2012 Arizona Youth Survey Apache County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Apache County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 299 99.7 393 35.6 362 47.4 28,932 46.1 10 n/a n/a 409 37.0 228 29.8 18,766 29.9 12 n/a n/a 303 27.4 174 22.8 15,119 24.1 300 100.0 1,105 100.0 764 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 153 51.9 530 48.5 369 49.2 30,383 49.5 Female 142 48.1 562 51.5 381 50.8 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 12 70.6 33 25.6 20 17.4 1,121 4.9 African American 2 11.8 6 4.7 0 0.0 658 2.9 Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.9 225 1.0 White 0 0.0 40 31.0 42 36.5 6,774 29.7 Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 2 11.8 7 5.4 8 7.0 1,099 4.8 1 5.9 43 33.3 44 38.3 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 231 91.3 615 66.1 391 65.1 1,909 5.2 1 0.4 5 0.5 1 0.2 1,979 5.4 1 0.4 2 0.2 2 0.3 1,641 4.5 0 0.0 1 0.1 1 0.2 324 0.9 7 2.8 267 28.7 171 28.5 26,247 72.1 7 2.8 30 3.2 16 2.7 2,561 7.0 6 2.4 11 1.2 19 3.2 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 17 5.7 129 11.7 115 15.1 22,831 36.3 253 84.3 931 84.3 601 78.7 36,420 58.0 300 100.0 1,105 100.0 764 100.0 62,817 100.0 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 50 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 76 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 47 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone not related, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 49 Students** Someone under 21 years County 2010 Sample: 81 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home Got at a party Another family member, 21+ Bought it at a public event 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone not related, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 42 Students** Someone under 21 years County 2010 Sample: 84 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home Got at a party Another family member, 21+ Bought it at a public event 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 141 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 241 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 47 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 64 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 65 Students Sample size (Rx): 39 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 71 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 63 Students Sample size (Rx): 30 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 53 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 38 Students Sample size (Rx): 24 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 166 Students Sample size (Rx): 93 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 188 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Apache County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Apache County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Apache County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Apache County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 28.1 43.7 0.8 n/a 1.1 19.2 22.3 16.0 used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 16.8 19.9 10.5 4.2 15.2 2.4 n/a 3.1 1.6 1.3 13.8 3.4 1.3 3.7 7.1 12.0 4.6 2.0 9.7 1.1 2.3 5.1 2.0 0.6 14.3 3.4 3.4 24.1 11.8 35.7 33.4 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.4 19.4 5.8 3.4 17.6 1.8 n/a 3.7 2.4 1.8 11.2 4.4 3.4 40.9 25.6 45.2 56.3 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 11.9 22.6 7.5 6.2 21.2 0.7 n/a 7.9 3.1 3.4 7.5 8.9 5.8 50.5 34.7 57.5 65.1 14.1 11.5 18.5 5.1 5.1 16.6 2.5 2.5 5.7 0.6 3.8 11.9 8.1 6.2 52.5 24.2 54.7 57.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 8.5 11.9 17.5 4.3 1.4 16.6 2.8 0.5 5.2 0.9 0.5 8.9 1.9 5.1 46.8 20.8 50.5 54.1 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 8.4 3.8 1.5 2.3 15.8 4.9 1.9 18.5 21.9 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 39.0 46.2 smoked cigarettes? 41.1 Cigarettes 40.7 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 16.0 22.3 8.4 3.8 19.2 1.1 n/a 0.8 1.5 2.3 15.8 4.9 1.9 43.7 21.9 46.2 40.7 n/a 12.8 20.5 8.0 4.5 17.7 1.7 n/a 4.6 2.3 2.1 11.1 5.3 3.3 38.9 25.5 46.3 53.3 7.4 9.5 15.0 4.6 2.5 13.2 1.9 1.8 5.3 1.4 1.2 12.2 4.0 4.6 37.1 17.2 44.3 44.9 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 1.9 4.1 0.0 n/a 0.4 12.5 14.0 11.0 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 10.5 11.3 5.5 2.1 7.6 1.1 n/a 0.8 0.8 0.8 5.0 0.8 0.5 13.6 10.4 17.4 20.4 2.3 3.7 5.4 1.5 0.3 5.2 0.3 0.9 1.7 0.3 0.0 6.0 0.9 0.9 13.7 5.8 14.7 16.1 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 9.4 2.6 0.8 8.4 0.8 n/a 0.3 0.5 0.5 4.2 1.6 1.6 24.0 13.3 15.4 29.0 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.1 8.6 2.1 2.7 8.6 0.3 n/a 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 26.0 15.8 27.3 38.1 3.2 1.9 5.1 0.6 0.6 4.5 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 18.8 12.4 24.8 28.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 4.8 6.2 8.5 2.4 0.5 7.1 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.5 1.9 23.6 9.7 24.1 25.3 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 3.8 1.5 0.0 1.1 0.4 22.0 7.8 12.7 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 16.0 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 11.0 14.0 3.8 1.5 12.5 0.4 n/a 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.1 1.9 0.4 22.0 7.8 12.7 16.0 n/a 7.1 9.9 3.5 1.8 8.2 0.8 n/a 0.8 0.8 0.9 3.7 1.2 1.0 20.8 12.9 19.4 28.4 3.2 4.1 6.3 1.5 0.4 5.6 0.8 0.6 1.5 0.1 0.3 3.2 0.6 1.2 17.8 8.4 19.8 21.7 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 32.6 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 12.7 13.4 15.2 11.2 Grade 8 10.6 1.1 10.1 11.5 6.2 2.5 6.5 21.9 16.6 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 27.8 8.8 Grade 10 24.9 7.3 n/a 19.4 Grade 10 16.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 10.0 15.7 8.9 5.2 9.2 16.0 32.9 0.5 5.8 9.9 5.0 3.2 8.9 21.4 33.2 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 27.1 10.5 Grade 12 27.3 10.6 n/a 25.3 Grade 12 16.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.7 9.4 15.1 9.7 1.7 8.4 14.0 31.9 0.6 5.4 7.2 4.8 1.2 6.6 13.7 26.3 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 24.3 6.9 12.7 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.8 11.2 18.5 14.1 4.0 7.6 27.1 25.4 24.7 6.7 13.5 15.7 2.0 11.7 15.9 9.1 4.5 8.6 18.4 29.0 0.8 7.7 10.1 5.5 2.4 7.2 19.9 23.7 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 18.9 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 26.5 8.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 32.6 7.2 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 1.8 16.8 18.2 1.8 9.0 14.2 Been Arrested Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Carried a Handgun 5.9 4.0 8.3 7.6 24.4 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 27.2 Been Suspended from School 22.6 Sold Illegal Drugs 25.5 Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 22.5 4.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 24.7 7.3 County County County 2008 2010 2012 7.2 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 39.9 39.0 21.6 41.4 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 32.5 6.5 7.0 22.4 5.9 37.1 19.3 28.9 27.2 18.0 4.5 62.8 29.1 27.2 6.0 28.0 13.5 38.6 35.1 14.0 2.8 63.9 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.6 26.4 22.6 4.3 22.0 20.5 33.4 27.9 16.8 4.8 58.8 7.7 21.3 18.5 4.1 21.7 22.4 27.0 31.4 15.8 1.8 57.8 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.4 26.4 24.7 1.0 22.0 21.6 32.1 27.9 11.5 2.7 63.0 3.6 19.9 18.7 1.2 19.4 18.3 25.5 21.8 21.6 6.6 53.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 7.3 37.1 31.0 5.1 41.4 21.6 39.0 39.9 22.4 5.1 72.4 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 7.3 37.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 31.0 Played a dice game? 5.1 22.4 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 72.4 5.1 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 6.0 27.4 24.8 4.0 24.1 18.3 34.9 30.5 14.3 3.5 61.8 County 2010 6.2 26.3 20.4 4.3 28.6 20.0 27.5 27.3 18.1 4.2 59.3 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 40.1 33.3 30.