factor scale that best
divided the youth from the two groups into their
appropriate group, more at-risk or less at-risk. The
criteria for selecting the more at-risk and the less atrisk groups included academic grades (the more atrisk group received “D” and “F” grades, the less atrisk group received “A” and “B” grades), ATOD use
(the more at-risk group had more regular use, the
less at-risk group had no drug use and use of alcohol
or tobacco on only a few occasions), and antisocial
behavior (the more at-risk group had two or more
serious delinquent acts in the past year, the less atrisk group had no serious delinquent acts).
The cut-points that were determined by analyzing
the results of the more at-risk and less at-risk groups
will remain constant and will be used to produce the
profiles for future surveys.
Since the cut-points for each scale will remain fixed,
the percentage of youth above the cut-point on a
scale (at-risk) will provide a method for evaluating

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Pinal County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions
Community Domain
Risk Factors
Community and Personal
Transitions & Mobility

Neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility have been shown to have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling, while children who experience frequent residential moves and stressful life
transitions have been shown to have higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and drug use.

Community Disorganization

Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of
public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling.

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

A low level of bonding to the neighborhood is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling.

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking
age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in
consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative
attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use.

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance
use and other problem behaviors.

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities
and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by
their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6) academic failure increases the risk of both drug
abuse and delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the
risk of problem behaviors.

21

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions (Continued)
Low Commitment to School

Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, stimulants, and
sedatives or non-medically prescribed tranquilizers is significantly lower among students who expect to
attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework,
and perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use.
Protective Factors

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at
school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to
be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors.

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the
involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15
is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict
lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes
Attitudes Favorable Toward
Antisocial Behavior and Drug and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in
middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior,
Use
their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive
attitudes toward drug use and antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem
behaviors, including drug use.
Friends' Use of Drugs

Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely
to engage in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest
predictors of substance use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families
and do not experience other risk factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the
risk of that problem developing.

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging
in antisocial behavior themselves.

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use.

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in
antisocial behavior and substance use.

Rebelliousness

Young people who do not feel part of society, are not bound by rules, don’t believe in trying to be
successful or responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of
abusing drugs. In addition, high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and
normlessness have all been linked with drug use.

Intention to Use ATODs

Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life.
Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions.

Depressive Symptoms

Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely
to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth
problem behaviors.

Gang Involvement

Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.
Protective Factors

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.

22

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
Grade 8
Total Students

County County County
2002
2004
2006
735

574

1079

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
449

650

481

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

62.3
58.4
57.9
50.4
79.5
70.4
72.8
48.4
43.2
38.7
30.8
60.0
51.8
56.5
8.2
10.9
10.5
8.0
14.3
10.5
14.8
30.6
29.0
23.0
18.3
53.7
45.4
47.2
14.8
18.3
19.4
15.2
13.5
16.0
16.8
3.1
5.1
3.1
2.1
8.7
7.1
5.8
5.4
7.7
4.1
3.6
9.9
11.0
12.7
4.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.8
2.6
n/a
n/a
11.3
n/a
7.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.3
3.4
n/a
n/a
9.8
3.2
2.4
2.6
1.4
4.5
3.2
1.2
2.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
12.7
10.9
10.0
n/a
16.5
15.6
5.3
3.3
2.5
1.9
13.1
5.0
5.2
n/a
n/a
1.7
1.6
n/a
n/a
2.2
n/a
n/a
11.3
9.8
n/a
n/a
16.4
37.7
42.2
44.0
36.2
57.2
52.0
59.0
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

42.4
11.8
5.5
16.3
6.7
2.2
3.5
1.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.1
1.8
n/a
3.3
n/a
n/a
23.3

2004

29.4
15.6
3.1
15.6
7.1
4.9
2.7
n/a
n/a
5.1
n/a
0.9
n/a
5.8
1.3
n/a
n/a
23.9

2006

30.3
14.6
3.5
13.6
8.9
1.3
1.7
n/a
1.1
n/a
1.7
0.8
n/a
5.2
1.0
0.8
5.2
28.1

2006

24.1
10.5
2.7
8.5
6.2
1.0
1.7
n/a
1.0
n/a
1.5
0.7
n/a
4.5
0.8
0.8
4.5
19.7

2002

2004

51.5
20.8
7.1
26.6
4.8
4.1
5.0
5.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
2.3
n/a
4.8
n/a
n/a
32.2

43.1
20.8
3.3
20.7
4.5
4.0
4.2
n/a
n/a
3.8
n/a
1.1
n/a
9.1
1.6
n/a
n/a
26.4

2006

44.1
18.6
5.0
23.5
3.8
2.6
6.0
n/a
4.6
n/a
3.7
0.5
n/a
7.4
1.2
0.5
8.4
34.8

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
163

392

288

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

67.6
43.8
11.8
34.0
11.9
4.1
7.6
n/a
5.0
n/a
7.1
2.1
n/a
14.3
3.4
2.0
16.0
47.0

County County County
2002
2004
2006

83.8
69.8
16.0
56.2
15.4
14.1
20.8
15.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.6
4.3
n/a
8.1
n/a
n/a
60.1

77.6
56.8
16.1
50.8
12.1
7.0
12.5
n/a
n/a
11.3
n/a
4.2
n/a
16.4
6.6
n/a
n/a
56.1

78.8
60.1
16.7
56.0
15.2
7.3
17.6
n/a
12.8
n/a
11.9
3.5
n/a
19.0
6.2
2.0
22.4
64.5

State
2006

74.5
50.0
15.6
42.6
9.8
5.6
11.6
n/a
6.6
n/a
8.5
2.8
n/a
17.4
4.4
2.2
20.0
52.8

Grade 12
State
2006

39.2
17.1
4.0
15.7
3.1
1.7
2.9
n/a
1.7
n/a
2.9
0.7
n/a
6.6
1.0
1.0
7.3
25.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

55.6
23.9
5.0
29.3
2.5
3.8
7.0
4.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.2
1.3
n/a
2.5
n/a
n/a
35.5

46.9
23.5
5.3
20.7
1.3
2.9
3.2
n/a
n/a
4.7
n/a
0.8
n/a
8.8
1.3
n/a
n/a
27.0

51.1
23.1
5.9
19.6
1.5
4.3
4.7
n/a
1.6
n/a
2.7
0.4
n/a
8.5
0.8
1.2
9.0
29.3

State
2006

47.0
21.8
5.4
18.1
1.7
1.7
3.3
n/a
1.4
n/a
2.6
0.8
n/a
7.1
0.9
1.0
8.1
26.6

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
17.9
18.6
16.9
13.4
29.5
27.1
24.8
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.0
6.4
4.6
3.6
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
20.4
23.1
24.3
Drunk or High at School
18.2
19.5
19.4
Sold Illegal Drugs
5.6
4.6
6.1
Stolen a Vehicle
5.5
6.7
4.2
Been Arrested
11.1
15.3
11.9
Attacked to Harm
13.4
22.2
22.4
Carried a Handgun
6.2
6.7
9.1
Handgun to School
1.1
2.0
1.6
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

18.7
30.5
12.1
6.8
11.5
15.9
8.4
2.0

2004

18.0
25.4
12.6
6.8
10.8
22.5
8.0
2.5

2006

30.1
33.5
12.2
9.9
15.7
23.7
8.9
2.2

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

34.6
11.3

County County County
2002
2004
2006

30.2
4.1

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

14.4
24.4
11.8
5.7
14.4
15.2
10.1
2.5

Grade 10
State
2006

27.9
5.6

State
2006

10.8
23.7
9.5
4.1
9.7
16.2
6.7
2.3

19.5
32.1
14.4
7.1
14.2
20.8
9.9
3.0

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

33.4
31.6

38.9
31.0

31.4
26.8

38.2
30.4

33.6
38.2

31.8
36.2

24.6
39.3

37.1
36.3

19.6
33.3

31.3
34.7

21.9
32.8

37.6
35.2

44.2
51.2
54.5

43.9
54.1
52.5

44.1
50.8
55.1

48.7
57.4
60.6

40.3
51.2
48.6

43.6
52.4
55.2

33.8
44.0
44.6

44.1
53.0
54.9

48.7
47.1
42.1

54.2
54.2
52.7

52.2
49.4
50.4

57.1
55.9
56.9

57.4
48.7

59.2
53.4

58.0
50.4

59.1
50.7

45.6
49.5

54.4
51.5

52.8
58.8

62.9
62.3

50.0
46.9

53.5
41.3

53.7
42.9

65.2
48.0

*
55.1
49.2
*
*
*

42.8
50.1
47.2
42.8
35.8
57.3

42.0
50.3
50.2
47.3
40.6
59.3

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
41.6
49.5
*
*
*

42.2
49.4
58.8
45.2
38.5
55.5

38.5
39.1
57.0
41.2
31.1
58.5

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
52.8
40.0
*
*
*

73.6
60.8
49.2
48.6
32.9
49.5

68.4
54.3
45.7
39.4
28.7
51.1

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

41.8
53.3
50.7
43.5
41.8
39.1

45.8
58.6
60.8
46.8
43.6
39.1

44.5
56.1
65.5
44.4
42.8
40.4

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

52.2
62.0
56.4
54.0
57.0
37.4

52.7
67.8
59.9
52.4
55.7
31.3

56.7
70.3
70.6
55.0
54.2
29.6

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

61.5
65.2
50.3
51.6
65.0
44.9

59.5
69.5
56.9
48.9
59.4
41.3

60.6
70.2
67.7
51.2
60.9
44.5

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

53.6
48.2
50.5
46.5
32.8

51.5
56.4
59.0
46.7
32.4

50.3
53.6
49.5
45.9
33.5

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

52.8
39.0
54.3
48.6
48.1

46.4
43.1
54.1
46.8
39.9

53.6
47.1
59.9
55.0
42.1

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

52.3
36.2
52.5
52.9
46.8

43.1
38.4
49.1
40.9
42.0

48.3
41.3
55.0
51.0
45.2

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

54.1
42.2

59.9
44.3

53.3
44.5

48.6
41.1

57.0
49.4

52.3
42.1

59.1
45.3

51.6
40.1

55.8
44.7

41.4
45.0

48.5
44.0

44.1
43.0

43.4
39.2
46.8
48.2
41.4
55.7
59.1
50.0
41.2
55.4
*
27.6

40.2
47.5
51.0
50.3
40.3
56.8
69.6
56.2
55.3
56.2
46.9
34.2

48.0
48.6
43.8
49.8
37.3
52.2
65.8
50.2
51.3
51.9
44.5
29.7

43.8
40.2
35.2
46.2
32.4
45.4
58.4
41.3
48.7
45.7
36.5
26.3

49.8
45.4
53.6
57.2
54.0
54.0
62.0
55.4
32.2
51.7
*
21.0

42.0
47.0
45.6
51.4
40.8
44.5
63.0
50.3
43.5
52.2
48.6
30.9

54.5
59.8
49.4
54.5
44.4
47.4
73.4
51.2
50.3
51.2
53.2
37.6

47.5
42.4
36.6
49.7
36.6
39.2
58.1
43.2
45.0
45.5
44.9
23.9

46.9
48.1
51.2
51.2
45.1
53.2
64.2
44.7
37.1
53.1
*
22.4

39.9
41.8
47.6
40.1
32.1
40.5
60.3
39.2
47.4
45.5
34.4
30.1

44.4
53.3
46.2
47.6
38.7
47.1
65.3
44.8
52.9
44.5
37.0
22.9

44.3
38.8
34.1
45.6
34.6
40.5
52.0
35.9
53.8
38.6
29.9
16.3

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety Issues
Grade 8
Question

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

0 days
During the past 30 days, on how
1 day
many days did you carry a weapon
2-3 days
such as a gun, knife, or club on
4-5 days
school property? (q43)
6 or more days