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 44.6 57.7 47.0 15.7 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 28.3 Low Commitment to School 44.0 49.3 35.4 60.2 72.9 52.6 42.0 45.0 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 44.1 32.4 41.9 47.1 68.1 54.4 31.9 37.0 38.0 49.7 43.5 36.2 56.1 18.7 43.4 50.3 45.7 46.2 37.3 35.9 41.9 40.9 County 2010 39.3 31.2 40.1 40.5 61.6 48.8 27.9 37.5 34.1 45.0 36.1 37.3 56.6 23.3 42.0 51.6 46.9 44.4 35.7 29.7 34.0 39.6 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a BH Norm County 2012 2008 27.6 26.5 36.7 40.5 57.8 39.2 28.4 41.1 34.7 42.5 44.9 33.7 55.1 22.7 38.0 45.6 34.6 37.7 26.6 30.6 40.1 43.0 County 2010 25.9 21.4 37.7 46.8 62.3 49.0 33.6 38.5 36.2 47.7 46.5 27.9 54.6 29.5 43.4 46.9 36.6 31.5 23.9 35.1 41.0 42.9 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a BH Norm County 2012 2008 25.7 20.3 44.8 36.8 54.8 38.2 24.8 42.5 32.3 46.5 44.1 30.9 49.0 24.0 44.4 44.3 31.7 34.4 23.9 24.3 26.9 49.1 County 2010 18.0 15.8 41.7 27.6 46.9 39.9 22.6 35.5 32.0 42.5 32.9 28.7 43.5 32.3 43.7 46.0 33.3 28.8 32.1 33.6 25.2 46.9 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 38.1 45.0 42.2 52.4 72.7 60.2 35.2 49.3 44.2 49.3 39.1 28.2 64.8 15.7 47.0 57.7 44.6 47.5 30.1 33.3 40.1 44.0 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 38.3 49.1 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 39.1 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 64.6 Academic Failure School Domain 47.5 Poor Family Management Family Domain 44.0 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 33.0 27.0 40.8 41.8 60.6 44.5 28.7 40.0 35.2 46.2 44.2 33.8 53.7 21.6 41.8 47.1 38.2 40.2 29.8 30.8 37.2 43.9 County 2010 30.5 25.1 39.7 39.5 58.5 47.0 28.4 37.4 34.2 45.2 38.5 32.5 53.0 26.9 42.7 49.1 41.1 37.5 31.5 32.1 34.2 42.1 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 59.0 57.7 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 44.3 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 45.3 62.1 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 63.8 64.6 47.7 59.3 63.2 54.8 66.1 60.2 59.4 51.0 40.1 County 2010 57.6 65.4 50.4 54.2 69.8 57.1 63.9 62.1 61.0 48.0 42.8 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a BH Norm County 2012 2008 62.8 70.9 45.6 58.8 74.1 66.0 63.1 62.8 57.5 46.8 54.6 County 2010 66.2 75.9 51.6 59.1 79.1 70.8 67.7 56.0 60.5 44.6 51.1 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a BH Norm County 2012 2008 64.4 67.8 40.1 68.1 65.6 53.7 60.5 61.4 61.6 59.7 61.0 County 2010 59.2 69.6 51.5 65.0 72.8 52.6 67.4 59.7 57.5 56.2 55.5 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 44.7 62.2 45.1 55.8 58.8 44.5 53.7 57.7 59.0 47.4 34.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 63.6 67.8 44.8 61.5 67.9 58.7 63.5 61.4 59.4 51.9 50.8 County 2010 60.6 69.5 51.0 58.1 73.2 60.2 65.8 60.0 60.1 48.8 47.8 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 44.8 55.7 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 58.8 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 53.5 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 47.4 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 34.2 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 7.9 6.4 12.8 29.8 39.5 5.3 25.0 46.0 6.0 18.0 26.0 26.0 24.0 24.0 14.0 26.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 50 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a County 2008 29.6 8.6 9.9 34.6 16.0 24.7 19.8 6.2 30.9 6.2 1.2 6.2 81 County 2010 32.7 4.1 12.2 38.8 26.5 30.6 24.5 8.2 22.4 4.1 2.0 0.0 49 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a County 2008 28.6 4.8 3.6 44.0 16.7 31.0 15.5 9.5 50.0 3.6 2.4 6.0 84 County 2010 23.8 2.4 2.4 35.7 21.4 31.0 16.7 11.9 38.1 0.0 2.4 0.0 42 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 29.8 8.5 12.8 27.7 25.5 27.7 10.6 6.4 34.0 14.9 4.3 12.8 47 County 2008 32.4 6.2 11.2 34.9 19.1 24.5 18.7 7.9 35.7 4.1 2.1 5.8 241 County 2010 34.8 4.3 11.3 33.3 24.8 28.4 22.0 11.3 28.4 3.5 3.5 0.7 141 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. I got it some other way I took it from a store or someone else's home 8.5 21.1 27.7 I got it at a party I took it from home 25.0 25.5 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me 17.1 27.7 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me 21.1 10.6 Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me My parent or guardian gave it to me 25.0 34.0 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 2.6 14.9 2.6 4.3 5.3 76 County 2010 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club 12.8 47 County 2008 Grade 8 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 65 3,000 63 3,911 38 3,747 166 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 4.6 8.5 0.0 10.9 2.6 14.9 2.4 11.6 Friends 64.6 72.7 81.0 80.8 78.9 80.9 74.1 78.6 Family/Relatives 20.0 17.4 23.8 14.7 18.4 12.7 21.1 14.8 Parties 18.5 25.9 22.2 28.9 15.8 30.4 19.3 28.6 Home 4.6 6.1 3.2 6.3 10.5 6.0 5.4 6.1 School 13.8 15.8 25.4 14.9 18.4 10.1 19.3 13.4 Other 32.3 28.8 25.4 22.3 21.1 21.0 27.1 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 64 39 1,637 71 30 2,321 53 24 2,478 188 93 6,436 Friends 62.5 48.7 48.7 53.5 60.0 59.8 58.5 54.2 62.8 58.0 53.8 58.2 Family/Relatives 29.7 28.2 16.8 16.9 13.3 16.6 22.6 25.0 16.3 22.9 22.6 16.5 Parties 15.6 12.8 21.4 22.5 20.0 19.6 22.6 12.5 19.5 20.2 15.1 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 25.0 15.4 28.2 19.7 20.0 31.3 22.6 12.5 24.7 22.3 16.1 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 15.6 15.4 13.5 18.3 13.3 14.3 22.6 33.3 19.5 18.6 19.4 16.1 School 26.6 5.1 12.9 15.5 20.0 15.6 18.9 8.3 12.7 20.2 10.8 13.8 Other 25.0 12.8 17.8 26.8 23.3 13.2 32.1 8.3 12.3 27.7 15.1 14.0 Over the Internet 1.6 0.0 2.4 2.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 0.0 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 1.6 0.0 5.1 4.2 3.3 4.2 5.7 0.0 3.6 3.7 1.1 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.7 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 12.0 10.4 5.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 1.3 61.4 12.0 10.7 6.3 1.8 1.3 0.5 6.0 88.5 5.5 1.8 2.3 1.8 93.2 2.3 2.1 0.3 2.1 16.7 12.6 2.2 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 53.3 22.1 9.9 5.1 1.5 1.1 1.8 5.1 84.1 9.6 3.3 1.1 1.9 93.3 4.4 2.2 0.0 0.0 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 2.8 92.9 2.5 1.3 0.5 2.0 5.3 3.0 89.2 0.0 4.0 1.0 1.3 7.0 3.5 74.6 8.5 0.3 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.0 10.6 5.8 80.4 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 4.1 94.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 2.2 3.1 92.9 0.9 4.0 3.5 0.9 8.8 4.0 70.0 7.9 0.9 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.4 11.5 5.8 78.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.4 County 2012 93.0 3.1 Grade 10 County 2010 93.2 3.0 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a County 2008 n/a n/a 1.0 1.4 95.2 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 3.4 1.7 94.2 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.3 4.8 1.7 86.1 5.4 0.3 0.0 1.0 2.7 0.0 6.1 1.7 88.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.6 7.1 88.7 2.4 1.2 0.0 1.8 4.2 0.6 93.5 0.6 5.2 0.0 1.2 5.2 2.9 82.0 2.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.9 2.3 93.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.0 County 2012 94.8 2.3 Grade 12 County 2010 97.6 1.0 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 93.3 4.4 2.2 1.1 1.9 9.6 3.3 84.1 1.8 5.1 1.5 1.1 9.9 5.1 53.3 22.1 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.7 12.6 2.2 66.3 16.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 6.2 2.6 County 2008 88.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 n/a n/a n/a n/a 69.7 71.1 n/a n/a 76.4 73.8 n/a n/a 78.5 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 10.7 9.0 n/a n/a 9.8 7.1 n/a n/a 4.7 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 7.0 8.6 n/a n/a 6.7 8.4 n/a n/a 5.8 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 4.8 3.7 n/a n/a 0.9 3.2 n/a n/a 5.8 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.1 1.6 n/a n/a 0.4 1.6 n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.4 1.2 n/a n/a 1.8 1.1 n/a n/a 0.6 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.6 0.6 n/a n/a 0.4 0.5 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 4.8 4.3 n/a n/a 3.6 4.3 n/a n/a 3.5 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.3 3.4 91.5 3.1 1.7 1.4 1.7 5.1 3.4 88.4 0.6 9.8 2.5 1.4 11.2 4.8 59.4 10.4 0.3 0.3 1.4 2.8 1.4 11.7 9.8 72.3 1.1 0.6 0.0 2.2 1.4 0.6 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.0 0.0 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.8 70.0 0.4 66.3 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 1.8 0.3 0.3 2.6 0.7 0.4 County 2012 87.4 6.7 Grade 8 County 2010 93.8 2.6 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 88.6 6.2 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.6 2.1 93.7 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.6 4.8 2.2 90.3 0.2 4.0 1.1 1.0 7.7 4.0 73.0 8.9 0.4 0.2 1.0 3.0 0.5 9.9 6.3 78.8 0.8 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.3 County 2010 94.6 2.3 73.7 9.0 6.6 3.9 0.9 1.3 0.4 4.1 0.3 4.4 91.7 2.0 1.6 0.7 1.7 4.0 2.7 90.9 0.7 7.0 2.2 1.2 9.1 4.1 67.7 7.9 0.5 0.1 1.1 1.7 0.9 9.7 6.9 79.1 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.9 0.9 0.4 County 2012 90.7 4.6 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 16.1 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 81.9 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 13.7 Marijuana 36.2 10.9 years 26.6 11.5 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.4 years Average age: 39.9 Average age: 357 354 358 Sample 344 347 347 353 355 357 301 305 304 335 342 341 Sample Alcohol Percent 14.7 Cigarettes 86.5 86.3 95.3 95.7 95.4 71.3 74.9 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 68.9 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.1 years 50.7 12.4 years 54.0 225 224 224 Sample 216 216 217 225 226 225 165 166 166 200 205 203 Sample 13.2 years 60.3 Percent 23.6 24.1 25.3 73.3 76.1 79.1 94.5 95.2 90.4 63.5 73.7 68.5 Percent Grade 10 14.5 years 56.5 13.6 years 56.5 170 168 169 Sample 160 161 159 167 168 168 127 127 127 144 148 148 Sample 14.0 years 62.1 Percent 18.8 24.8 28.9 74.9 75.0 76.2 88.2 87.4 86.6 67.4 87.8 75.0 Percent Grade 12 13.1 years 40.6 12.2 years 46.1 752 746 751 Sample 720 724 723 745 749 750 593 598 597 679 695 692 Sample 12.8 years 51.0 Percent 17.8 19.8 21.7 77.7 80.8 81.9 93.6 93.8 92.1 68.2 77.3 70.1 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.0 years 41.1 12.0 years 43.4 360 357 360 Sample 337 343 343 355 356 357 276 279 278 319 322 321 Sample 12.7 years 49.7 Percent 19.0 19.0 19.5 76.1 82.0 82.9 93.5 94.3 92.8 63.3 73.6 62.6 Percent Male †† 13.1 years 41.0 12.2 years 48.5 378 375 377 Sample 370 370 367 377 379 379 305 306 306 347 360 358 Sample 12.8 years 52.8 Percent 16.8 20.5 23.7 78.8 79.7 81.5 93.4 93.5 91.8 72.6 81.1 76.3 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 69.5 74.1 72.9 55.4 50.2 53.1 46.9 55.4 41.6 58.2 62.9 59.4 Once 11.7 10.2 11.0 8.6 12.1 8.5 15.1 16.1 17.4 19.2 13.7 17.0 14.8 18.6 13.4 19.7 12.9 20.1 13.8 14.6 13.4 14.2 12.8 13.9 4.2 1.0 3.4 3.5 1.2 1.7 3.1 1.1 2.3 5.9 2.8 4.8 7.0 1.4 4.7 7.3 3.2 5.7 9.0 3.8 6.9 5.7 0.6 5.1 11.5 4.7 9.2 6.1 2.4 4.9 5.0 1.1 3.3 6.4 2.6 5.0 74.4 10.6 76.8 11.9 82.8 8.2 67.9 13.0 55.8 20.2 73.3 10.1 63.6 7.2 65.4 11.1 65.7 10.1 69.0 10.6 68.1 14.2 75.7 9.2 6.0 4.7 6.4 2.6 4.6 1.7 6.9 4.8 10.1 3.8 6.8 3.2 13.4 5.2 10.5 5.2 8.9 4.4 8.3 4.9 8.4 3.5 6.3 2.8 1.6 2.8 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.9 2.3 5.1 2.4 7.7 1.8 4.8 3.8 6.9 0.0 7.8 2.2 8.7 2.4 4.8 1.3 4.5 1.4 4.4 68.3 10.6 67.6 9.9 74.3 8.4 57.0 9.2 45.6 13.7 57.4 10.8 51.0 14.1 58.9 8.6 53.8 10.9 59.5 11.0 59.3 10.7 64.3 9.7 7.3 4.2 3.4 6.1 5.2 4.4 6.5 3.5 2.1 10.9 8.7 4.6 13.2 9.8 4.4 11.1 6.7 3.8 11.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 9.9 4.6 11.4 6.8 3.8 9.6 6.8 5.1 8.6 7.6 4.4 9.1 5.3 3.0 6.2 87.5 6.7 87.7 5.2 88.4 9.7 83.1 13.2 82.0 10.4 82.9 7.9 86.5 9.9 87.6 13.3 82.1 8.0 85.6 9.3 86.0 8.7 85.2 5.7 2.9 5.9 3.2 5.3 2.6 7.2 5.4 7.3 4.4 7.3 4.2 3.1 3.8 5.2 2.6 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.0 6.1 3.4 6.2 3.6 1.6 0.5 0.6 1.5 1.2 0.7 1.5 1.0 2.4 1.0 1.9 1.0 2.8 1.4 2.0 0.0 2.2 1.1 1.9 0.9 1.4 1.0 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 1.8 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.6 3.2 2.0 2.0 2.4 Never 64.7 56.4 57.4 57.6 52.2 59.0 56.5 59.5 61.4 59.8 55.8 58.9 Once 12.0 8.9 13.9 11.6 15.1 12.5 12.3 11.6 13.5 14.5 13.7 13.2 10.9 14.0 8.8 7.4 12.1 12.7 11.8 11.3 12.7 11.6 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.2 0.8 6.5 2.4 4.8 2.1 4.9 2.1 4.3 3.9 5.1 2.2 5.6 2.5 8.8 4.1 5.4 2.3 4.8 1.7 6.4 3.2 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 9.4 9.2 8.1 11.6 11.6 6.8 10.5 11.5 6.2 10.5 10.4 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 33.9 16.4 30.6 15.0 28.2 12.4 29.9 17.9 28.1 21.4 32.1 15.2 27.9 17.3 27.4 13.7 34.1 15.5 30.8 17.2 29.2 16.7 30.8 14.0 6.9 4.8 6.9 4.1 3.2 6.5 4.6 2.6 5.5 10.9 5.4 9.0 10.5 9.5 7.6 7.1 3.7 8.1 10.2 9.5 12.7 7.5 2.7 15.8 8.9 4.4 9.1 9.2 6.3 9.2 6.8 5.0 8.8 6.4 3.4 7.2 31.2 38.0 40.6 32.6 46.8 31.7 26.9 34.4 22.9 30.8 33.8 34.9 22.3 32.7 32.9 32.7 28.0 37.2 27.2 35.3 33.6 32.1 38.2 34.0 12.5 6.9 11.0 7.1 9.7 4.7 14.6 8.9 18.8 11.1 13.2 7.5 15.5 10.6 10.9 9.5 14.5 8.6 14.1 8.6 13.3 8.8 12.0 6.5 4.0 7.2 3.6 4.5 2.6 4.4 5.7 8.7 5.3 9.6 4.3 6.5 7.0 11.3 5.4 11.6 4.8 7.1 5.4 8.8 4.5 7.5 3.7 5.7 31.4 39.7 41.2 34.0 47.0 34.0 27.6 39.6 24.5 37.0 33.6 43.7 22.9 39.4 29.9 43.2 27.8 50.0 27.7 39.6 33.8 36.8 38.1 40.9 12.3 4.8 5.9 12.7 4.7 2.7 8.8 3.1 2.2 13.6 6.2 4.6 18.3 7.2 5.3 10.2 4.0 2.5 12.0 7.0 8.1 5.5 6.8 3.4 10.1 4.3 2.3 12.6 5.9 6.0 12.9 5.9 3.6 9.5 3.7 2.3 4.3 33.1 3.8 42.0 4.5 47.5 7.0 29.0 8.7 23.6 5.1 34.6 12.0 21.5 10.3 30.8 4.8 28.6 7.4 28.4 6.6 34.1 4.8 38.9 44.7 9.8 38.1 11.0 36.8 7.1 44.0 7.9 40.3 14.6 47.6 8.0 42.8 12.6 39.7 9.6 53.8 7.6 43.9 9.9 39.1 11.8 44.3 7.5 4.3 3.5 4.5 1.8 2.7 1.8 6.5 5.7 6.8 4.4 3.3 2.3 8.1 3.9 5.5 4.1 3.7 2.1 6.1 4.4 5.4 3.1 3.1 2.0 5.3 32.4 3.6 41.1 3.7 47.9 7.3 28.5 9.2 24.8 4.1 34.8 10.2 22.5 8.9 32.2 3.9 29.0 7.4 28.3 6.4 34.3 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 85.1 85.4 80.5 86.5 86.9 79.4 88.6 87.7 80.4 86.3 86.4 9.8 7.3 7.2 8.6 6.8 5.9 10.1 1.8 5.3 9.4 5.9 6.3 3 to 5 times 4.4 3.7 3.2 4.7 2.7 2.8 3.7 5.4 2.7 4.3 3.8 2.9 6 to 9 times 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.0 0.9 1.3 3.4 2.4 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.4 10 to 19 times 0.5 1.4 0.9 1.7 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 40+ times 1.3 0.3 1.3 2.2 0.9 1.5 2.0 0.6 1.5 1.8 0.5 1.4 Never 29.3 37.7 39.2 32.8 41.9 43.7 36.1 48.2 55.3 32.5 41.3 44.4 1 or 2 times 28.3 27.3 27.7 21.5 23.9 24.2 21.7 25.3 21.5 24.0 25.8 25.2 3 to 5 times 14.7 19.2 16.3 16.6 16.2 17.1 20.4 15.1 12.8 17.0 17.4 15.6 6 to 9 times 11.3 8.7 7.7 11.5 11.3 7.2 10.4 7.8 5.1 11.1 9.3 6.9 10 to 19 times 5.7 2.0 3.8 6.1 2.7 3.5 6.0 1.8 2.5 5.9 2.2 3.4 20 to 29 times 2.8 1.4 1.7 3.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.1 2.6 1.5 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.5 40+ times 7.5 3.1 3.0 6.4 2.3 2.3 3.7 0.0 1.5 6.0 2.2 2.4 81.4 90.7 87.6 84.0 91.0 90.2 82.9 95.2 91.9 82.8 91.8 89.4 1 or 2 times 9.3 5.9 7.1 7.9 5.4 5.5 9.1 3.6 4.6 8.7 5.2 6.0 3 to 5 times 3.4 2.0 2.3 3.4 1.4 1.9 3.4 0.6 1.6 3.4 1.5 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.8 0.6 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.6 0.7 1.6 0.7 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 40+ times 2.3 0.3 0.7 1.5 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.6 88.9 91.8 90.4 90.4 93.7 92.1 90.9 97.6 93.5 90.0 93.7 91.7 1 or 2 times 5.9 5.6 6.0 3.7 4.1 4.8 5.4 1.2 3.8 5.0 4.2 5.1 3 to 5 times 2.3 0.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.7 0.9 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.8 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 40+ times 1.6 0.8 0.7 1.7 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? All Students Surveyed* 80.9 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 81.2 86.2 87.6 80.2 79.6 83.7 78.9 75.3 80.3 80.2 81.9 84.6 10.5 5.5 3.0 10.2 8.5 7.8 10.7 8.4 10.8 10.4 7.0 6.4 5.0 3.2 1.0 3.2 1.9 2.2 4.2 3.9 2.8 4.1 2.9 1.8 2.6 1.4 1.3 4.3 2.8 2.6 4.2 1.9 3.4 3.6 2.0 2.2 4.2 1.7 1.8 3.8 2.8 4.1 4.2 1.9 4.2 4.0 2.1 3.1 2.6 1.7 0.8 3.5 1.9 1.9 4.2 5.2 3.3 3.4 2.5 1.8 4.5 0.6 0.8 2.9 2.8 2.0 3.5 1.3 2.2 3.6 1.4 1.5 4.2 1.4 1.1 5.1 3.3 1.7 5.9 1.3 2.1 5.0 2.0 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Cochise County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Cochise County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 414 35.6 696 70.4 736 44.0 28,932 46.1 10 487 41.9 151 15.3 694 41.5 18,766 29.9 12 262 22.5 142 14.4 244 14.6 15,119 24.1 1,163 100.0 989 100.0 1,674 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 543 47.7 478 49.0 808 49.4 30,383 49.5 Female 596 52.3 497 51.0 829 50.6 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 39 6.3 29 5.5 61 6.2 1,121 4.9 African American 19 3.1 12 2.3 26 2.7 658 2.9 Asian 5 0.8 3 0.6 8 0.8 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 1 0.2 4 0.8 10 1.0 225 1.0 126 20.4 151 28.6 329 33.7 6,774 29.7 33 5.3 32 6.1 59 6.0 1,099 4.8 396 64.0 297 56.3 484 49.5 12,732 55.8 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 13 2.7 9 2.1 13 2.1 1,909 5.2 32 6.6 26 6.1 47 7.8 1,979 5.4 13 2.7 13 3.1 13 2.1 1,641 4.5 9 1.8 5 1.2 7 1.2 324 0.9 352 72.3 306 72.0 388 64.0 26,247 72.1 60 12.3 61 14.4 80 13.2 2,561 7.0 8 1.6 5 1.2 58 9.6 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 619 53.2 528 53.4 977 58.4 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 487 41.9 425 43.0 606 36.2 36,420 58.0 1,163 100.0 989 100.0 1,674 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 113 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 119 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 86 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 194 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 34 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 142 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 102 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 53 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 89 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 409 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 206 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 317 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 70 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 61 Students Sample size (Rx): 43 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 124 Students Sample size (Rx): 76 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 21 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 26 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 41 Students Sample size (Rx): 28 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 226 Students Sample size (Rx): 147 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 117 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Cochise County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Cochise County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Cochise County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Cochise County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 11.2 2.6 n/a 1.0 12.2 17.1 12.0 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 10.5 17.7 8.6 4.0 12.1 2.5 n/a 5.4 1.8 0.8 16.4 4.2 3.1 20.5 11.8 31.6 54.7 6.3 7.4 12.9 5.4 2.8 10.9 1.0 2.0 2.6 0.6 0.4 10.0 1.9 1.4 15.4 4.6 24.9 46.6 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 14.3 27.1 11.2 8.8 21.7 1.8 n/a 6.8 3.1 2.6 13.3 8.7 5.4 30.2 14.9 44.7 70.7 n/a 14.3 27.8 11.1 9.5 24.6 0.8 n/a 7.9 2.4 3.9 14.2 8.7 4.7 26.8 20.8 41.0 68.8 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 16.9 32.2 14.9 9.1 28.9 2.9 n/a 8.6 2.9 4.5 10.3 14.8 6.6 38.9 20.3 59.3 76.3 n/a 13.4 26.4 18.9 7.0 22.5 0.8 n/a 11.6 2.3 3.8 13.1 13.8 12.3 44.6 33.8 60.3 77.9 9.1 13.7 21.6 7.9 3.3 17.6 1.3 2.1 7.5 1.3 0.0 6.2 7.1 3.7 40.5 31.0 55.8 70.