93.7
3.4
1.1
0.4
1.4

93.8
2.1
1.2
1.4
1.4

92.7
3.6
1.7
0.8
1.3

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

88.4
4.2
2.0
0.7
4.7

93.1
2.4
1.9
0.6
2.0

90.9
2.0
2.7
0.7
3.8

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

90.7
1.9
0.6
0.0
6.8

95.0
1.6
1.0
0.5
1.8

93.0
0.7
0.7
1.1
4.4

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

95.3
2.5
1.5
0.4
0.3

88.3
5.9
3.4
0.5
2.0

87.0
7.1
3.8
0.8
1.4

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

97.1
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.7

89.0
5.8
2.4
0.9
1.9

91.7
3.1
2.8
1.1
1.3

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

95.7
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.2

93.3
2.8
2.3
0.8
0.8

93.8
4.4
1.1
0.0
0.7

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

84.8
7.7
4.2
1.2
0.4
0.7
0.0
1.0

80.8
9.1
6.1
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.0
2.0

80.3
9.2
5.6
1.9
0.4
0.7
0.4
1.5

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

89.3
2.7
3.3
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.4
2.2

83.8
7.3
4.7
1.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
1.4

81.6
9.3
4.1
0.7
1.1
0.7
0.0
2.6

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

87.7
4.3
3.7
1.8
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.2

87.8
5.7
4.7
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.8

89.2
5.8
1.8
1.1
0.4
0.7
0.0
1.1

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times were you in a physical
fight on school property? (q40)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

75.9
13.1
7.8
1.5
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.8

68.8
16.4
9.5
1.8
0.7
1.1
0.4
1.4

72.2
14.4
7.9
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.5
1.5

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

82.1
9.8
6.3
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.4

80.1
10.0
6.7
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.9

76.7
12.4
7.2
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.4

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

90.2
6.7
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

89.4
5.9
3.6
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3

86.5
6.9
4.7
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.1

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Pinal County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4594
www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa
Cruz Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-618-8807

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
1-800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties
Linda Weinberg
Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona
480-231-7504

Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety
Steve Ballance/Charles Katz
602-543-6174/602-543-6618
steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
928-214-2177

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
http://prevention.samhsa.gov

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and
Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of
Problem Gambling
Paula Burns
602-266-8299 ext. 351
www.problemgambling.az.gov

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA)
www.samhsa.gov

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

Other State and National Contacts:

Western Regional Center for the Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPT)
www.westcapt.org

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson
602-364-1173/602-364-1157
www.azcjc.gov

Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
www.ade.az.gov

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Santa Cruz County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling
Arizona State University
Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Santa Cruz County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

Tools for Assessment
and Planning
How to Read the
Charts
Data Charts:
• Risk & Protective
Factor Profiles
• Substance Use &
Antisocial Behavior
• School Safety

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Santa Cruz County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

409

100

1328

100

161

39.4

509

142

34.7

444

106

25.9

196
198

State 2006
Number

Percent

1355

100 60401

100

38.3

341

25.2 26872

44.5

33.4

553

40.8 19581

32.4

375

28.2

461

34.0 13948

23.1

49.7

675

51.3

638

47.8 28381

48.2

50.3

641

48.7

697

52.2 30505

51.8

2

0.5

6

0.5

6

0.5

2592

4.4

2

0.5

5

0.4

8

0.6

3394

5.8

2

0.5

2

0.2

8

0.6

1341

2.3

360

91.6

1211

93.7

1230

92.6 21376

36.5

*

*

Percent

4

0.3

2

457

0.8

27

6.9

64

5.0

53

0.2

4.0 26761

45.7

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

21

1.6

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

The chart at the right shows the links
between the 19 risk factors and the five
problem behaviors. The check marks have
been placed in the chart to indicate where
at least two well designed, published
research studies have shown a link
between the risk factor and the problem
behavior.

9

9

Community laws and norms
favorable toward drug use,
firearms and crime

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

Family
Family history of the problem
behavior
Family management problems
Family conflict
Favorable parental attitudes and
involvement in the problem
behavior

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

The Arizona Youth Survey as a Tool for
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
The Prevention Needs Assessment Survey is an important part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention
Framework Process. CSAP created this 5-step model to guide states and communities through the process of
creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programming. The information presented in
this section is taken from CSAP’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant description.
Step 1: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in
Service Delivery
•

•

Community Needs Assessment: The results of this survey (presented in this Profile Report and in
results reported at the State level) will identify needs for prevention. States should consider
administering a survey to assess adolescent substance use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk
and protective factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors. While planning prevention services,
communities are urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including archival and social
indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant interviews, as well as survey data.
Community Resource Assessment: It is likely that existing agencies and programs are already
addressing some of the prioritized risk and protective factors. It is important to identify the assets and
resources already available in the community and the gaps in services and capacity.
Community Readiness Assessment: It is very important for states and communities to have the
commitment and support of their members and ample resources to implement effective prevention
efforts. Therefore, the readiness and capacity of communities and resources to act should also be
assessed.

Step 2: Mobilize and/or Build Capacity to Address Needs: Engagement of key stakeholders at the state and
community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be
sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with
leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain
prevention activities.
Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan: States and communities should develop a strategic plan
that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and
implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on documented needs, build on
identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored.
Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The issue of
sustainability should be kept in mind throughout each step of planning and implementation.
Step 4: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities: By
measuring risk and protective factors in a population, prevention programs can be implemented that
will reduce the elevated risk factors and increase the protective factors. For example, if academic
failure is identified as a prioritized risk factor in a community, then mentoring, tutoring, and increased
opportunities and rewards for classroom participation can be provided to improve academic
performance. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention
programs that fit the Strategic Framework of the community, match the population served, and are
scientifically proven to work. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology
website (www.westcapt.org) contains a search engine for identifying Best Practice Programs.
Step 5: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or
Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the
outcomes desired are achieved and to assess program effectiveness, assess service delivery quality,
identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies,
programs, and practices.

5

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
Why the Arizona Youth
Survey?
Data from the Arizona Youth
Survey can be used to help
school and community
planners assess current
conditions and prioritize
areas of greatest need.
Each risk and protective
factor can be linked to
specific types of
interventions that have been
shown to be effective in
either reducing risk(s) or
enhancing protection(s). The
steps outlined here will help
your county and community
make key decisions regarding
allocation of resources, how
and when to address specific
needs, and which strategies
are most effective and known
to produce results.

What are the numbers telling you?
Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Using the table
below, note your findings as you discuss the following questions.
•
Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want?
•
Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want?
•
Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which substances are your students using the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?
•
Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to decide if a rate is “unacceptable.”
•
•
•

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or
much lower than the other?
Compare your data with statewide, and national data – differences of
5% between local and other data are probably significant.
Determine the standards and values held within your community – For
example: Is it acceptable in your community for a percentage of high
school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage is
lower than the overall state rate?

Substance use and antisocial behavior data – raise awareness about the
problems and promote dialogue.
Risk and protective factor data – identify exactly where the community
needs to take action.
Promising approaches – talk with resources listed on the last page of
this report for ideas about programs that have proven effective in
addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and
improving the protective factors that are low.

Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate
#1
#2
#3
#4

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

Practical Implications of the AYS
No Child Left Behind
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that
schools and communities use six Principles of Effectiveness to guide their decisions and spending on federally funded
prevention and intervention programs. First introduced in 1998 by the Department of Education, the Principles of
Effectiveness outline a data-driven process for ensuring that prevention programs achieve the desired results. The
Principles of Effectiveness stipulate that local prevention programs and activities must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

be based on a needs assessment using objective data regarding the incidence of drug use and violence,
target specific performance objectives,
be based on scientific research and be proven to reduce violence or drug use,
be based on the analysis of predictor variables such as risk and protective factors,
include meaningful and on-going parental input in program implementation, and
have periodic evaluations of established performance measures.

The results of the Arizona Youth Survey presented in this report can help schools and communities comply with the
NCLB Act. The Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior charts provide information related to Principle 1 above. The
Risk and Protective Factor charts provide information related to Principle 4. Overall, using the Risk and Protective
factors planning framework helps schools meet all of the Principles of Effectiveness, and thereby assists schools in
complying with the NCLB Act.

How to Read the Charts: Substance Use and
Antisocial Behavior Charts
There are four types of charts presented in this
report: 1) substance use and antisocial behavior
charts, 2) risk factor charts, 3) protective factor
charts, and 4) school safety charts. All the charts
show the results of the AYS, and the actual
percentages from the charts are presented in Tables
3 through 10.

•

30-day use is a measure of the percentage of
students who used the substance at least once in
the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a
more sensitive indicator of the level of current
use of the substance.

•

Binge drinking and a Pack or more of
cigarettes per day are measures of heavy use of
alcohol and tobacco. Binge drinking is defined as
having five or more drinks in a row during the
two weeks prior to taking the survey.

•

Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the
percentage of students who report any
involvement with the eight antisocial behaviors
listed in the charts in the past year. In the charts,
antisocial behavior will often be abbreviated as
ASB.

•

Dots are used on the charts to show the overall
average of all of the youth in each grade who
participated in the survey for each behavior. More
information about the dots is contained on the
following page.

Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts
This report contains information about alcohol,
tobacco and other drug use (referred to as ATOD
use throughout this report) and other problem
behaviors of students. The bars on each chart
represent the percentage of students in that grade
who reported the behavior. The four sections in the
charts represent different types of problem
behaviors. The definitions of each of the types of
behavior are provided below.
•

Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of
students who tried the particular substance at
least once in their lifetime and is used to show
the percentage of students who have had
experience with a particular substance.

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

Cut-Points
Before the percentage of youth at risk on a given
scale could be calculated, a scale value or cut-point
needed to be determined that would separate the atrisk group from the not-at-risk group. The
Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) survey was
designed to assess adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors
that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. The
Arizona Youth Survey, and surveys designed for
other states and areas, follow the PNA format and
have the same goal of gathering information on the
prevention needs of students, schools, communities,
and states. Since PNA surveys have been given to
over 200,000 youth nationwide, it was possible to
select two groups of youth, one that was more at risk
for problem behaviors and another group that was
less at risk. A cut-point score was then determined
for each risk and protective factor scale that best
divided the youth from the two groups into their
appropriate group, more at-risk or less at-risk. The
criteria for selecting the more at-risk and the less atrisk groups included academic grades (the more atrisk group received “D” and “F” grades, the less atrisk group received “A” and “B” grades), ATOD use
(the more at-risk group had more regular use, the
less at-risk group had no drug use and use of alcohol
or tobacco on only a few occasions), and antisocial
behavior (the more at-risk group had two or more
serious delinquent acts in the past year, the less atrisk group had no serious delinquent acts).
The cut-points that were determined by analyzing
the results of the more at-risk and less at-risk groups
will remain constant and will be used to produce the
profiles for future surveys.
Since the cut-points for each scale will remain fixed,
the percentage of youth above the cut-point on a
scale (at-risk) will provide a method for evaluating

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Santa Cruz County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions
Community Domain
Risk Factors
Community and Personal
Transitions & Mobility

Neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility have been shown to have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling, while children who experience frequent residential moves and stressful life
transitions have been shown to have higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and drug use.

Community Disorganization

Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of
public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling.

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

A low level of bonding to the neighborhood is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling.

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking
age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in
consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative
attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use.

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance
use and other problem behaviors.

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities
and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by
their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6) academic failure increases the risk of both drug
abuse and delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the
risk of problem behaviors.

21

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions (Continued)
Low Commitment to School

Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, stimulants, and
sedatives or non-medically prescribed tranquilizers is significantly lower among students who expect to
attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework,
and perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use.
Protective Factors

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at
school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to
be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors.

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the
involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15
is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict
lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes
Attitudes Favorable Toward
Antisocial Behavior and Drug and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in
middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior,
Use
their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive
attitudes toward drug use and antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem
behaviors, including drug use.
Friends' Use of Drugs

Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely
to engage in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest
predictors of substance use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families
and do not experience other risk factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the
risk of that problem developing.

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging
in antisocial behavior themselves.

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use.

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in
antisocial behavior and substance use.

Rebelliousness

Young people who do not feel part of society, are not bound by rules, don’t believe in trying to be
successful or responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of
abusing drugs. In addition, high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and
normlessness have all been linked with drug use.

Intention to Use ATODs

Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life.
Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions.

Depressive Symptoms

Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely
to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth
problem behaviors.

Gang Involvement

Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.
Protective Factors

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.

22

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
Grade 8
Total Students

County County County
2002
2004
2006
161

509

341

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
142

444

553

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

51.0
59.2
53.3
50.4
81.3
80.2
78.6
34.0
36.6
34.1
30.8
61.9
62.3
55.7
4.4
8.0
9.9
8.0
8.5
14.3
12.5
8.9
12.5
11.7
18.3
25.2
30.7
24.4
10.1
14.7
16.5
15.2
11.3
13.1
12.8
1.9
2.4
1.3
2.1
1.4
5.7
3.6
1.9
3.9
4.2
3.6
7.2
10.5
10.2
3.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
2.6
n/a
n/a
3.1
n/a
3.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.8
3.4
n/a
n/a
4.1
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.4
2.8
1.4
1.9
5.1
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.6
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.9
10.4
10.0
n/a
14.5
11.3
2.0
2.1
1.0
1.9
4.3
5.1
4.3
n/a
n/a
1.9
1.6
n/a
n/a
2.6
n/a
n/a
7.3
9.8
n/a
n/a
9.9
18.0
30.5
33.7
36.2
30.3
42.5
41.9
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

33.6
12.9
4.3
5.7
5.8
2.9
2.2
2.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.4
2.9
n/a
1.5
n/a
n/a
11.8

2004

25.4
14.1
2.5
5.6
5.5
1.6
1.8
n/a
n/a
2.5
n/a
0.6
n/a
7.3
1.2
n/a
n/a
17.4

2006

28.0
9.1
5.3
6.4
7.7
1.6
1.6
n/a
1.3
n/a
1.6
1.0
n/a
5.7
0.7
1.6
4.8
21.0

2006

24.1
10.5
2.7
8.5
6.2
1.0
1.7
n/a
1.0
n/a
1.5
0.7
n/a
4.5
0.8
0.8
4.5
19.7

2002

2004

51.5
16.3
5.9
11.9
5.2
0.7
2.3
0.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.2
3.0
n/a
2.2
n/a
n/a
17.3

50.9
30.6
4.5
11.3
4.5
2.3
5.9
n/a
n/a
2.1
n/a
0.7
n/a
7.3
0.9
n/a
n/a
20.5

2006

49.7
26.1
5.1
10.8
4.3
2.7
5.9
n/a
0.8
n/a
2.5
1.4
n/a
7.3
1.6
1.2
5.4
24.8

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
106

375

461

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

67.6
43.8
11.8
34.0
11.9
4.1
7.6
n/a
5.0
n/a
7.1
2.1
n/a
14.3
3.4
2.0
16.0
47.0

County County County
2002
2004
2006

84.8
69.2
8.6
47.6
3.8
12.3
24.8
6.7
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.9
5.7
n/a
8.5
n/a
n/a
50.9

87.6
68.3
13.4
34.8
6.2
3.3
13.6
n/a
n/a
3.0
n/a
1.9
n/a
15.2
4.9
n/a
n/a
42.4

85.1
63.5
15.0
31.7
8.1
3.4
14.7
n/a
2.3
n/a
4.3
1.4
n/a
11.2
3.0
0.7
9.8
40.1

State
2006

74.5
50.0
15.6
42.6
9.8
5.6
11.6
n/a
6.6
n/a
8.5
2.8
n/a
17.4
4.4
2.2
20.0
52.8

Grade 12
State
2006

39.2
17.1
4.0
15.7
3.1
1.7
2.9
n/a
1.7
n/a
2.9
0.7
n/a
6.6
1.0
1.0
7.3
25.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

63.3
23.5
4.1
22.4
1.0
2.0
9.2
2.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.0
1.0
n/a
3.1
n/a
n/a
24.5

60.5
35.5
6.3
13.4
1.9
3.0
7.4
n/a
n/a
2.2
n/a
0.8
n/a
8.4
1.9
n/a
n/a
20.8

61.2
31.2
4.4
12.1
1.6
1.1
5.6
n/a
1.4
n/a
1.4
0.0
n/a
4.5
0.7
0.2
3.6
21.0

State
2006

47.0
21.8
5.4
18.1
1.7
1.7
3.3
n/a
1.4
n/a
2.6
0.8
n/a
7.1
0.9
1.0
8.1
26.6

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
15.9
17.7
22.7
13.4
29.6
34.6
30.9
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.4
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.5
2.8
3.1
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
17.2
23.9
22.3
Drunk or High at School
3.8
11.9
11.1
Sold Illegal Drugs
1.9
5.1
4.7
Stolen a Vehicle
3.8
6.3
6.8
Been Arrested
5.1
9.2
10.0
Attacked to Harm
7.7
16.4
20.0
Carried a Handgun
5.1
7.8
8.0
Handgun to School
1.3
1.8
2.0
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

9.6
12.5
7.3
3.7
5.2
11.9
7.3
4.4

2004

14.4
17.7
8.2
4.3
8.9
14.4
7.8
1.1

2006

14.6
15.5
7.2
5.7
9.9
13.5
6.7
1.7

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

36.7
1.0

County County County
2002
2004
2006

40.9
3.3

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

13.0
19.0
12.0
1.0
11.0
9.0
6.0
0.0

Grade 10
State
2006

43.6
2.8

State
2006

15.3
19.5
7.3
1.6
9.9
12.1
4.0
0.8

6.6
18.4
6.1
2.1
7.2
11.9
5.3
1.6

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

42.1
40.8

40.0
29.2

46.5
30.8

38.2
30.4

32.3
32.8

32.8
36.8

42.9
34.6

37.1
36.3

34.4
45.8

40.8
36.1

40.3
35.3

37.6
35.2

50.0
57.6
58.5

49.3
61.1
58.3

48.9
58.0
61.0

48.7
57.4
60.6

51.6
64.6
57.7

50.9
57.1
61.5

46.2
54.5
54.7

44.1
53.0
54.9

63.5
59.4
59.4

62.9
70.8
64.3

62.7
63.0
64.6

57.1
55.9
56.9

55.7
61.4

55.9
53.0

50.9
48.1

59.1
50.7

49.6
46.8

55.7
60.1

60.3
61.8

62.9
62.3

65.1
51.9

60.4
44.0

65.0
51.3

65.2
48.0

*
65.1
53.2
*
*
*

54.9
60.2
49.5
51.4
37.2
63.7

58.2
63.1
53.3
51.4
33.7
59.6

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
49.6
53.6
*
*
*

52.4
48.9
61.3
50.7
35.6
62.0

52.3
49.8
62.6
49.9
33.4
58.2

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
68.7
47.1
*
*
*

84.9
65.8
52.7
54.9
36.5
56.9

83.2
65.2
53.8
57.3
40.0
53.3

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

36.4
36.7
31.7
30.8
20.7
25.7

43.2
47.2
46.5
39.3
39.1
34.7

43.8
51.8
47.1
37.9
35.3
32.8

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

50.4
50.8
34.1
39.8
47.3
25.4

47.4
54.8
48.3
44.8
56.7
22.1

43.7
56.4
49.8
42.7
49.0
20.2

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

41.7
33.3
43.8
32.0
53.1
21.9

46.2
49.4
43.9
35.1
60.5
29.9

42.0
51.6
42.1
40.4
54.6
22.9

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

40.7
43.2
29.8
30.6
19.0

49.1
54.2
44.8
50.0
27.6

50.7
49.3
39.5
45.7
27.8

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

41.2
31.1
36.2
50.4
45.7

38.9
34.6
47.2
47.5
41.9

45.1
39.0
38.8
52.1
47.6

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

38.5
30.2
37.5
43.8
43.2

34.8
37.7
41.6
45.6
44.9

36.7
34.0
33.4
44.4
45.2

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

47.3
23.9

56.4
33.6

54.4
30.9

48.6
41.1

63.0
38.6

60.4
32.7

56.7
32.1

51.6
40.1

51.5
23.8

57.5
37.1

50.4
29.4

44.1
43.0

34.8
25.9
28.9
31.2
29.9
42.8
40.9
24.2
30.5
49.7
*
18.5

46.4
40.0
38.0
46.5
34.3
42.9
67.9
42.9
47.0
56.2
42.5
36.1

42.8
42.5
36.4
42.9
30.4
45.0
58.0
43.5
44.7
54.2
39.6
38.1

43.8
40.2
35.2
46.2
32.4
45.4
58.4
41.3
48.7
45.7
36.5
26.3

52.5
26.4
35.3
57.9
43.2
41.7
52.5
40.7
25.0
52.2
*
22.6

36.1
35.9
38.0
55.1
43.5
39.5
62.9
51.9
41.4
57.5
49.4
34.1

49.7
38.0
38.5
50.6
42.0
30.4
56.8
46.4
46.7
46.1
52.7
32.4

47.5
42.4
36.6
49.7
36.6
39.2
58.1
43.2
45.0
45.5
44.9
23.9

32.7
40.4
40.0
50.9
41.5
36.7
62.9
48.6
27.3
41.4
*
13.9

35.4
40.9
34.1
48.5
34.0
35.1
59.5
41.8
56.4
45.4
29.6
17.1

45.5
33.5
34.4
44.3
38.3
34.8
46.7
37.5
58.1
41.5
32.7
15.3

44.3
38.8
34.1
45.6
34.6
40.5
52.0
35.9
53.8
38.6
29.9
16.3

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety Issues
Grade 8
Question

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

0 days
During the past 30 days, on how
1 day
many days did you carry a weapon
2-3 days
such as a gun, knife, or club on
4-5 days
school property? (q43)
6 or more days