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 9.4 11.3 18.0 7.6 4.0 15.1 0.5 2.7 4.9 0.6 1.6 10.3 3.9 4.1 30.3 11.9 34.7 63.6 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 8.8 4.2 0.8 0.5 13.7 3.1 2.6 14.4 27.1 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 53.3 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 14.1 24.7 11.2 7.2 20.0 1.8 n/a 5.7 2.2 2.3 12.7 8.0 4.7 26.5 14.8 41.7 65.8 n/a 11.5 20.4 10.5 5.2 15.5 2.0 n/a 6.7 1.9 1.7 15.6 6.3 4.7 24.9 16.3 37.2 60.1 8.0 9.9 16.3 6.7 3.3 13.6 0.8 2.3 4.3 0.7 0.8 9.5 3.5 2.9 25.3 11.6 33.6 57.2 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 10.9 6.7 0.8 3.9 0.3 n/a 0.3 6.0 0.8 3.1 7.8 6.8 n/a used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 5.3 7.9 3.5 1.5 5.1 0.8 n/a 2.8 0.7 0.3 6.5 1.1 1.5 3.2 4.5 8.4 3.8 1.7 6.4 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.1 0.1 2.8 0.4 0.9 5.8 1.6 9.8 19.6 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 6.4 14.0 3.8 4.0 10.8 0.9 n/a 3.1 1.1 0.7 4.1 3.9 3.1 15.3 4.8 18.3 39.3 n/a 7.9 10.3 2.4 2.4 7.9 0.0 n/a 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.1 0.8 13.5 10.8 18.2 33.3 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 7.5 14.5 3.8 1.7 12.5 0.8 n/a 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 4.5 1.2 10.9 9.3 31.8 45.1 n/a 3.9 12.5 8.7 1.6 8.6 0.8 n/a 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.3 5.4 2.3 21.1 18.0 42.0 55.0 4.2 5.0 10.4 2.5 1.2 8.8 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.3 2.1 14.5 14.0 31.5 45.8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 6.3 5.2 9.7 3.9 1.8 8.3 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.3 3.3 1.6 1.3 14.9 5.0 16.6 37.3 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.3 0.0 1.0 4.2 4.8 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 12.6 9.4 smoked cigarettes? 27.8 Cigarettes 24.0 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 6.8 11.9 3.5 2.3 9.5 0.6 n/a 1.9 0.7 0.3 3.3 2.9 1.9 11.3 5.8 18.1 35.2 n/a 5.5 8.9 4.1 1.6 6.0 0.7 n/a 2.4 0.5 0.2 5.4 2.1 1.5 12.8 7.1 17.7 32.6 4.6 4.9 9.2 3.6 1.7 7.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.1 0.2 2.8 1.3 1.2 10.8 4.9 15.9 30.8 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 28.7 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 12.3 17.8 Grade 8 10.7 0.8 Carried a Handgun to School 0.6 6.6 17.9 1.0 5.4 10.9 7.2 3.5 4.2 19.6 10.7 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 29.2 12.8 Grade 10 30.2 11.1 21.5 20.0 Grade 10 22.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 33.5 7.2 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 0.4 7.4 16.7 10.2 3.8 10.0 14.2 21.4 2.1 16.0 23.3 18.0 10.9 10.7 18.4 23.4 2.2 5.8 10.5 8.8 2.7 7.9 11.5 18.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 38.8 19.7 Grade 12 40.0 23.1 28.0 37.4 Grade 12 31.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 36.1 19.4 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 2.4 8.7 14.2 9.4 3.5 7.9 16.1 19.4 2.2 12.8 17.1 7.2 5.0 15.6 15.7 21.3 1.2 9.1 9.9 6.6 0.4 6.6 11.9 16.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 29.6 10.0 19.7 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.0 7.9 16.0 9.0 3.7 7.4 16.7 17.9 24.7 6.7 18.7 15.7 1.1 8.9 18.6 10.7 4.9 7.7 19.3 15.5 1.5 6.1 10.6 7.7 2.7 6.1 15.1 14.8 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 21.0 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 31.6 9.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 32.4 10.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 8.0 Carried a Handgun 16.2 9.7 7.3 Been Arrested 3.6 3.8 5.3 4.0 20.2 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 20.0 Been Suspended from School 12.5 Sold Illegal Drugs 12.9 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 25.4 4.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 30.7 7.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 9.2 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 37.7 48.5 27.6 30.2 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 34.8 12.9 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 24.5 8.7 9.0 22.5 5.2 24.2 15.7 30.3 31.9 21.4 5.0 59.4 28.6 26.4 5.3 26.3 14.6 37.4 29.6 23.5 5.7 64.9 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 11.1 34.1 21.3 4.3 22.0 22.4 43.8 29.0 23.1 6.6 68.4 9.6 26.7 25.9 0.7 16.2 17.6 43.1 30.7 21.9 4.4 65.0 11.9 26.8 21.1 6.4 21.9 18.5 32.0 26.5 24.1 7.3 59.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 15.1 26.3 19.2 4.4 17.1 27.8 42.4 22.5 23.0 4.0 66.4 15.8 30.4 22.2 3.0 15.7 20.0 42.2 31.9 25.5 4.3 63.0 15.6 32.8 21.0 7.8 16.1 23.0 41.2 34.4 24.7 10.7 65.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 12.6 32.6 25.2 5.4 23.8 25.5 45.1 30.6 26.7 6.1 70.2 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 33.6 Played a dice game? 7.4 33.4 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 74.8 6.8 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 10.0 28.6 25.7 4.3 23.3 15.8 38.9 30.1 23.6 5.3 64.6 County 2010 11.0 26.7 21.7 6.1 22.0 17.9 32.6 30.1 23.0 6.8 60.4 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 37.6 35.7 42.9 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 51.5 40.2 50.4 30.6 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 44.3 Low Commitment to School 29.9 41.1 28.5 48.7 57.0 36.0 39.2 25.0 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 35.4 25.3 51.1 43.3 58.4 48.8 29.2 41.2 34.4 41.1 45.9 38.7 46.2 28.0 49.0 40.8 52.2 45.9 36.4 35.8 37.5 38.5 County 2010 35.8 15.9 47.3 41.5 58.7 49.0 29.4 33.4 28.4 38.5 37.2 36.8 51.4 26.7 45.9 45.0 51.0 44.4 38.8 37.8 36.0 38.4 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 42.8 28.3 42.9 44.2 62.1 43.6 38.8 56.0 31.1 47.9 53.4 44.7 50.9 43.3 54.7 45.0 47.2 48.4 30.5 53.8 50.8 51.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 25.8 18.9 46.0 39.7 55.3 39.2 36.7 48.6 30.7 46.8 45.7 45.2 52.6 46.1 57.6 52.6 42.3 42.6 36.8 40.4 53.8 45.8 County 2010 30.5 16.4 51.1 39.7 48.5 49.4 36.5 47.5 26.3 36.9 48.2 48.2 44.4 39.2 50.8 41.8 43.1 42.6 29.3 44.1 42.9 48.8 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 32.3 18.7 54.1 38.2 56.5 42.3 29.5 39.0 40.5 47.3 36.8 39.0 40.5 40.2 45.7 38.6 38.4 44.1 38.6 50.6 40.2 56.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 30.5 16.8 54.7 44.5 60.6 45.8 28.1 46.4 36.0 52.5 55.8 45.7 49.3 41.6 51.1 45.3 41.7 48.2 38.4 45.5 35.0 61.0 County 2010 30.7 17.8 60.1 41.3 45.9 46.2 27.3 34.7 25.6 41.5 38.3 33.9 34.9 36.7 49.4 40.9 37.3 33.1 26.9 38.7 36.6 52.5 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 38.9 24.9 44.2 39.9 59.0 45.1 33.0 46.9 32.8 44.9 46.7 43.2 49.4 38.0 51.1 41.8 46.8 46.8 36.8 46.6 43.7 47.0 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 38.6 39.8 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 45.0 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 53.9 Academic Failure School Domain 46.8 Poor Family Management Family Domain 36.6 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 33.2 23.2 50.8 43.0 58.3 46.9 30.2 43.1 34.1 43.6 47.3 40.7 47.6 32.4 50.5 43.0 49.5 45.7 36.8 37.9 39.5 42.6 County 2010 32.9 16.4 50.8 40.7 52.6 48.7 32.0 39.4 27.1 38.3 41.9 41.1 46.0 33.2 48.4 43.1 45.6 41.8 33.1 40.5 38.8 44.8 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 58.7 59.2 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 53.6 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 38.8 69.3 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 50.7 64.7 37.4 57.6 60.2 53.2 60.5 61.1 57.5 49.4 30.7 County 2010 52.7 58.2 39.8 47.0 64.1 52.7 49.6 59.8 59.0 48.2 33.9 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 47.8 61.4 35.7 52.1 62.7 47.5 50.7 46.1 49.9 44.7 35.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 52.7 57.9 43.8 57.4 72.5 67.3 61.9 53.8 61.1 54.9 43.4 County 2010 50.4 60.5 49.0 50.5 69.2 53.1 60.4 46.9 50.4 45.1 39.3 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 52.7 58.8 33.1 53.9 61.4 45.6 57.3 51.8 48.7 47.6 35.5 BH Norm County 2012 2008 36.2 50.4 36.9 51.8 48.5 45.0 61.9 46.9 48.1 55.0 34.0 County 2010 66.0 55.6 44.4 57.9 68.9 58.8 63.9 61.4 61.1 57.1 47.9 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 52.2 63.6 36.2 54.0 60.3 49.2 55.7 52.2 52.9 46.9 36.6 BH Norm County 2012 2008 48.9 61.6 38.3 56.7 60.2 54.2 60.9 58.4 56.8 50.8 33.0 County 2010 53.7 58.8 44.3 50.1 66.9 53.8 56.1 55.2 56.1 48.5 38.3 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 57.0 56.4 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 56.9 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 60.6 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 48.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 38.8 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 7.0 8.1 2.3 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 21.8 22.1 24.4 44.2 25.6 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party 30.2 16.0 8.4 15.1 15.1 18.6 7.1 23.0 46.0 22.1 18.6 16.8 20.4 25.7 4.4 1.8 9.7 113 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 25.4 6.3 23.9 50.0 25.4 29.6 16.9 15.5 34.5 4.9 4.2 5.6 142 County 2008 26.5 11.8 14.7 47.1 20.6 29.4 17.6 23.5 35.3 8.8 2.9 14.7 34 County 2010 16.0 7.2 17.0 55.7 21.1 22.7 16.0 13.9 29.4 4.6 5.2 12.9 194 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 19.1 4.5 7.9 61.8 9.0 29.2 13.5 4.5 42.7 5.6 20.2 16.9 89 County 2008 17.0 5.7 3.8 45.3 7.5 26.4 20.8 3.8 35.8 0.0 5.7 7.5 53 County 2010 21.6 3.9 9.8 56.9 12.7 26.5 19.6 6.9 35.3 7.8 27.5 27.5 102 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 24.9 5.4 19.9 51.7 20.5 27.4 16.7 12.3 34.7 4.4 9.8 9.1 317 County 2008 18.0 8.3 16.0 45.1 14.1 20.4 19.4 10.2 28.2 3.9 4.4 9.2 206 County 2010 18.1 6.4 16.9 53.3 19.3 22.5 17.1 13.9 29.8 5.4 9.8 15.6 409 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. I got it some other way I took it from a store or someone else's home 4.7 44.5 19.8 I took it from home 9.2 15.1 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me 19.3 22.7 4.2 4.2 8.4 119 County 2010 Grade 8 26.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 86 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 61 3,000 124 3,911 41 3,747 226 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 6.6 8.5 8.9 10.9 9.8 14.9 8.4 11.6 Friends 54.1 72.7 75.8 80.8 56.1 80.9 66.4 78.6 Family/Relatives 11.5 17.4 16.9 14.7 7.3 12.7 13.7 14.8 Parties 27.9 25.9 28.2 28.9 34.1 30.4 29.2 28.6 Home 8.2 6.1 2.4 6.3 4.9 6.0 4.4 6.1 School 14.8 15.8 12.1 14.9 7.3 10.1 11.9 13.4 Other 44.3 28.8 26.6 22.3 31.7 21.0 32.3 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 70 43 1,637 21 76 2,321 26 28 2,478 117 147 6,436 Friends 57.1 53.5 48.7 81.0 56.6 59.8 80.8 60.7 62.8 66.7 56.5 58.2 Family/Relatives 24.3 20.9 16.8 14.3 11.8 16.6 23.1 10.7 16.3 22.2 14.3 16.5 Parties 28.6 25.6 21.4 33.3 26.3 19.6 19.2 21.4 19.5 27.4 25.2 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 24.3 30.2 28.2 38.1 32.9 31.3 19.2 14.3 24.7 25.6 28.6 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 17.1 14.0 13.5 28.6 14.5 14.3 26.9 14.3 19.5 21.4 14.3 16.1 School 15.7 18.6 12.9 33.3 11.8 15.6 7.7 0.0 12.7 17.1 11.6 13.8 Other 20.0 20.9 17.8 28.6 14.5 13.2 3.8 17.9 12.3 17.9 17.0 14.0 4.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.6 0.0 1.5 12.9 2.3 5.1 9.5 13.2 4.2 7.7 25.0 3.6 11.1 12.2 4.2 Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 11.1 6.8 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 58.4 12.5 14.8 4.9 1.4 0.5 1.2 6.4 91.6 5.8 1.7 0.3 0.6 94.5 2.0 1.8 0.3 1.4 17.4 7.3 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 61.9 10.4 14.4 2.8 2.0 0.5 1.0 7.1 88.8 5.3 3.6 0.5 1.8 94.6 2.8 0.5 0.3 1.8 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 1.3 3.5 90.5 2.8 1.9 1.1 1.3 9.1 4.1 84.4 1.1 8.4 1.9 2.1 10.9 4.1 62.2 9.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.9 8.1 2.8 86.3 0.9 0.2 0.2 4.1 0.6 0.4 1.5 8.3 86.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 92.5 2.2 6.7 1.5 0.0 12.7 3.7 64.9 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 12.7 5.2 80.6 1.5 0.7 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 3.9 92.3 2.1 1.3 0.9 1.6 5.4 2.5 89.6 0.7 6.6 1.2 0.9 8.5 3.8 71.7 6.6 0.1 0.3 1.8 1.3 1.2 6.0 3.1 86.2 2.6 0.6 0.1 2.6 3.5 1.8 County 2012 84.2 4.5 Grade 10 County 2010 88.8 5.2 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.4 6.0 90.0 2.4 1.2 0.8 0.4 7.1 1.6 90.1 0.4 3.6 3.6 0.8 7.6 3.6 72.5 8.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.0 7.2 1.2 90.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.4 County 2008 90.5 6.3 2.2 5.2 89.6 2.2 0.7 0.0 0.7 3.0 2.2 94.0 0.0 3.8 1.5 0.8 5.3 2.3 81.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 6.8 6.0 85.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.8 1.5 0.4 2.5 94.2 1.7 1.2 1.6 0.8 3.3 5.8 88.5 0.8 2.9 1.2 1.2 6.2 1.2 78.6 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.9 4.1 91.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 10.4 County 2012 83.8 1.7 Grade 12 County 2010 93.2 1.5 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 91.9 2.7 1.3 0.8 1.3 7.3 3.3 87.3 0.9 6.8 2.3 1.3 11.4 3.5 64.4 9.3 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 4.0 1.0 82.4 11.2 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.2 6.9 3.0 County 2008 87.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 85.0 8.6 n/a n/a 71.4 71.1 n/a n/a 72.2 73.8 n/a n/a 81.9 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 9.4 9.0 n/a n/a 7.4 7.1 n/a n/a 7.0 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 9.2 8.6 n/a n/a 8.6 8.4 n/a n/a 4.1 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 4.3 3.7 n/a n/a 2.7 3.2 n/a n/a 1.6 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.5 1.6 n/a n/a 2.7 1.6 n/a n/a 0.4 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.0 1.2 n/a n/a 1.5 1.1 n/a n/a 1.2 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.3 0.6 n/a n/a 0.3 0.5 n/a n/a 1.2 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 2.9 4.3 n/a n/a 4.6 4.3 n/a n/a 2.5 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.3 1.4 95.0 2.7 0.7 0.4 1.1 3.7 1.7 93.1 0.1 8.3 2.8 1.2 13.1 4.4 59.4 10.7 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.4 8.7 5.8 81.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.6 1.1 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.7 3.4 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.5 79.2 0.8 73.0 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 2.9 0.8 0.0 3.5 1.0 0.3 County 2012 89.5 5.8 Grade 8 County 2010 91.0 4.7 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 89.2 5.3 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.8 2.9 92.6 2.3 1.4 0.2 0.8 5.0 2.0 92.1 1.2 6.1 1.4 0.4 13.1 4.3 62.7 10.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.4 10.7 6.5 80.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 2.7 0.6 0.3 County 2010 91.0 4.3 73.3 8.2 8.2 3.2 1.8 1.2 0.4 3.5 0.3 2.6 93.8 2.3 1.0 0.8 1.3 4.3 2.6 91.0 0.5 6.8 1.9 1.1 10.2 3.7 67.3 8.6 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.7 6.7 4.4 85.1 1.5 0.2 0.1 2.4 1.9 2.7 County 2012 86.5 4.7 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 19.6 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 86.0 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 5.8 Marijuana 25.5 11.5 years 16.1 12.1 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.6 years Average age: 52.4 Average age: 720 718 720 Sample 688 691 695 713 714 712 633 634 630 645 665 658 Sample Alcohol Percent 9.8 Cigarettes 88.7 84.1 97.2 97.6 91.0 75.2 80.2 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 62.6 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.6 years 32.2 13.0 years 35.9 684 682 683 Sample 630 638 640 678 679 677 555 559 560 598 614 608 Sample 13.0 years 66.8 Percent 14.9 16.6 37.3 72.4 79.7 65.3 92.8 94.3 84.8 64.7 80.9 61.2 Percent Grade 10 15.1 years 40.1 14.6 years 57.7 242 241 242 Sample 242 241 238 241 243 243 236 237 237 226 235 233 Sample 14.4 years 74.4 Percent 14.5 31.5 45.8 75.5 68.3 62.1 92.4 89.0 76.8 67.7 85.5 62.2 Percent Grade 12 13.6 years 26.3 12.9 years 34.6 1,646 1,641 1,645 Sample 1,560 1,570 1,573 1,632 1,636 1,632 1,424 1,430 1,427 1,469 1,514 1,499 Sample 12.7 years 61.6 Percent 10.8 15.9 30.8 78.8 81.9 73.0 94.7 94.9 86.2 69.8 81.3 62.0 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.5 years 30.9 12.7 years 36.5 789 788 787 Sample 748 748 751 779 781 779 672 676 673 694 716 708 Sample 12.6 years 60.0 Percent 13.2 18.0 30.0 76.8 81.2 72.0 94.8 94.7 86.5 63.1 78.5 59.0 Percent Male †† 13.7 years 22.2 13.1 years 33.1 820 816 821 Sample 779 788 789 816 818 816 725 726 726 745 768 761 Sample 12.8 years 63.3 Percent 8.7 14.2 31.8 80.6 82.3 73.8 94.5 95.0 85.8 75.8 83.9 65.2 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 64.7 68.2 72.9 55.4 48.9 53.1 34.6 35.3 41.6 58.9 55.3 59.4 Once 13.1 12.9 14.8 7.8 12.1 8.5 13.8 13.8 13.8 17.0 13.7 17.0 14.3 22.6 14.5 16.6 12.9 20.1 13.4 14.5 14.4 12.9 12.8 13.9 4.2 0.9 4.2 4.2 1.6 3.4 3.1 1.1 2.3 9.2 2.3 5.4 8.1 3.9 8.3 7.3 3.2 5.7 12.0 3.8 12.8 14.5 7.1 12.0 11.5 4.7 9.2 6.1 1.5 5.6 7.4 3.4 6.7 6.4 2.6 5.0 72.2 12.8 76.5 12.8 82.8 8.2 62.8 10.9 67.3 10.0 73.3 10.1 51.1 6.8 47.5 15.0 65.7 10.1 67.8 11.6 68.3 12.0 75.7 9.2 7.2 3.6 4.6 2.1 4.6 1.7 11.6 1.6 9.1 6.1 6.8 3.2 9.0 6.8 12.5 8.3 8.9 4.4 8.1 3.8 7.6 4.7 6.3 2.8 0.8 3.4 0.6 3.4 0.8 1.9 1.6 11.6 2.3 5.1 1.8 4.8 8.3 18.0 3.3 13.3 2.2 8.7 2.0 6.8 1.7 5.7 1.4 4.4 74.2 7.8 75.4 9.5 74.3 8.4 68.2 9.3 62.1 9.6 57.4 10.8 65.4 11.3 62.3 10.9 53.8 10.9 72.1 8.5 68.1 9.8 64.3 9.7 6.1 3.9 2.2 5.1 2.7 1.5 6.5 3.5 2.1 7.0 5.4 1.6 8.9 5.8 3.8 11.1 6.7 3.8 5.3 4.5 4.5 10.0 4.2 2.9 11.4 6.8 3.8 6.1 4.2 2.4 7.4 4.1 2.6 9.1 5.3 3.0 5.8 86.4 5.8 89.4 5.2 88.4 8.5 83.7 9.9 84.3 10.4 82.9 9.0 84.2 9.6 85.7 13.3 82.1 6.7 85.7 8.0 86.8 8.7 85.2 5.5 3.3 6.0 2.1 5.3 2.6 5.4 3.1 7.2 2.5 7.3 4.2 6.0 4.5 6.3 3.0 6.6 4.8 5.5 3.4 6.5 2.4 6.2 3.6 1.