96.2
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3

92.2
3.6
1.6
0.8
1.8

91.6
3.0
1.8
1.5
2.1

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

95.0
2.1
2.1
0.7
0.0

92.5
1.8
2.5
0.9
2.3

93.4
2.4
1.3
0.4
2.6

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

98.1
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0

97.8
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.8

94.5
1.8
1.8
0.7
1.3

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

92.9
5.1
1.9
0.0
0.0

85.0
8.6
3.6
1.4
1.4

84.9
6.6
4.2
0.9
3.3

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

95.0
3.5
1.4
0.0
0.0

88.9
5.7
3.2
0.5
1.8

88.2
5.9
3.5
0.7
1.7

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

97.1
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0

94.9
2.2
1.3
0.8
0.8

94.5
2.6
1.3
0.7
0.9

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

92.5
4.4
1.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6

80.5
11.8
3.8
1.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.0

82.7
7.0
4.0
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
3.3

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

87.9
7.1
3.5
0.7
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0

84.6
6.6
5.7
1.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.9

87.5
6.1
4.2
1.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.6

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

94.3
0.0
2.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0

89.0
7.5
2.4
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.5

91.9
4.0
2.9
0.7
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.2

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times were you in a physical
fight on school property? (q40)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

80.4
12.0
5.7
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

65.1
18.0
9.4
4.2
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.0

62.0
20.1
9.3
4.2
0.6
1.5
0.3
2.1

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

84.4
10.6
2.1
1.4
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7

77.7
12.6
7.7
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5

75.6
11.6
8.6
2.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
1.1

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

90.6
4.7
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0

86.4
9.3
2.1
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.8
0.5

88.1
7.3
2.9
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Santa Cruz County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4594
www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa
Cruz Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-618-8807

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
1-800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties
Linda Weinberg
Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona
480-231-7504

Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety
Steve Ballance/Charles Katz
602-543-6174/602-543-6618
steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
928-214-2177

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
http://prevention.samhsa.gov

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and
Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of
Problem Gambling
Paula Burns
602-266-8299 ext. 351
www.problemgambling.az.gov

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA)
www.samhsa.gov

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

Other State and National Contacts:

Western Regional Center for the Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPT)
www.westcapt.org

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson
602-364-1173/602-364-1157
www.azcjc.gov

Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
www.ade.az.gov

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Yavapai County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling
Arizona State University
Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

the gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Yavapai County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

Tools for Assessment
and Planning
How to Read the
Charts
Data Charts:
• Risk & Protective
Factor Profiles
• Substance Use &
Antisocial Behavior
• School Safety

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Yavapai County and the State.
Because not all students answer all of
the questions, the number of students in

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Number

589

100

746

100

Percent

1656

100 60401

100

328

55.7

467

164

27.8

146

62.6

621

37.5 26872

44.5

19.6

650

39.3 19581

97

16.5

32.4

133

17.8

385

23.2 13948

23.1

264
308

46.2

364

49.6

791

49.4 28381

48.2

53.8

370

50.4

810

50.6 30505

51.8

10

1.8

4

0.6

21

1.3

2592

4.4

28

5.1

39

5.5

60

3.7

3394

5.8

1.5

1341

2.3

19.3 21376

36.5

7

1.3

3

0.4

25

60

10.8

95

13.5

311

2

0.3

13

449

81.0

560

79.7

1112

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

72

*

*

Percent

State 2006

Number

457

0.8

68.9 26761

0.8

45.7

4.5

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

The chart at the right shows the links
between the 19 risk factors and the five
problem behaviors. The check marks have
been placed in the chart to indicate where
at least two well designed, published
research studies have shown a link
between the risk factor and the problem
behavior.

9

9

Community laws and norms
favorable toward drug use,
firearms and crime

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

Family
Family history of the problem
behavior
Family management problems
Family conflict
Favorable parental attitudes and
involvement in the problem
behavior

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

The Arizona Youth Survey as a Tool for
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
The Prevention Needs Assessment Survey is an important part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention
Framework Process. CSAP created this 5-step model to guide states and communities through the process of
creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programming. The information presented in
this section is taken from CSAP’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant description.
Step 1: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in
Service Delivery
•

•

Community Needs Assessment: The results of this survey (presented in this Profile Report and in
results reported at the State level) will identify needs for prevention. States should consider
administering a survey to assess adolescent substance use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk
and protective factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors. While planning prevention services,
communities are urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including archival and social
indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant interviews, as well as survey data.
Community Resource Assessment: It is likely that existing agencies and programs are already
addressing some of the prioritized risk and protective factors. It is important to identify the assets and
resources already available in the community and the gaps in services and capacity.
Community Readiness Assessment: It is very important for states and communities to have the
commitment and support of their members and ample resources to implement effective prevention
efforts. Therefore, the readiness and capacity of communities and resources to act should also be
assessed.

Step 2: Mobilize and/or Build Capacity to Address Needs: Engagement of key stakeholders at the state and
community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be
sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with
leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain
prevention activities.
Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan: States and communities should develop a strategic plan
that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and
implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on documented needs, build on
identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored.
Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The issue of
sustainability should be kept in mind throughout each step of planning and implementation.
Step 4: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities: By
measuring risk and protective factors in a population, prevention programs can be implemented that
will reduce the elevated risk factors and increase the protective factors. For example, if academic
failure is identified as a prioritized risk factor in a community, then mentoring, tutoring, and increased
opportunities and rewards for classroom participation can be provided to improve academic
performance. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention
programs that fit the Strategic Framework of the community, match the population served, and are
scientifically proven to work. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology
website (www.westcapt.org) contains a search engine for identifying Best Practice Programs.
Step 5: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or
Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the
outcomes desired are achieved and to assess program effectiveness, assess service delivery quality,
identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies,
programs, and practices.

5

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
Why the Arizona Youth
Survey?
Data from the Arizona Youth
Survey can be used to help
school and community
planners assess current
conditions and prioritize
areas of greatest need.
Each risk and protective
factor can be linked to
specific types of
interventions that have been
shown to be effective in
either reducing risk(s) or
enhancing protection(s). The
steps outlined here will help
your county and community
make key decisions regarding
allocation of resources, how
and when to address specific
needs, and which strategies
are most effective and known
to produce results.

What are the numbers telling you?
Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Using the table
below, note your findings as you discuss the following questions.
•
Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want?
•
Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want?
•
Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which substances are your students using the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?
•
Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to decide if a rate is “unacceptable.”
•
•
•

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or
much lower than the other?
Compare your data with statewide, and national data – differences of
5% between local and other data are probably significant.
Determine the standards and values held within your community – For
example: Is it acceptable in your community for a percentage of high
school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage is
lower than the overall state rate?

Substance use and antisocial behavior data – raise awareness about the
problems and promote dialogue.
Risk and protective factor data – identify exactly where the community
needs to take action.
Promising approaches – talk with resources listed on the last page of
this report for ideas about programs that have proven effective in
addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and
improving the protective factors that are low.

Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate
#1
#2
#3
#4

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

Practical Implications of the AYS
No Child Left Behind
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that
schools and communities use six Principles of Effectiveness to guide their decisions and spending on federally funded
prevention and intervention programs. First introduced in 1998 by the Department of Education, the Principles of
Effectiveness outline a data-driven process for ensuring that prevention programs achieve the desired results. The
Principles of Effectiveness stipulate that local prevention programs and activities must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

be based on a needs assessment using objective data regarding the incidence of drug use and violence,
target specific performance objectives,
be based on scientific research and be proven to reduce violence or drug use,
be based on the analysis of predictor variables such as risk and protective factors,
include meaningful and on-going parental input in program implementation, and
have periodic evaluations of established performance measures.

The results of the Arizona Youth Survey presented in this report can help schools and communities comply with the
NCLB Act. The Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior charts provide information related to Principle 1 above. The
Risk and Protective Factor charts provide information related to Principle 4. Overall, using the Risk and Protective
factors planning framework helps schools meet all of the Principles of Effectiveness, and thereby assists schools in
complying with the NCLB Act.

How to Read the Charts: Substance Use and
Antisocial Behavior Charts
There are four types of charts presented in this
report: 1) substance use and antisocial behavior
charts, 2) risk factor charts, 3) protective factor
charts, and 4) school safety charts. All the charts
show the results of the AYS, and the actual
percentages from the charts are presented in Tables
3 through 10.

•

30-day use is a measure of the percentage of
students who used the substance at least once in
the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a
more sensitive indicator of the level of current
use of the substance.

•

Binge drinking and a Pack or more of
cigarettes per day are measures of heavy use of
alcohol and tobacco. Binge drinking is defined as
having five or more drinks in a row during the
two weeks prior to taking the survey.

•

Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the
percentage of students who report any
involvement with the eight antisocial behaviors
listed in the charts in the past year. In the charts,
antisocial behavior will often be abbreviated as
ASB.

•

Dots are used on the charts to show the overall
average of all of the youth in each grade who
participated in the survey for each behavior. More
information about the dots is contained on the
following page.

Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts
This report contains information about alcohol,
tobacco and other drug use (referred to as ATOD
use throughout this report) and other problem
behaviors of students. The bars on each chart
represent the percentage of students in that grade
who reported the behavior. The four sections in the
charts represent different types of problem
behaviors. The definitions of each of the types of
behavior are provided below.
•

Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of
students who tried the particular substance at
least once in their lifetime and is used to show
the percentage of students who have had
experience with a particular substance.

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

Cut-Points
Before the percentage of youth at risk on a given
scale could be calculated, a scale value or cut-point
needed to be determined that would separate the atrisk group from the not-at-risk group. The
Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) survey was
designed to assess adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors
that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. The
Arizona Youth Survey, and surveys designed for
other states and areas, follow the PNA format and
have the same goal of gathering information on the
prevention needs of students, schools, communities,
and states. Since PNA surveys have been given to
over 200,000 youth nationwide, it was possible to
select two groups of youth, one that was more at risk
for problem behaviors and another group that was
less at risk. A cut-point score was then determined
for each risk and protective factor scale that best
divided the youth from the two groups into their
appropriate group, more at-risk or less at-risk. The
criteria for selecting the more at-risk and the less atrisk groups included academic grades (the more atrisk group received “D” and “F” grades, the less atrisk group received “A” and “B” grades), ATOD use
(the more at-risk group had more regular use, the
less at-risk group had no drug use and use of alcohol
or tobacco on only a few occasions), and antisocial
behavior (the more at-risk group had two or more
serious delinquent acts in the past year, the less atrisk group had no serious delinquent acts).
The cut-points that were determined by analyzing
the results of the more at-risk and less at-risk groups
will remain constant and will be used to produce the
profiles for future surveys.
Since the cut-points for each scale will remain fixed,
the percentage of youth above the cut-point on a
scale (at-risk) will provide a method for evaluating

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Yavapai County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions
Community Domain
Risk Factors
Community and Personal
Transitions & Mobility

Neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility have been shown to have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling, while children who experience frequent residential moves and stressful life
transitions have been shown to have higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and drug use.

Community Disorganization

Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of
public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling.

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

A low level of bonding to the neighborhood is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling.

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking
age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in
consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative
attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use.

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance
use and other problem behaviors.

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities
and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by
their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6) academic failure increases the risk of both drug
abuse and delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the
risk of problem behaviors.