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 1.2 0.7 3.1 0.8 2.5 0.7 1.9 1.0 3.0 0.8 1.7 0.4 2.2 1.1 2.1 0.9 1.4 0.5 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 2.2 1.8 1.7 3.9 2.8 2.8 1.5 3.0 3.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 Never 64.7 54.4 57.4 60.8 55.4 59.0 68.7 51.1 61.4 64.7 54.2 58.9 Once 13.6 9.8 14.0 13.4 15.1 12.5 11.5 10.0 12.1 15.2 13.7 13.2 12.2 5.3 14.3 16.0 12.1 12.7 13.1 9.2 13.3 14.5 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.4 2.1 5.9 2.7 4.8 2.1 5.4 3.1 5.9 2.1 5.1 2.2 3.1 0.8 6.8 3.0 5.4 2.3 4.4 2.0 6.0 2.5 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 5.5 9.6 8.1 9.2 9.3 6.8 9.9 8.9 6.2 6.7 9.3 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 30.6 14.9 29.6 14.1 28.2 12.4 30.1 15.4 33.4 15.5 32.1 15.2 36.1 23.5 28.3 17.6 34.1 15.5 31.3 16.3 31.0 15.2 30.8 14.0 7.6 2.9 7.4 6.0 4.0 7.0 4.6 2.6 5.5 5.7 7.3 11.4 9.1 4.7 10.1 7.1 3.7 8.1 7.6 3.4 10.9 9.9 3.9 12.0 8.9 4.4 9.1 7.3 3.6 8.5 7.9 4.3 9.0 6.4 3.4 7.2 36.6 35.2 39.2 35.8 46.8 31.7 30.1 35.8 27.2 39.3 33.8 34.9 18.5 50.4 28.3 34.3 28.0 37.2 33.0 37.5 32.7 37.0 38.2 34.0 13.1 6.6 10.5 5.7 9.7 4.7 10.6 7.3 11.4 9.4 13.2 7.5 15.1 7.6 11.9 11.9 14.5 8.6 13.0 6.8 11.1 8.2 12.0 6.5 2.9 6.0 3.0 6.0 2.6 4.4 2.4 13.0 4.8 6.6 4.3 6.5 2.5 7.6 5.9 8.9 4.8 7.1 2.8 7.3 4.2 6.7 3.7 5.7 36.2 38.8 38.9 37.7 47.0 34.0 30.9 37.4 28.4 45.0 33.6 43.7 16.8 53.8 27.1 42.5 27.8 50.0 32.6 40.8 32.8 41.4 38.1 40.9 11.8 3.5 2.3 9.8 3.8 3.6 8.8 3.1 2.2 8.1 2.4 5.7 12.1 4.6 2.8 10.2 4.0 2.5 5.0 8.4 2.5 15.0 6.4 1.7 10.1 4.3 2.3 10.3 4.0 2.8 11.5 4.5 3.0 9.5 3.7 2.3 6.2 37.4 6.2 39.0 4.5 47.5 13.8 32.5 5.6 29.9 5.1 34.6 11.8 18.5 5.2 29.2 4.8 28.6 8.2 33.9 5.8 33.8 4.8 38.9 40.2 10.1 39.4 9.2 36.8 7.1 44.3 7.4 48.7 8.8 47.6 8.0 53.8 11.8 44.6 11.2 53.8 7.6 42.8 9.9 44.0 9.4 44.3 7.5 5.4 1.7 3.0 3.5 2.7 1.8 2.5 2.5 4.7 3.3 3.3 2.3 5.9 2.5 5.2 3.0 3.7 2.1 5.0 2.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 2.0 6.1 36.6 5.3 39.6 3.7 47.9 10.7 32.8 5.3 29.2 4.1 34.8 9.2 16.8 6.9 29.2 3.9 29.0 7.2 33.1 5.5 33.8 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 83.6 85.4 74.3 82.8 86.9 78.4 87.7 87.7 82.5 83.9 86.4 7.8 9.8 7.2 9.0 8.3 5.9 9.4 6.2 5.3 8.2 8.6 6.3 3 to 5 times 2.5 3.6 3.2 5.6 3.6 2.8 0.7 2.1 2.7 2.7 3.4 2.9 6 to 9 times 1.3 0.4 1.5 0.7 1.8 1.3 2.2 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 10 to 19 times 1.3 1.1 0.9 6.2 0.6 0.8 2.9 0.0 0.8 2.3 0.7 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.5 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 40+ times 1.0 0.8 1.3 4.2 1.8 1.5 5.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 1.3 1.4 Never 27.4 37.2 39.2 23.1 37.9 43.7 33.6 47.7 55.3 27.7 39.0 44.4 1 or 2 times 28.4 26.2 27.7 28.0 23.1 24.2 29.3 24.7 21.5 28.5 24.7 25.2 3 to 5 times 21.9 19.2 16.3 20.3 18.9 17.1 18.6 19.8 12.8 21.1 19.2 15.6 6 to 9 times 7.6 7.7 7.7 14.7 9.2 7.2 5.7 2.9 5.1 8.4 7.6 6.9 10 to 19 times 6.1 5.7 3.8 4.9 4.6 3.5 7.9 1.6 2.5 6.2 4.7 3.4 20 to 29 times 2.4 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.2 1.4 2.1 0.8 1.1 2.3 1.8 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 40+ times 5.4 2.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 2.3 2.1 2.5 1.5 5.2 2.5 2.4 81.6 84.5 87.6 76.2 88.9 90.2 83.5 88.4 91.9 81.1 86.9 89.4 1 or 2 times 9.6 10.1 7.1 12.2 5.8 5.5 10.8 7.0 4.6 10.2 7.9 6.0 3 to 5 times 3.2 1.8 2.3 3.4 2.1 1.9 3.6 2.9 1.6 3.3 2.1 2.0 6 to 9 times 2.6 1.4 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.7 2.0 1.1 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.4 0.6 5.4 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.6 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 40+ times 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.6 88.6 90.6 90.4 82.4 91.2 92.1 93.5 93.0 93.5 88.4 91.2 91.7 1 or 2 times 7.4 6.2 6.0 12.7 4.9 4.8 3.6 3.3 3.8 7.6 5.2 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.7 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.7 2.1 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.6 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.6 0.4 2.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 40+ times 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? All Students Surveyed* 85.2 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 84.1 89.1 87.6 78.0 84.8 83.7 73.3 87.0 80.3 81.7 87.1 84.6 6.8 3.3 3.0 13.8 6.9 7.8 17.5 7.1 10.8 9.4 5.3 6.4 2.9 1.3 1.0 2.4 1.4 2.2 5.0 1.3 2.8 3.1 1.4 1.8 3.4 1.6 1.3 5.7 3.2 2.6 4.2 2.5 3.4 3.9 2.4 2.2 2.9 1.9 1.8 6.5 4.0 4.1 4.2 1.7 4.2 3.6 2.7 3.1 2.0 0.9 0.8 4.9 1.8 1.9 5.8 1.7 3.3 3.0 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.2 0.8 5.7 1.4 2.0 1.7 0.0 2.2 2.4 1.1 1.5 2.4 1.3 1.1 4.9 1.8 1.7 0.8 2.1 2.1 2.5 1.6 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.1 0.3 1.6 1.6 0.5 1.7 2.9 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Coconino County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Coconino County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 379 33.6 533 44.0 319 63.2 28,932 10 400 35.4 370 30.5 74 14.7 18,766 29.9 12 350 31.0 309 25.5 112 22.2 15,119 24.1 1,129 100.0 1,212 100.0 505 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 541 48.7 612 51.1 264 52.7 30,383 49.5 Female 571 51.3 585 48.9 237 47.3 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* 46.1 Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 25 9.5 32 10.6 9 5.2 1,121 4.9 African American 6 2.3 2 0.7 5 2.9 658 2.9 Asian 1 0.4 3 1.0 0 0.0 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 3 1.1 3 1.0 5 2.9 225 1.0 85 32.2 76 25.2 62 35.8 6,774 29.7 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 12 4.5 27 9.0 9 5.2 1,099 4.8 132 50.0 158 52.5 83 48.0 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 174 21.7 360 40.9 88 27.5 1,909 5.2 13 1.6 22 2.5 4 1.3 1,979 5.4 8 1.0 10 1.1 4 1.3 1,641 4.5 5 0.6 3 0.3 1 0.3 324 0.9 550 68.5 409 46.4 203 63.4 26,247 72.1 45 5.6 57 6.5 19 5.9 2,561 7.0 8 1.0 20 2.3 1 0.3 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 264 23.4 301 24.8 173 34.3 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 803 71.1 881 72.7 320 63.4 36,420 58.0 1,129 100.0 1,212 100.0 505 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 31 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 82 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 64 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 27 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 97 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 111 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 46 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 115 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 118 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 104 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 294 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 293 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 55 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 33 Students Sample size (Rx): 28 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 42 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 16 Students Sample size (Rx): 6 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 68 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 44 Students Sample size (Rx): 28 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 165 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 93 Students Sample size (Rx): 62 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Coconino County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Coconino County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Coconino County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Coconino County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 11.1 3.6 n/a 1.4 15.6 21.2 11.4 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 10.1 17.1 8.4 3.1 11.2 0.6 n/a 3.0 1.1 2.1 18.2 2.3 3.0 22.9 15.4 30.3 42.5 3.6 8.5 9.5 3.0 2.3 5.9 1.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.7 0.7 14.8 4.9 18.4 27.7 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 11.8 25.2 10.6 6.3 21.4 1.8 n/a 5.5 1.8 4.0 12.8 8.0 5.0 36.4 14.9 44.5 62.6 n/a 12.4 21.7 7.6 4.0 17.5 1.1 n/a 4.5 1.1 1.7 11.0 5.6 3.9 43.7 20.7 52.5 62.8 13.5 14.9 18.9 6.8 5.4 16.2 2.7 1.4 8.1 2.7 2.7 12.2 5.4 5.4 39.2 30.6 36.1 60.8 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 9.8 31.5 11.9 4.1 27.2 1.7 n/a 7.8 2.9 6.1 10.4 12.1 9.5 50.6 19.6 52.6 76.7 n/a 11.9 25.5 8.6 5.3 21.9 2.3 n/a 11.6 2.6 4.9 8.2 11.8 7.9 53.3 25.4 57.7 73.7 15.3 19.1 32.7 11.8 10.0 29.1 0.9 5.5 17.3 1.8 3.6 12.7 13.6 17.3 60.9 32.4 67.6 81.8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 9.2 4.2 0.6 2.2 14.4 3.9 2.5 19.9 34.5 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 47.5 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 11.1 25.9 10.5 4.9 21.3 1.6 n/a 5.6 1.7 4.1 12.6 8.0 5.6 35.5 15.1 43.8 62.1 n/a 11.3 20.6 8.2 3.9 15.8 1.2 n/a 5.7 1.5 2.7 13.5 5.7 4.5 36.9 19.5 44.0 56.5 7.7 11.9 16.2 5.5 4.5 12.7 1.2 1.6 5.9 0.8 1.2 9.4 4.3 5.1 28.9 15.0 32.2 44.8 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 2.2 3.9 0.6 n/a 0.3 7.6 1.1 3.1 9.8 5.3 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 5.9 7.6 3.6 1.7 4.2 0.0 n/a 1.5 0.2 0.6 6.9 0.8 0.9 10.3 5.8 12.6 18.0 1.7 3.6 3.9 1.0 0.3 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.3 5.0 1.6 6.9 9.8 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 5.8 9.8 2.0 1.0 8.8 1.3 n/a 2.3 0.0 0.5 2.0 2.8 2.5 16.9 5.1 16.3 34.2 n/a 5.1 10.1 2.8 1.4 7.0 0.3 n/a 1.7 0.3 0.3 3.4 1.1 1.1 19.1 12.1 17.8 32.6 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 4.9 11.6 4.1 0.0 9.9 0.3 n/a 0.3 0.9 0.0 2.6 2.3 3.2 21.5 7.8 21.3 38.6 n/a 5.3 10.9 2.6 2.3 8.6 1.0 n/a 2.0 1.0 1.3 2.0 3.3 2.0 25.1 11.2 26.7 45.2 9.0 9.2 14.5 3.6 3.6 12.8 0.0 1.8 5.5 0.9 0.0 3.6 3.6 4.5 35.5 18.9 35.1 53.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 1.4 8.1 6.8 0.0 1.4 5.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.9 18.3 13.9 31.1 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.0 0.6 0.8 10.0 3.9 10.6 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 22.2 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 5.4 10.4 3.0 0.7 8.8 0.6 n/a 1.1 0.3 0.4 2.8 2.5 2.2 16.1 5.5 16.1 31.6 n/a 5.5 9.2 3.1 1.8 6.2 0.3 n/a 1.7 0.4 0.7 4.6 1.5 1.3 16.7 9.1 17.8 29.3 3.3 5.5 6.7 1.4 1.2 5.6 0.2 0.4 2.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 0.8 1.2 13.9 8.0 14.4 22.7 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 25.7 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 12.2 11.3 7.9 9.0 Been Arrested 3.6 3.8 5.5 8.9 1.6 Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 4.0 1.0 5.8 9.0 4.8 3.2 3.6 13.4 8.7 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 27.2 8.3 Grade 10 37.5 16.7 21.7 18.8 Grade 10 22.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 26.1 9.1 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.0 6.6 15.4 10.4 4.1 8.6 14.1 22.0 1.4 7.0 13.6 10.0 3.8 9.5 15.4 27.6 0.0 6.8 12.3 4.2 1.4 9.6 9.6 19.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 26.5 14.8 Grade 12 30.4 15.2 23.6 26.4 Grade 12 23.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 26.2 13.5 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 1.2 9.2 9.2 12.1 1.7 10.1 9.8 24.1 2.0 8.2 13.3 13.3 4.6 14.7 12.0 30.3 0.0 6.4 10.8 11.6 0.9 15.2 11.7 31.2 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 23.8 8.0 19.2 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.3 8.2 14.2 10.5 3.2 8.0 14.6 19.7 24.7 6.7 11.1 15.7 1.2 6.6 15.3 9.9 3.9 9.1 15.4 22.9 0.6 6.0 9.9 6.3 2.4 7.1 12.5 15.4 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 17.4 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 26.7 8.6 County County County 2008 2010 2012 26.0 9.4 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 0.6 17.7 17.4 5.7 5.4 17.3 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 19.7 Been Suspended from School 15.3 Sold Illegal Drugs 12.9 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 18.1 3.3 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 26.4 5.3 County County County 2008 2010 2012 6.0 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 37.2 42.3 30.7 29.6 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 25.0 5.6 5.7 19.3 2.3 26.8 16.4 29.1 26.1 16.6 4.2 54.2 36.5 24.7 4.2 26.5 17.0 38.3 34.2 20.9 2.8 66.5 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 4.3 30.5 26.2 3.8 26.9 25.4 46.2 32.2 23.4 5.0 67.8 3.8 28.5 17.5 3.0 21.4 17.6 30.1 28.3 14.6 2.7 58.2 4.1 31.1 17.6 6.8 13.5 9.5 21.9 30.1 20.3 1.4 54.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 4.0 26.7 21.4 3.2 13.1 26.9 44.1 28.1 20.2 2.6 63.4 5.2 23.9 19.0 2.0 13.1 16.3 40.3 27.5 16.8 2.0 61.1 3.6 28.6 21.4 2.7 19.6 20.5 37.5 29.5 26.8 3.6 61.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 5.1 30.1 25.2 4.0 23.5 27.6 44.3 32.6 22.6 3.9 67.7 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 7.1 33.0 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 27.6 Played a dice game? 4.9 24.1 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 71.5 3.8 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 5.0 30.9 21.1 3.2 21.5 17.0 36.3 30.7 17.9 2.6 62.6 County 2010 4.9 26.7 19.6 3.0 23.2 16.3 30.0 27.4 19.5 3.6 55.9 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 39.1 33.3 39.2 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 52.8 39.7 49.0 28.8 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 42.9 Low Commitment to School 32.4 45.2 28.6 39.0 54.5 38.5 46.9 27.6 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 40.0 21.0 42.7 38.8 62.9 51.9 29.3 42.7 33.3 35.3 41.2 37.2 45.5 21.3 51.3 42.4 49.2 38.4 33.7 30.4 31.6 34.3 County 2010 26.3 12.1 32.4 34.7 50.3 53.4 18.6 32.2 18.6 26.2 33.0 44.1 39.0 20.1 46.2 31.2 45.0 47.1 32.2 27.4 29.3 35.8 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 34.5 23.0 41.5 39.6 51.0 37.7 34.0 48.7 37.1 43.5 42.1 36.7 46.2 36.7 46.8 41.5 37.4 40.7 26.6 38.8 36.7 36.7 BH Norm County 2012 2008 37.8 26.6 36.2 45.5 60.3 40.2 33.0 45.8 37.3 43.3 42.3 31.7 52.4 32.1 45.4 50.3 37.1 37.4 23.7 36.0 40.4 43.6 County 2010 32.4 11.1 48.6 38.4 47.9 45.8 30.1 46.6 32.4 43.2 45.8 29.7 47.9 40.0 51.4 51.4 30.0 30.0 31.0 33.8 39.4 46.5 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 38.0 22.2 55.0 33.9 46.1 45.4 32.0 47.8 38.2 45.2 40.2 44.7 48.4 42.3 51.7 41.2 36.8 44.6 31.0 49.7 36.7 50.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 37.5 22.4 49.5 43.4 56.3 49.0 36.2 46.6 36.8 45.9 40.3 30.5 49.2 35.0 49.7 45.1 31.3 37.1 31.4 39.7 35.1 48.5 County 2010 51.8 25.5 47.3 46.8 64.0 65.1 42.9 50.0 49.1 59.5 44.6 49.1 68.8 59.0 63.8 63.2 36.5 40.8 39.0 49.5 42.5 57.5 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 36.3 24.2 47.5 37.5 50.6 40.5 31.6 47.3 35.9 43.0 39.8 41.2 47.9 36.1 49.0 40.9 41.6 43.3 31.9 40.6 37.4 41.9 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 36.6 40.2 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 36.8 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 49.4 Academic Failure School Domain 45.2 Poor Family Management Family Domain 39.9 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 38.7 23.1 42.4 42.0 60.4 47.7 32.1 44.6 35.4 40.4 41.3 33.8 48.6 28.2 49.0 45.5 40.9 37.7 30.1 34.5 35.1 40.7 County 2010 32.9 14.9 38.1 38.0 53.0 54.9 25.8 38.3 27.6 36.1 37.6 43.1 46.9 31.8 51.0 41.5 40.9 43.1 33.5 33.4 33.8 42.3 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 65.1 64.9 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 49.2 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 45.4 61.3 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 62.9 66.4 47.9 58.0 67.5 50.2 70.5 65.3 62.7 51.6 38.2 County 2010 62.0 63.6 38.7 42.2 73.0 52.5 58.1 63.9 61.4 58.1 41.0 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 65.0 66.3 43.9 62.1 72.1 69.8 66.7 56.4 57.8 47.7 41.6 BH Norm County 2012 2008 66.8 69.0 43.8 62.9 75.3 74.0 71.2 61.1 58.5 52.5 43.3 County 2010 71.6 62.2 52.1 58.9 76.4 74.3 63.5 52.9 62.9 55.9 51.4 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 58.3 55.5 43.3 57.0 59.1 50.3 66.1 56.3 54.7 56.2 38.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 67.8 63.6 44.4 68.9 61.8 61.4 73.9 64.8 63.0 59.0 44.4 County 2010 58.0 54.5 32.1 50.9 58.9 52.7 58.0 47.5 57.4 56.4 42.5 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 58.6 61.3 44.2 57.0 65.6 56.9 65.4 58.8 58.9 53.8 38.6 BH Norm County 2012 2008 65.3 66.5 45.8 62.3 68.4 60.3 71.6 63.9 61.5 53.8 41.3 County 2010 62.5 61.4 39.2 46.6 70.3 55.8 58.9 58.6 60.7 57.4 42.9 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 52.2 51.5 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 64.8 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 63.6 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 59.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 35.0 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 1.6 0.0 3.1 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 7.3 35.4 29.3 10.9 23.4 25.0 35.9 39.1 29.7 10.9 37.5 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 38.7 16.1 29.0 35.5 29.0 22.6 16.1 9.7 22.6 9.7 9.7 9.7 31 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 25.2 18.0 29.7 47.7 27.9 34.2 17.1 12.6 45.0 3.6 0.0 6.3 111 County 2008 24.7 8.2 13.4 38.1 21.6 25.8 25.8 10.3 29.9 2.1 2.1 3.1 97 County 2010 11.1 3.7 7.4 44.4 7.