21

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions (Continued)
Low Commitment to School

Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, stimulants, and
sedatives or non-medically prescribed tranquilizers is significantly lower among students who expect to
attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework,
and perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use.
Protective Factors

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at
school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to
be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors.

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the
involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15
is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict
lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes
Attitudes Favorable Toward
Antisocial Behavior and Drug and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in
middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior,
Use
their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive
attitudes toward drug use and antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem
behaviors, including drug use.
Friends' Use of Drugs

Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely
to engage in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest
predictors of substance use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families
and do not experience other risk factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the
risk of that problem developing.

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging
in antisocial behavior themselves.

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use.

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in
antisocial behavior and substance use.

Rebelliousness

Young people who do not feel part of society, are not bound by rules, don’t believe in trying to be
successful or responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of
abusing drugs. In addition, high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and
normlessness have all been linked with drug use.

Intention to Use ATODs

Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life.
Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions.

Depressive Symptoms

Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely
to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth
problem behaviors.

Gang Involvement

Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.
Protective Factors

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.

22

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
Grade 8
Total Students

County County County
2002
2004
2006
328

467

621

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
164

146

650

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

63.9
57.5
51.8
50.4
76.8
77.2
77.7
45.5
36.5
28.7
30.8
54.4
61.5
46.9
9.5
10.9
8.8
8.0
11.1
21.1
22.8
26.8
20.2
15.4
18.3
45.0
43.0
38.3
14.5
13.8
14.6
15.2
10.4
13.6
13.3
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
9.3
6.5
4.5
5.5
2.0
3.7
3.6
13.5
12.0
7.0
4.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
9.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.7
2.6
n/a
n/a
3.7
n/a
3.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
11.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.4
3.4
n/a
n/a
6.4
2.1
1.3
1.5
1.4
3.7
3.6
2.1
1.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
4.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
10.7
11.5
10.0
n/a
24.3
17.6
5.0
1.1
2.1
1.9
10.6
3.6
2.6
n/a
n/a
1.3
1.6
n/a
n/a
3.5
n/a
n/a
12.2
9.8
n/a
n/a
17.4
37.8
31.7
37.3
36.2
48.8
54.3
53.8
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

37.5
13.6
5.7
15.9
6.0
3.8
3.5
2.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
1.3
n/a
3.5
n/a
n/a
21.8

2004

26.8
9.3
2.6
6.1
6.6
0.9
0.2
n/a
n/a
1.1
n/a
0.7
n/a
4.4
0.4
n/a
n/a
15.6

2006

24.2
9.4
2.9
7.0
6.1
0.6
1.1
n/a
0.8
n/a
1.1
0.8
n/a
5.0
0.4
0.4
5.5
18.6

2006

24.1
10.5
2.7
8.5
6.2
1.0
1.7
n/a
1.0
n/a
1.5
0.7
n/a
4.5
0.8
0.8
4.5
19.7

2002

2004

54.3
19.6
4.6
24.5
4.0
4.7
6.6
3.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.0
2.7
n/a
6.1
n/a
n/a
30.6

49.0
23.0
4.9
19.1
5.6
2.9
4.3
n/a
n/a
5.0
n/a
0.7
n/a
13.7
0.7
n/a
n/a
31.1

2006

49.0
19.8
8.5
18.0
4.8
1.5
2.0
n/a
2.0
n/a
2.4
1.1
n/a
7.9
1.7
1.7
8.0
31.3

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
97

133

385

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

67.6
43.8
11.8
34.0
11.9
4.1
7.6
n/a
5.0
n/a
7.1
2.1
n/a
14.3
3.4
2.0
16.0
47.0

County County County
2002
2004
2006

83.9
64.6
20.8
50.5
15.6
6.2
13.5
9.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.1
2.1
n/a
14.7
n/a
n/a
54.6

77.3
69.7
22.7
51.1
17.8
10.9
16.9
n/a
n/a
18.2
n/a
3.8
n/a
24.6
9.8
n/a
n/a
58.9

80.6
55.8
28.1
47.9
12.4
6.4
6.8
n/a
6.1
n/a
6.8
1.9
n/a
16.0
4.1
4.0
22.0
58.7

State
2006

74.5
50.0
15.6
42.6
9.8
5.6
11.6
n/a
6.6
n/a
8.5
2.8
n/a
17.4
4.4
2.2
20.0
52.8

Grade 12
State
2006

39.2
17.1
4.0
15.7
3.1
1.7
2.9
n/a
1.7
n/a
2.9
0.7
n/a
6.6
1.0
1.0
7.3
25.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

57.8
21.4
7.1
27.7
0.0
1.2
3.6
1.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.5
2.4
n/a
2.4
n/a
n/a
29.6

49.6
38.5
6.8
17.7
0.8
2.3
4.6
n/a
n/a
4.6
n/a
0.8
n/a
10.8
0.8
n/a
n/a
24.8

55.0
24.4
10.1
17.0
1.2
2.0
1.5
n/a
0.9
n/a
3.6
0.0
n/a
5.8
0.9
2.1
7.7
27.1

State
2006

47.0
21.8
5.4
18.1
1.7
1.7
3.3
n/a
1.4
n/a
2.6
0.8
n/a
7.1
0.9
1.0
8.1
26.6

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
17.7
13.0
11.9
13.4
34.6
29.7
31.2
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
1.6
0.9
1.6
1.0
5.9
8.1
3.1
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
16.9
15.3
17.6
Drunk or High at School
14.5
11.2
11.3
Sold Illegal Drugs
6.2
2.2
3.3
Stolen a Vehicle
5.6
3.7
3.8
Been Arrested
11.7
9.1
7.8
Attacked to Harm
14.3
15.2
17.1
Carried a Handgun
7.7
8.2
7.8
Handgun to School
1.8
0.4
0.9
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

17.2
18.5
9.6
3.2
11.5
11.7
6.5
1.9

2004

23.4
23.1
10.5
6.9
14.7
22.1
11.2
2.2

2006

15.2
27.7
9.9
6.0
10.9
17.8
8.4
1.5

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

31.3
3.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

34.5
5.9

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

12.2
23.3
12.4
2.2
11.1
12.4
6.7
0.0

Grade 10
State
2006

30.8
15.5

State
2006

7.6
18.6
9.2
3.8
12.2
12.4
9.2
0.8

8.8
25.4
12.5
3.6
7.9
13.1
8.3
2.5

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

49.5
35.0

47.0
32.6

43.8
31.0

38.2
30.4

50.0
44.1

32.8
34.9

40.1
34.6

37.1
36.3

54.5
47.5

41.3
39.2

39.1
39.8

37.6
35.2

49.8
52.2
60.0

55.2
64.5
67.1

53.7
60.4
64.1

48.7
57.4
60.6

50.8
57.4
58.5

39.3
49.1
50.4

46.4
55.0
56.7

44.1
53.0
54.9

68.4
62.8
65.8

54.3
52.1
49.1

60.1
56.0
57.7

57.1
55.9
56.9

58.4
49.5

67.8
62.5

55.7
50.5

59.1
50.7

48.4
61.1

53.1
61.5

56.1
64.4

62.9
62.3

67.7
62.4

53.8
53.4

59.0
51.6

65.2
48.0

*
58.0
54.9
*
*
*

46.7
59.3
63.4
45.2
45.6
64.6

48.3
61.0
55.5
50.9
46.6
62.1

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
49.3
57.9
*
*
*

29.3
43.7
45.4
43.8
41.7
58.0

41.1
43.6
58.0
47.2
38.8
60.2

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
62.5
39.1
*
*
*

64.6
61.5
48.8
36.2
35.4
42.6

69.3
61.5
47.4
45.0
44.3
46.4

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

42.2
34.6
50.3
42.4
41.1
46.4

46.6
42.5
57.7
40.0
42.7
50.2

46.3
42.9
57.0
37.1
42.7
45.3

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

46.8
45.8
51.8
45.4
56.9
27.8

66.7
58.1
71.0
62.8
57.8
44.4

54.9
59.3
63.9
49.5
54.6
32.6

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

50.6
44.3
54.4
38.5
66.7
44.3

54.8
58.4
64.8
49.2
56.6
51.6

57.7
51.2
56.4
43.9
54.7
39.9

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

46.0
53.7
48.1
46.7
33.4

40.1
47.3
50.5
50.7
32.1

43.7
53.9
45.3
57.4
36.8

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

36.8
33.1
50.7
42.6
47.5

49.6
43.9
66.7
58.2
52.1

49.0
41.4
48.4
56.1
51.9

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

38.8
31.2
41.8
53.2
54.4

45.8
47.9
57.5
52.4
56.5

52.9
40.0
45.8
49.0
46.1

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

52.1
50.0

56.1
44.5

47.4
50.1

48.6
41.1

55.7
57.1

62.0
51.4

55.5
50.0

51.6
40.1

41.1
50.0

40.6
47.7

44.4
44.7

44.1
43.0

38.7
33.2
44.5
47.5
39.6
46.2
50.3
41.7
38.8
53.5
*
17.1

32.5
39.0
43.8
44.8
31.7
51.0
56.5
46.1
47.5
49.3
37.1
13.9

46.1
38.7
34.2
44.7
31.5
40.3
54.4
37.3
41.8
48.1
35.8
15.6

43.8
40.2
35.2
46.2
32.4
45.4
58.4
41.3
48.7
45.7
36.5
26.3

48.4
33.1
50.3
55.3
54.0
43.0
54.3
52.5
32.9
49.0
*
14.4

46.0
52.4
50.7
54.5
48.3
48.9
68.1
47.6
43.7
54.3
58.5
24.8

49.8
45.5
42.0
58.7
45.0
46.7
66.6
50.1
46.1
47.0
54.5
20.7

47.5
42.4
36.6
49.7
36.6
39.2
58.1
43.2
45.0
45.5
44.9
23.9

34.0
38.3
45.3
53.8
46.7
57.6
50.0
42.6
50.0
30.2
*
8.7

35.4
55.0
54.2
45.0
39.8
55.4
60.8
42.0
44.5
52.0
36.2
23.4

49.5
37.5
38.4
51.4
37.7
45.5
54.2
38.7
55.3
40.1
32.3
18.9

44.3
38.8
34.1
45.6
34.6
40.5
52.0
35.9
53.8
38.6
29.9
16.3

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety Issues
Grade 8
Question

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

0 days
During the past 30 days, on how
1 day
many days did you carry a weapon
2-3 days
such as a gun, knife, or club on
4-5 days
school property? (q43)
6 or more days

92.5
2.2
0.9
0.3
4.0

93.9
2.8
1.3
1.1
0.9

93.6
3.7
0.5
0.5
1.7

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

89.5
1.2
3.1
1.2
4.9

91.0
2.1
0.7
1.4
4.9

87.8
3.6
2.5
1.3
4.7

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

88.4
2.1
2.1
1.1
6.3

94.5
1.6
0.0
1.6
2.3

89.4
2.2
0.8
0.5
7.0

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

96.0
2.5
0.9
0.0
0.6

92.0
2.4
4.3
0.2
1.1

91.4
4.6
2.5
0.7
0.8

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

99.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0

91.0
5.5
2.1
0.7
0.7

92.9
5.5
1.0
0.2
0.5

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

97.9
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

96.9
0.8
2.3
0.0
0.0

94.6
2.2
1.6
0.5
1.1

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

90.7
4.0
3.7
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.0

87.7
5.8
3.9
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.0
1.1

85.6
7.3
4.9
1.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.7

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

94.4
2.5
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

86.1
6.9
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1

84.7
6.7
3.8
0.8
1.3
0.5
0.2
2.1

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

93.8
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1

93.1
3.8
2.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

88.9
6.2
2.4
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.8

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times were you in a physical
fight on school property? (q40)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

72.2
13.9
9.6
2.8
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.9

76.3
12.4
6.7
2.2
0.7
0.9
0.0
0.9

72.4
15.8
7.7
2.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
1.0

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

85.3
10.4
1.8
0.6
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.6

75.7
13.2
7.6
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.7

81.5
11.1
4.7
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.8

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

86.6
8.2
4.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

92.2
5.4
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8

89.5
5.9
2.7
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.5

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Yavapai County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4594
www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa
Cruz Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-618-8807

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
1-800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties
Linda Weinberg
Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona
480-231-7504

Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety
Steve Ballance/Charles Katz
602-543-6174/602-543-6618
steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
928-214-2177

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
http://prevention.samhsa.gov

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and
Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of
Problem Gambling
Paula Burns
602-266-8299 ext. 351
www.problemgambling.az.gov

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA)
www.samhsa.gov

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

Other State and National Contacts:

Western Regional Center for the Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPT)
www.westcapt.org

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson
602-364-1173/602-364-1157
www.azcjc.gov

Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
www.ade.az.gov

27

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Yuma County

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH:
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Department of Education
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission
Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling
Arizona State University
Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey
Summary for

CONTENTS:

gender and ethnicity categories will
often be less than the total number of
students.

Introduction:
• Demographics
• Risk & Protective
Framework

Yuma County
This report summarizes some of the
county-specific findings from the 2006
Arizona Youth Survey administered to
8th, 10th and 12th grade students during
the spring of 2006. 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.

The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention

Tools for Assessment
and Planning
How to Read the
Charts
Data Charts:
• Risk & Protective
Factor Profiles
• Substance Use &
Antisocial Behavior
• School Safety

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. 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.

Risk and Protective
Factor Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention

Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students who completed the survey
in Yuma County and the State. Because
not all students answer all of the
questions, the number of students in the

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
County 2002

Total Students
Grade
8
10
12
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White
Other

County 2004

County 2006

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

1771

100

1300

100

2629

Percent

State 2006
Number

Percent

100 60401

100

213

12.0

778

59.8

1518

57.7 26872

44.5

1008

56.9

354

27.2

813

30.9 19581

32.4

550

31.1

168

12.9

298

11.3 13948

23.1

816

47.6

618

48.3

1275

49.8 28381

48.2

898

52.4

661

51.7

1283

50.2 30505

51.8

36

2.1

13

1.1

58

2.3

2592

4.4

13

0.8

22

1.8

29

1.2

3394

5.8

36

2.1

14

1.2

21

0.8

1341

2.3

1128

66.4

1004

82.5

1812

71.9 21376

36.5

2

0.2

14

487

*

28.6

*

162

13.3

454

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

132

457

0.8

18.0 26761

0.6

45.7

5.2

* Pacific Islander was grouped with Asian in 2002

3

2696

4.6

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. 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.
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.

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk
and Protective Factors

The chart at the right shows the links
between the 19 risk factors and the five
problem behaviors. The check marks have
been placed in the chart to indicate where
at least two well designed, published
research studies have shown a link
between the risk factor and the problem
behavior.

9

9

Community laws and norms
favorable toward drug use,
firearms and crime

9

9

9

Transitions and mobility

9

9

Low neighborhood attachment and
community disorganization

9

9

Extreme economic and social
deprivation

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9
9

9

9

Academic failure in elementary
school

9

9

9

9

9

Lack of commitment to school

9

9

9

9

9

Early and persistent antisocial
behavior

9

9

9

9

9

Alienation and rebelliousness

9

9

Friends who engage in the
problem behavior

9

9

Gang involvement

9

9

Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior

9

9

9

9

Early initiation of the problem
behavior

9

9

9

9

Constitutional factors

9

9

Violence

9

School
Drop-Out

Availability of drugs and firearms

RISK FACTORS

Teen
Pregnancy

Delinquency

Risk- and protective-focused drug abuse
prevention is also based on the work of
Hawkins, Catalano, and their team of
researchers at the University of
Washington in Seattle. Beginning in the
early 1980s the group researched
adolescent problem behaviors and
identified risk factors for adolescent drug
abuse. 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.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Substance
Abuse

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 can lead to 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, thus
reducing the level of the risk factors and
decreasing the likelihood of problem
behavior.

Community

9

Media portrayals of violence

9
9

Family
Family history of the problem
behavior
Family management problems
Family conflict
Favorable parental attitudes and
involvement in the problem
behavior

9

School

Individual/Peer

4

9
9

9

9
9

9
9

The Arizona Youth Survey as a Tool for
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
The Prevention Needs Assessment Survey is an important part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention
Framework Process. CSAP created this 5-step model to guide states and communities through the process of
creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programming. The information presented in
this section is taken from CSAP’s Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant description.
Step 1: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in
Service Delivery
•

•

Community Needs Assessment: The results of this survey (presented in this Profile Report and in
results reported at the State level) will identify needs for prevention. States should consider
administering a survey to assess adolescent substance use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk
and protective factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors. While planning prevention services,
communities are urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including archival and social
indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant interviews, as well as survey data.
Community Resource Assessment: It is likely that existing agencies and programs are already
addressing some of the prioritized risk and protective factors. It is important to identify the assets and
resources already available in the community and the gaps in services and capacity.
Community Readiness Assessment: It is very important for states and communities to have the
commitment and support of their members and ample resources to implement effective prevention
efforts. Therefore, the readiness and capacity of communities and resources to act should also be
assessed.

Step 2: Mobilize and/or Build Capacity to Address Needs: Engagement of key stakeholders at the state and
community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be
sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with
leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain
prevention activities.
Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan: States and communities should develop a strategic plan
that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and
implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on documented needs, build on
identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored.
Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The issue of
sustainability should be kept in mind throughout each step of planning and implementation.
Step 4: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities: By
measuring risk and protective factors in a population, prevention programs can be implemented that
will reduce the elevated risk factors and increase the protective factors. For example, if academic
failure is identified as a prioritized risk factor in a community, then mentoring, tutoring, and increased
opportunities and rewards for classroom participation can be provided to improve academic
performance. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention
programs that fit the Strategic Framework of the community, match the population served, and are
scientifically proven to work. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology
website (www.westcapt.org) contains a search engine for identifying Best Practice Programs.
Step 5: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or
Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the
outcomes desired are achieved and to assess program effectiveness, assess service delivery quality,
identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies,
programs, and practices.

5

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
Why the Arizona Youth
Survey?
Data from the Arizona Youth
Survey can be used to help
school and community
planners assess current
conditions and prioritize
areas of greatest need.
Each risk and protective
factor can be linked to
specific types of
interventions that have been
shown to be effective in
either reducing risk(s) or
enhancing protection(s). The
steps outlined here will help
your county and community
make key decisions regarding
allocation of resources, how
and when to address specific
needs, and which strategies
are most effective and known
to produce results.

What are the numbers telling you?
Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Using the table
below, note your findings as you discuss the following questions.
•
Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want?
•
Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want?
•
Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which substances are your students using the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?
•
Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably
high?
•
Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?
•
At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to decide if a rate is “unacceptable.”
•
•
•

Use these data for planning.
•
•
•

MEASURE

Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or
much lower than the other?
Compare your data with statewide, and national data – differences of
5% between local and other data are probably significant.
Determine the standards and values held within your community – For
example: Is it acceptable in your community for a percentage of high
school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage is
lower than the overall state rate?

Substance use and antisocial behavior data – raise awareness about the
problems and promote dialogue.
Risk and protective factor data – identify exactly where the community
needs to take action.
Promising approaches – talk with resources listed on the last page of
this report for ideas about programs that have proven effective in
addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and
improving the protective factors that are low.

Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate
#1
#2
#3
#4

Risk Factors
Protective Factors
Substance Use
Antisocial Behaviors

6

Practical Implications of the AYS
No Child Left Behind
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that
schools and communities use six Principles of Effectiveness to guide their decisions and spending on federally funded
prevention and intervention programs. First introduced in 1998 by the Department of Education, the Principles of
Effectiveness outline a data-driven process for ensuring that prevention programs achieve the desired results. The
Principles of Effectiveness stipulate that local prevention programs and activities must:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

be based on a needs assessment using objective data regarding the incidence of drug use and violence,
target specific performance objectives,
be based on scientific research and be proven to reduce violence or drug use,
be based on the analysis of predictor variables such as risk and protective factors,
include meaningful and on-going parental input in program implementation, and
have periodic evaluations of established performance measures.

The results of the Arizona Youth Survey presented in this report can help schools and communities comply with the
NCLB Act. The Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior charts provide information related to Principle 1 above. The
Risk and Protective Factor charts provide information related to Principle 4. Overall, using the Risk and Protective
factors planning framework helps schools meet all of the Principles of Effectiveness, and thereby assists schools in
complying with the NCLB Act.

How to Read the Charts: Substance Use and
Antisocial Behavior Charts
There are four types of charts presented in this
report: 1) substance use and antisocial behavior
charts, 2) risk factor charts, 3) protective factor
charts, and 4) school safety charts. All the charts
show the results of the AYS, and the actual
percentages from the charts are presented in Tables
3 through 10.

•

30-day use is a measure of the percentage of
students who used the substance at least once in
the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a
more sensitive indicator of the level of current
use of the substance.

•

Binge drinking and a Pack or more of
cigarettes per day are measures of heavy use of
alcohol and tobacco. Binge drinking is defined as
having five or more drinks in a row during the
two weeks prior to taking the survey.

•

Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the
percentage of students who report any
involvement with the eight antisocial behaviors
listed in the charts in the past year. In the charts,
antisocial behavior will often be abbreviated as
ASB.

•

Dots are used on the charts to show the overall
average of all of the youth in each grade who
participated in the survey for each behavior. More
information about the dots is contained on the
following page.

Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts
This report contains information about alcohol,
tobacco and other drug use (referred to as ATOD
use throughout this report) and other problem
behaviors of students. The bars on each chart
represent the percentage of students in that grade
who reported the behavior. The four sections in the
charts represent different types of problem
behaviors. The definitions of each of the types of
behavior are provided below.
•

Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of
students who tried the particular substance at
least once in their lifetime and is used to show
the percentage of students who have had
experience with a particular substance.

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and
Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
There are three components of the risk and
protective factor charts that are key to understanding
the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the
dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed
lines that indicate a more “national” value.

the progress of prevention programs over time. For
example, if the percentage of youth at risk for family
conflict in a community prior to implementing a
community-wide family/parenting program was 60%
and then decreased to 45% one year after the program
was implemented, the program would be viewed as
helping to reduce family conflict.
Dots

Cut-Points
Before the percentage of youth at risk on a given
scale could be calculated, a scale value or cut-point
needed to be determined that would separate the atrisk group from the not-at-risk group. The
Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) survey was
designed to assess adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors
that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. The
Arizona Youth Survey, and surveys designed for
other states and areas, follow the PNA format and
have the same goal of gathering information on the
prevention needs of students, schools, communities,
and states. Since PNA surveys have been given to
over 200,000 youth nationwide, it was possible to
select two groups of youth, one that was more at risk
for problem behaviors and another group that was
less at risk. A cut-point score was then determined
for each risk and protective factor scale that best
divided the youth from the two groups into their
appropriate group, more at-risk or less at-risk. The
criteria for selecting the more at-risk and the less atrisk groups included academic grades (the more atrisk group received “D” and “F” grades, the less atrisk group received “A” and “B” grades), ATOD use
(the more at-risk group had more regular use, the
less at-risk group had no drug use and use of alcohol
or tobacco on only a few occasions), and antisocial
behavior (the more at-risk group had two or more
serious delinquent acts in the past year, the less atrisk group had no serious delinquent acts).
The cut-points that were determined by analyzing
the results of the more at-risk and less at-risk groups
will remain constant and will be used to produce the
profiles for future surveys.
Since the cut-points for each scale will remain fixed,
the percentage of youth above the cut-point on a
scale (at-risk) will provide a method for evaluating

The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of
the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported
‘elevated risk’ or ‘elevated protection’. The
comparison to the state-wide sample provides
additional information for your community in
determining the relative importance of each risk or
protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you
can easily determine which factors are most (or least)
prevalent for your community. This is the first step in
identifying the levels of risk and protection that are
operating in your community and which factors your
community may choose to address.
Dashed Line
Levels of risk and protection in your community also
can be compared to a more national sample. The
dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart
represents the percentage of youth at risk or with
protection for the seven state sample upon which the
cut-points were developed. The seven states included
in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states
have a mix of urban and rural students.
Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective
factors are provided following the profile charts. For
more information about risk and protective factors,
please refer to the resources listed on the last page of
this report under Contacts for Prevention.
School Safety Charts
The school safety profile charts contain the percentages
of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to
school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at
school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a
weapon to school. The complete questions and values
for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 8

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

9

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 8
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

10

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 10

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

11

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 10
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

12

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

70

60

50

40

30

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 12

Gang Involvement
Intention to Use Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
Rewards for ASB
Friend's Use of Drugs
Interaction with
Antisocial Peers
Perceived Risk of Drug
Use
Attitudes Favorable to
Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to
ASB
Early Initiation of Drug
Use
Early Initiation of ASB

13

Rebelliousness
Low Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Parent Attitudes Favor
Drug Use
Parent Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Family History of
Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family
Management
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Laws & Norms Favor
Drug Use
Transitions & Mobility
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community
100

90

80

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
Elevated Risk and Protection

PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 12
100

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Prosocial
Involvement

Interaction with
Prosocial Peers

Belief in the Moral
Order

Social Skills

14

Religiosity

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

Family Attachment

Rewards for
Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunity for
Prosocial
Involvement

*Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

7 State 2006
State 2006
County 2006
County 2004
County 2002

Peer / Individual
School
Family
Community

0

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

15

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

16

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

ATOD Use and
Antisocial Behavior
ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used

30 Day Use*

Heavy Use

Antisocial Behavior Past Year

100
90

Percentages (%)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

State 2006

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
** Not available, scale not included in 2002 or 2004 surveys
Due to the change in definitions between administrations in the sedatives, stimulants, and methamphetamine use categories, comparisons cannot be made across the 3 years.
For the percentages of use of these drugs please refer to Tables 4 and 5. For an explanation of the differences in definitions, please refer to the footnotes at the bottom of Table 5.

17

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

County 2006

Binge Drinking

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

County 2004

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

Prescription Drugs**

Steroids**

Ecstasy

Heroin

Cocaine

Hallucinogens

Inhalants

Marijuana

Chewing Tobacco

Cigarettes

Alcohol

County 2002

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 8
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

18

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 10
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

19

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE
2006 Yuma County Student Survey, Grade 12
50

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

20

In a Physical Fight
on School Property

County 2004

Threatened or
Injured on School
Property

Carried a Weapon
on School Property

Felt Unsafe at
School
County 2002

County 2006

State 2006

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions
Community Domain
Risk Factors
Community and Personal
Transitions & Mobility

Neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility have been shown to have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling, while children who experience frequent residential moves and stressful life
transitions have been shown to have higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and drug use.

Community Disorganization

Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of
public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile
crime and drug selling.

Low Neighborhood
Attachment

A low level of bonding to the neighborhood is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling.

Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use

Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking
age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in
consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative
attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use.

Perceived Availability of
Drugs and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of
these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and
substance use by adolescents.
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
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
Family Conflict

Risk Factors
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.
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.
Protective Factors

Family Attachment

Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance
use and other problem behaviors.

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities
and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by
their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.

School Domain
Risk Factors
Academic Failure

Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6) academic failure increases the risk of both drug
abuse and delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the
risk of problem behaviors.

21

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions (Continued)
Low Commitment to School

Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, stimulants, and
sedatives or non-medically prescribed tranquilizers is significantly lower among students who expect to
attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework,
and perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use.
Protective Factors

Opportunities for Positive
Involvement

When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at
school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

Rewards for Positive
Involvement

When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to
be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors.

Peer-Individual
Risk Factors
Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use

Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the
involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15
is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict
lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes
Attitudes Favorable Toward
Antisocial Behavior and Drug and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in
middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior,
Use
their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive
attitudes toward drug use and antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem
behaviors, including drug use.
Friends' Use of Drugs

Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely
to engage in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest
predictors of substance use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families
and do not experience other risk factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the
risk of that problem developing.

Interaction with Antisocial
Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging
in antisocial behavior themselves.

Perceived Risk of Drug Use

Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use.

Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior

Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in
antisocial behavior and substance use.

Rebelliousness

Young people who do not feel part of society, are not bound by rules, don’t believe in trying to be
successful or responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of
abusing drugs. In addition, high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and
normlessness have all been linked with drug use.

Intention to Use ATODs

Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life.
Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions.

Depressive Symptoms

Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely
to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth
problem behaviors.

Gang Involvement

Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.
Protective Factors

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.

22

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
Grade 8
Total Students

County County County
2002
2004
2006
213

778

1518

Grade 10
State
2006
26872

County County County
2002
2004
2006
1008

354

813

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

57.7
47.8
52.9
50.4
75.6
62.9
66.0
31.9
31.3
31.8
30.8
52.6
37.6
46.4
3.8
7.0
7.6
8.0
11.1
8.3
9.6
12.7
11.1
16.1
18.3
34.2
19.7
25.8
12.8
12.5
14.8
15.2
10.6
5.4
9.2
0.0
2.6
2.0
2.1
3.6
3.4
2.9
1.4
2.7
4.3
3.6
5.9
4.8
5.9
1.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
5.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.3
2.6
n/a
n/a
6.1
n/a
2.8
n/a
n/a
n/a
6.0
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.0
3.4
n/a
n/a
4.6
0.9
1.2
1.7
1.4
2.7
1.7
2.0
1.4
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
8.7
11.9
10.0
n/a
15.9
9.0
2.4
1.5
2.0
1.9
6.8
3.4
2.5
n/a
n/a
1.2
1.6
n/a
n/a
1.3
n/a
n/a
10.2
9.8
n/a
n/a
9.4
22.5
26.2
35.8
36.2
38.5
34.4
36.4
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days*
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

2002

Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines [2002]1
2
Methamphetamines [2006]
3
Stimulants [2004]
4
Stimulants [2006]
Heroin
5
Sedatives [2002]
6
Sedatives [2004, 2006]
Ecstasy
Steroids
Prescription Drugs
Any Drug

32.7
5.2
2.4
5.8
6.7
0.0
1.0
0.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.5
n/a
n/a
12.9

2004

22.5
10.9
2.9
5.3
5.5
1.2
1.4
n/a
n/a
1.1
n/a
0.7
n/a
4.3
0.4
n/a
n/a
14.3

2006

24.5
9.9
2.7
5.5
7.0
0.9
1.1
n/a
1.0
n/a
1.6
0.5
n/a
5.0
0.5
0.5
4.5
18.1

2006

24.1
10.5
2.7
8.5
6.2
1.0
1.7
n/a
1.0
n/a
1.5
0.7
n/a
4.5
0.8
0.8
4.5
19.7

2002

2004

50.1
14.2
5.4
16.7
3.3
1.7
2.8
2.3
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.6
1.5
n/a
3.5
n/a
n/a
21.0

32.1
12.0
2.9
10.0
1.7
1.4
2.6
n/a
n/a
2.6
n/a
0.9
n/a
6.8
1.7
n/a
n/a
17.7

2006

41.5
20.7
3.2
11.4
2.4
0.7
2.8
n/a
1.7
n/a
1.6
0.3
n/a
4.8
0.4
0.9
4.2
19.2

Grade 12
State
2006
19581

County County County
2002
2004
2006
550

168

298

State
2006
13948

Grade 12
State
2006

67.6
43.8
11.8
34.0
11.9
4.1
7.6
n/a
5.0
n/a
7.1
2.1
n/a
14.3
3.4
2.0
16.0
47.0

County County County
2002
2004
2006

84.7
67.1
15.4
41.6
6.8
5.0
6.8
8.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.4
3.3
n/a
7.5
n/a
n/a
44.9

89.7
74.1
17.7
48.8
7.3
8.6
14.5
n/a
n/a
12.1
n/a
2.4
n/a
13.3
5.5
n/a
n/a
54.9

71.9
45.2
11.8
32.5
6.9
3.4
10.8
n/a
6.6
n/a
5.8
0.8
n/a
12.4
2.0
0.4
13.3
46.0

State
2006

74.5
50.0
15.6
42.6
9.8
5.6
11.6
n/a
6.6
n/a
8.5
2.8
n/a
17.4
4.4
2.2
20.0
52.8

Grade 12
State
2006

39.2
17.1
4.0
15.7
3.1
1.7
2.9
n/a
1.7
n/a
2.9
0.7
n/a
6.6
1.0
1.0
7.3
25.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

56.7
19.2
7.3
15.9
0.4
1.7
1.7
2.2
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.9
1.1
n/a
3.6
n/a
n/a
18.1

61.0
29.4
4.9
19.0
1.2
4.2
3.6
n/a
n/a
4.2
n/a
0.6
n/a
5.5
0.6
n/a
n/a
23.8

43.1
19.8
4.6
9.4
1.9
1.5
3.4
n/a
2.3
n/a
2.7
0.4
n/a
4.6
0.0
0.4
4.0
18.5

State
2006

47.0
21.8
5.4
18.1
1.7
1.7
3.3
n/a
1.4
n/a
2.6
0.8
n/a
7.1
0.9
1.0
8.1
26.6

n/a - Indicates a question that was not asked in the 2002, 2004, or 2006 Arizona Youth Surveys.
ATOD questions have differed slightly over the years. The differences are as follows.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
1

used methamphetamines (meth, crystal, crank)? [2002]
used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, or crystal meth)? [2006]

2
3

used stimulants (amphetamines, meth, crystal, crank) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004]
used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2006]

4
5

used quaaludes, barbiturates or tranquilizers? [2002]
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? [2004, 2006]

6

*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.
Note: 2006 'Any Drug' use does not include reported use of steroids or prescription drugs in order to make the 2006 results comparable to previous surveys.
Further, the 2002 lifetime use data presented here is derived from a question asking students to report how old they were when they first used each
substance. The 2002 lifetime use value reflects those students who indicated any age of first use.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes
Grade 8
Grade 10
Drug Used
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

2006

2002

2004

2006

Binge Drinking
7.1
14.1
13.1
13.4
27.1
22.1
26.6
1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day
0.0
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.8
1.2
1.6
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year
Grade 8
Grade 10
Behavior
County County County State County County County
2002

2004

2006

Suspended from School
10.4
11.9
15.5
Drunk or High at School
5.2
7.6
10.7
Sold Illegal Drugs
2.4
2.8
3.9
Stolen a Vehicle
1.9
4.6
5.0
Been Arrested
5.7
11.6
9.2
Attacked to Harm
9.6
15.9
18.9
Carried a Handgun
2.4
6.3
8.4
Handgun to School
0.0
1.5
1.3
Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
Grade 8
Protective Factor
Community Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Domain
Family Attachment
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Domain
Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Peer-Individual Domain
Religiosity
Social Skills
Belief in the Moral Order
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

2006

19.8
13.0
4.9
4.6
8.3
17.9
7.6
1.6

2002

11.9
17.3
7.2
4.2
8.6
12.4
6.3
2.4

2004

14.8
12.7
6.6
6.3
16.6
17.2
8.3
2.6

2006

17.9
17.6
8.0
3.9
11.8
16.9
8.3
1.8

Grade 12
State
2006

22.4
2.4

County County County
2002
2004
2006

32.1
3.7

County County County
2002
2004
2006

30.7
2.3

28.2
3.9

Grade 12
State
2006

15.5
21.1
9.1
4.7
9.3
16.5
7.5
1.6

County County County
2002
2004
2006

8.1
15.4
6.1
2.2
7.5
7.6
4.1
0.4

Grade 10
State
2006

43.2
5.6

State
2006

16.7
27.4
15.1
4.8
15.2
13.1
7.1
2.4

12.4
14.1
8.6
2.8
9.4
15.7
8.1
1.4

State
2006

9.4
21.4
9.8
3.1
7.8
13.2
7.0
1.4

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

55.7
31.0

39.9
31.8

42.0
27.6

38.2
30.4

40.4
40.1

43.7
43.4

34.0
34.1

37.1
36.3

45.6
40.0

35.4
37.5

35.5
37.2

37.6
35.2

49.5
59.9
60.4

43.3
55.2
52.3

43.5
53.1
55.3

48.7
57.4
60.6

40.6
51.0
48.1

44.7
52.4
51.5

41.6
51.9
48.2

44.1
53.0
54.9

55.1
56.0
50.1

48.6
47.3
44.2

48.1
51.7
48.9

57.1
55.9
56.9

66.2
57.3

58.5
55.6

53.6
48.2

59.1
50.7

51.2
61.1

64.8
78.6

51.1
63.6

62.9
62.3

52.4
50.2

47.3
58.9

53.9
53.8

65.2
48.0

*
64.1
54.9
*
*
*

54.2
62.9
53.7
46.0
38.2
64.3

45.4
56.6
52.7
45.8
35.9
60.7

46.2
58.3
54.3
46.1
37.7
58.8

*
52.2
59.7
*
*
*

42.2
63.2
67.9
49.1
28.6
69.8

42.9
49.4
63.8
44.6
23.6
63.8

44.3
52.4
62.6
49.6
39.3
61.1

*
69.5
50.8
*
*
*

76.1
53.9
47.9
35.8
22.6
47.6

70.9
66.4
53.3
43.5
27.7
59.8

70.7
66.0
51.2
48.1
39.1
53.4

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
Grade 8
Risk Factor
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Community Disorganization
Transitions & Mobility
Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
School Domain
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Friend's Use of Drugs
Rewards for ASB
Depressive Symptoms
Intention to Use Drugs
Gang Involvement

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

45.5
35.1
48.0
22.2
39.3
37.8

43.7
57.0
52.9
28.9
35.9
33.9

42.2
52.3
60.6
34.4
34.6
37.3

40.7
48.2
53.7
37.8
38.1
37.0

45.9
51.3
48.0
36.1
48.7
27.5

47.0
60.8
57.7
30.8
44.1
23.9

54.1
69.5
60.6
37.7
43.8
29.4

46.9
57.6
60.4
42.5
48.8
27.6

49.7
49.3
51.1
31.9
49.0
30.2

56.2
65.1
66.7
40.3
56.9
33.3

45.3
55.9
60.8
28.5
44.5
34.3

49.8
52.3
54.9
34.6
51.3
34.1

37.2
40.1
35.4
44.9
23.2

55.3
52.0
43.0
44.4
24.3

49.5
59.0
46.2
50.1
28.1

47.9
52.2
42.7
48.5
29.1

46.3
40.0
41.9
40.9
35.9

47.5
37.4
40.3
45.2
34.8

51.0
38.5
36.9
47.2
39.2

45.0
42.2
43.2
50.0
41.1

44.4
34.0
35.0
40.0
39.4

53.4
34.5
52.4
54.4
49.0

46.6
40.5
42.3
39.9
36.0

44.8
38.3
38.6
45.9
40.1

52.4
39.3

55.3
30.2

52.8
39.6

48.6
41.1

59.0
37.5

49.0
25.4

59.0
34.7

51.6
40.1

54.2
38.3

62.2
46.4

54.7
29.7

44.1
43.0

42.7
29.1
28.6
46.0
25.8
37.4
40.1
39.0
32.2
55.3
*
16.5

38.0
33.5
32.7
44.8
28.3
45.9
53.2
35.2
41.0
59.0
37.5
34.4

47.9
36.5
37.2
46.6
33.2
46.8
59.6
42.6
48.5
48.3
37.4
34.7

43.8
40.2
35.2
46.2
32.4
45.4
58.4
41.3
48.7
45.7
36.5
26.3

46.4
34.6
37.1
52.9
42.8
41.0
55.3
41.1
29.6
57.9
*
25.0

35.2
34.6
26.6
46.4
26.9
33.5
58.7
32.1
27.2
59.5
35.2
33.7

48.3
39.7
33.2
46.2
34.9
37.2
62.0
43.0
37.0
47.0
46.5
39.1

47.5
42.4
36.6
49.7
36.6
39.2
58.1
43.2
45.0
45.5
44.9
23.9

41.1
30.9
36.9
44.5
36.2
37.9
53.6
37.5
32.0
49.5
*
18.1

37.5
51.2
50.3
47.3
40.7
47.0
70.4
48.1
40.2
55.4
40.0
32.3

44.7
37.3
29.8
41.1
27.9
37.8
53.9
28.6
41.2
41.6
25.6
25.5

44.3
38.8
34.1
45.6
34.6
40.5
52.0
35.9
53.8
38.6
29.9
16.3

* Not available, scale not included in 2002 survey

25

Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety Issues
Grade 8
Question

Response

County County County
2002
2004
2006

Grade 12

Grade 10
State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

County County County
2002
2004
2006

State
2006

0 days
During the past 30 days, on how
1 day
many days did you carry a weapon
2-3 days
such as a gun, knife, or club on
4-5 days
school property? (q43)
6 or more days

97.6
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.0

95.3
2.5
0.7
0.3
1.3

93.0
3.0
1.3
0.4
2.4

93.1
3.1
1.6
0.6
1.6

93.1
2.0
1.8
0.4
2.7

94.3
1.7
1.7
0.6
1.7

92.8
3.3
1.3
0.8
1.8

92.7
2.4
1.5
0.7
2.7

94.7
0.7
0.9
0.2
3.5

93.9
1.8
0.6
1.8
1.8

93.6
1.1
0.4
0.7
4.3

94.0
1.4
0.9
0.6
3.0

During the past 30 days, on how
many days did you not go to school
because you felt you would be
unsafe at school or on your way to
or from school? (q41)

0 days
1 day
2-3 days
4-5 days
6 or more days

98.1
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0

86.9
6.6
4.4
0.8
1.3

88.6
6.3
3.2
0.4
1.4

89.3
6.0
2.8
0.7
1.2

96.4
1.9
0.9
0.0
0.8

88.9
7.7
2.6
0.0
0.9

90.2
5.5
2.0
0.7
1.7

92.2
4.1
2.1
0.5
1.1

96.2
2.5
0.5
0.2
0.5

90.9
1.8
3.0
3.6
0.6

90.5
6.0
2.5
0.4
0.7

95.0
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times has someone
threatened or injured you with a
weapon such as a gun, knife, or
club on school property? (q39)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

94.8
1.4
3.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

85.3
9.1
3.6
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.8

83.3
9.4
4.1
1.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
1.2

84.5
7.7
4.2
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2

90.2
4.3
3.6
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.5

82.3
7.7
3.7
2.3
0.6
0.6
0.3
2.6

86.2
6.9
3.0
1.7
0.7
0.5
0.1
0.9

86.1
6.7
3.9
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.3

92.7
3.6
2.4
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5

84.9
7.8
4.8
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.6

90.0
4.5
2.8
1.7
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.7

90.5
4.4
3.0
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.7

During the past 12 months, how
many times were you in a physical
fight on school property? (q40)

0 times
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6-7 times
8-9 times
10-11 times
12 or more times

88.2
9.0
2.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

72.5
13.7
8.5
3.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.9

74.7
12.3
7.7
3.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

75.4
13.1
7.1
2.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.0

86.0
7.0
5.0
1.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4

77.2
12.8
6.0
1.1
1.1
0.3
0.6
0.9

81.7
9.4
5.2
2.0
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.9

84.3
8.9
4.4
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.7

92.0
3.8
3.5
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2

84.8
6.7
5.5
2.4
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0

91.2
5.6
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.4

91.1
5.5
2.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4

Yuma County

26

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts

Arizona Department of Health Services
Division of Behavioral Health Services
Lisa Shumaker
602-364-4594
www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm

Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa
Cruz Counties
Bill Burnett
Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA)
520-618-8807

Arizona Prevention Resource Center
1-800-432-2772
www.azprevention.org

Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties
Linda Weinberg
Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona
480-231-7504

Center for Violence Prevention and Community
Safety
Steve Ballance/Charles Katz
602-543-6174/602-543-6618
steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu

Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai
Counties
Petrice Post
Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health
Authority (NARBHA)
928-214-2177

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
http://prevention.samhsa.gov

Maricopa County
Juan Aristizabal
ValueOptions
602-9145844

Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and
Families
602-542-4043
http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html

Gila River Tribe
Marnie McNicholas
602-528-7106

Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS

Pasqua Yaqui Tribe
Jill Fabian
520-879-6067

Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of
Problem Gambling
Paula Burns
602-266-8299 ext. 351
www.problemgambling.az.gov

Navajo Nation
Maxine Nakai
928-871-7946

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA)
www.samhsa.gov

Colorado River Indian Tribes
Iris Leivas
928-669-6577

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/

Other State and National Contacts:

Western Regional Center for the Application of
Prevention Technologies (CAPT)
www.westcapt.org

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson
602-364-1173/602-364-1157
www.azcjc.gov

Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com

Arizona Department of Education
Student Services Division
www.ade.az.gov

27