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 37.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 27 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 20.3 7.6 13.6 52.5 28.8 45.8 21.2 5.1 43.2 2.5 5.9 11.9 118 County 2008 14.8 5.2 6.1 40.0 19.1 32.2 13.9 10.4 47.8 5.2 3.5 8.7 115 County 2010 19.6 4.3 10.9 45.7 15.2 28.3 17.4 13.0 37.0 2.2 2.2 6.5 46 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 25.9 12.3 23.2 47.8 30.0 36.9 20.1 9.2 41.0 3.1 2.4 7.5 293 County 2008 22.4 7.8 15.0 38.1 18.7 24.8 20.4 9.5 36.1 3.7 2.4 5.4 294 County 2010 23.1 7.7 15.4 42.3 17.3 23.1 16.3 12.5 32.7 3.8 3.8 6.7 104 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 30.5 11.0 14.6 13.4 23.2 26.8 3.7 1.2 3.7 82 County 2010 Grade 8 29.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 64 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Sample size** Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 33 3,000 16 3,911 44 3,747 93 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 12.1 8.5 6.2 10.9 13.6 14.9 11.8 11.6 Friends 66.7 72.7 68.8 80.8 54.5 80.9 61.3 78.6 Family/Relatives 21.2 17.4 12.5 14.7 20.5 12.7 19.4 14.8 Parties 18.2 25.9 31.2 28.9 13.6 30.4 18.3 28.6 Home 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.8 6.0 6.5 6.1 School 36.4 15.8 18.8 14.9 11.4 10.1 21.5 13.4 Other 48.5 28.8 25.0 22.3 43.2 21.0 41.9 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 2,321 68 28 2,478 165 62 6,436 55 28 1,637 42 6 Friends 54.5 57.1 48.7 64.3 66.7 59.8 54.4 53.6 62.8 57.0 56.5 58.2 Family/Relatives 32.7 17.9 16.8 26.2 0.0 16.6 23.5 14.3 16.3 27.3 14.5 16.5 Parties 27.3 14.3 21.4 28.6 66.7 19.6 25.0 25.0 19.5 26.7 24.2 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 30.9 28.6 28.2 28.6 0.0 31.3 17.6 32.1 24.7 24.8 27.4 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 16.4 28.6 13.5 16.7 0.0 14.3 22.1 21.4 19.5 18.8 22.6 16.1 School 29.1 28.6 12.9 19.0 16.7 15.6 14.7 3.6 12.7 20.6 16.1 13.8 Other 16.4 28.6 17.8 16.7 16.7 13.2 22.1 14.3 12.3 18.8 21.0 14.0 1.8 10.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 4.8 1.5 10.9 14.3 5.1 2.4 0.0 4.2 2.9 14.3 3.6 5.5 12.9 4.2 Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 12.6 9.4 3.6 0.9 0.4 0.2 1.3 56.8 14.1 10.8 5.1 3.0 1.9 0.8 7.4 89.6 5.5 2.5 0.8 1.7 92.8 4.3 2.1 0.2 0.6 11.6 6.4 3.0 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.6 55.9 14.0 12.9 4.7 1.1 1.7 1.9 7.7 92.6 4.4 1.9 0.5 0.5 93.9 3.6 1.4 0.0 1.1 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 1.0 4.3 89.8 3.3 1.5 1.0 0.3 2.3 0.8 95.7 0.8 4.5 1.8 0.8 6.3 3.0 71.4 11.6 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 9.3 4.5 83.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 2.8 93.3 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.6 3.3 2.2 93.9 0.8 4.2 0.8 0.6 7.2 4.4 73.3 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.3 12.1 4.7 81.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 93.2 2.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 97.3 1.4 6.8 5.4 0.0 9.5 6.8 60.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 4.1 83.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 County 2012 87.8 6.8 Grade 10 County 2010 95.0 4.1 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.6 4.3 92.2 1.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.9 97.7 0.0 3.4 0.6 0.9 5.2 2.6 82.5 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 5.8 2.9 89.9 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.4 0.9 0.3 County 2008 94.5 2.3 0.3 3.9 93.4 1.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.6 0.0 96.7 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.0 5.3 1.0 88.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 6.9 2.3 90.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 91.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 98.2 0.0 4.5 0.9 0.0 8.0 5.4 78.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 7.1 5.4 86.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 County 2012 92.0 5.4 Grade 12 County 2010 96.4 2.0 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 91.9 2.9 1.4 0.5 0.3 2.7 1.2 95.3 0.9 5.2 1.2 1.1 8.1 3.4 69.8 10.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.0 4.6 1.5 83.4 8.9 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 4.8 3.3 County 2008 90.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 89.7 4.8 n/a n/a 73.9 71.1 n/a n/a 68.9 73.8 n/a n/a 75.9 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 10.8 9.0 n/a n/a 6.8 7.1 n/a n/a 6.2 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 6.1 8.6 n/a n/a 14.9 8.4 n/a n/a 9.8 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 2.5 3.7 n/a n/a 2.7 3.2 n/a n/a 2.7 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.9 1.6 n/a n/a 1.4 1.6 n/a n/a 0.9 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.0 1.2 n/a n/a 2.7 1.1 n/a n/a 0.9 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.3 0.6 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 n/a n/a 0.9 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 3.5 4.3 n/a n/a 2.7 4.3 n/a n/a 2.7 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.0 1.3 96.5 1.9 0.3 0.6 2.9 4.2 2.2 90.1 0.6 7.1 2.2 1.3 11.9 5.4 65.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.6 8.9 4.8 84.4 1.9 0.0 0.3 4.5 0.6 0.3 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.5 3.3 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 1.1 71.5 1.1 77.1 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 3.8 0.9 0.2 4.4 0.8 0.3 County 2012 88.7 3.5 Grade 8 County 2010 89.8 4.0 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 86.0 7.1 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 2.1 93.1 3.0 1.3 0.5 1.2 3.8 1.8 92.7 0.7 4.9 1.7 1.0 8.3 3.9 69.9 9.7 0.2 0.1 0.9 1.9 0.5 11.0 6.2 79.2 0.8 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.4 0.1 County 2010 93.1 3.5 73.6 9.2 8.2 2.6 1.6 1.2 0.4 3.2 0.0 2.4 95.0 2.2 0.4 0.4 1.8 3.2 1.6 93.0 0.6 6.4 2.4 0.8 10.6 5.6 67.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.4 9.0 4.8 84.8 1.6 0.2 0.2 3.4 0.4 0.4 County 2012 89.3 4.4 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? 5.0 Marijuana 17.7 11.1 years 14.8 11.9 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.1 years Average age: 31.1 Average age: 311 311 312 Sample 301 303 307 311 311 310 287 294 294 302 305 302 Sample Alcohol Percent 6.9 9.8 87.8 90.4 89.4 96.9 97.3 96.6 69.9 74.8 62.6 Percent Grade 8 Cigarettes Alcohol Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day at least one use in the past 30 days Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.2 years 39.2 11.5 years 39.2 74 74 74 Sample 74 72 74 73 73 73 70 70 70 71 72 72 Sample 12.3 years 66.2 Percent 18.9 13.9 31.1 79.5 86.3 71.2 91.4 95.7 85.7 73.2 83.3 58.3 Percent Grade 10 13.8 years 65.2 12.8 years 72.3 112 112 112 Sample 107 111 109 111 112 111 104 105 105 107 109 109 Sample 13.4 years 83.0 Percent 35.5 35.1 53.2 57.7 63.4 61.3 82.7 79.0 71.4 54.2 86.2 58.7 Percent Grade 12 13.1 years 29.8 12.0 years 33.2 497 497 498 Sample 482 486 490 495 496 494 461 469 469 480 486 483 Sample 12.2 years 48.0 Percent 13.9 14.4 22.7 79.8 83.7 80.4 92.8 93.0 89.3 66.9 78.6 61.1 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.0 years 31.3 12.0 years 37.1 259 259 260 Sample 253 256 257 258 259 259 241 244 244 251 255 254 Sample 11.9 years 46.5 Percent 13.8 14.5 20.6 80.6 84.2 80.7 92.9 94.3 91.0 64.1 78.8 59.1 Percent Male †† 13.2 years 28.6 12.0 years 29.5 234 234 234 Sample 225 226 229 233 233 231 216 221 221 225 227 225 Sample 12.5 years 50.4 Percent 14.2 14.6 25.3 78.5 82.8 79.7 92.6 91.4 87.3 70.2 78.9 63.6 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 71.0 75.4 72.9 53.9 45.8 53.1 40.5 27.9 41.6 58.1 60.2 59.4 Once 13.4 8.1 11.8 8.5 12.1 8.5 13.8 18.8 16.7 18.1 13.7 17.0 16.1 23.0 21.6 23.4 12.9 20.1 14.2 15.2 14.8 13.3 12.8 13.9 3.6 1.1 2.7 1.0 0.7 2.6 3.1 1.1 2.3 5.3 2.8 5.3 13.9 2.8 2.8 7.3 3.2 5.7 9.5 4.6 6.2 13.5 5.4 8.1 11.5 4.7 9.2 5.6 2.5 4.4 5.7 2.0 3.9 6.4 2.6 5.0 75.0 10.4 82.8 8.6 82.8 8.2 65.0 11.2 72.2 9.7 73.3 10.1 65.0 7.9 54.1 12.6 65.7 10.1 69.4 10.0 74.7 9.7 75.7 9.2 7.2 3.6 3.3 2.0 4.6 1.7 10.6 3.9 9.7 4.2 6.8 3.2 8.6 6.3 15.3 5.4 8.9 4.4 8.6 4.4 7.0 3.1 6.3 2.8 0.9 2.8 0.7 2.6 0.8 1.9 4.8 4.5 1.4 2.8 1.8 4.8 2.0 10.2 2.7 9.9 2.2 8.7 2.4 5.2 1.2 4.3 1.4 4.4 73.1 9.8 74.7 8.9 74.3 8.4 56.0 14.0 54.2 13.9 57.4 10.8 54.2 12.0 45.0 9.0 53.8 10.9 63.2 11.6 64.9 9.7 64.3 9.7 5.7 3.0 2.7 6.2 3.0 2.0 6.5 3.5 2.1 8.1 6.2 5.0 8.3 5.6 9.7 11.1 6.7 3.8 9.3 6.0 6.0 11.7 11.7 2.7 11.4 6.8 3.8 7.3 4.7 4.2 7.8 5.3 3.3 9.1 5.3 3.0 5.7 89.0 5.3 89.1 5.2 88.4 10.6 84.9 8.3 84.5 10.4 82.9 12.6 84.1 19.8 80.0 13.3 82.1 8.9 86.5 9.0 86.4 8.7 85.2 4.6 3.2 4.3 2.0 5.3 2.6 5.9 4.5 4.2 4.2 7.3 4.2 6.6 4.3 6.4 7.3 6.6 4.8 5.5 3.9 4.7 3.5 6.2 3.6 0.6 0.8 0.3 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.0 2.3 1.0 1.8 0.0 2.2 1.1 1.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 1.9 3.0 1.7 2.2 4.2 2.8 1.7 4.5 3.2 1.9 3.5 2.4 Never 58.8 53.3 57.4 61.0 55.7 59.0 64.7 49.1 61.4 61.0 52.7 58.9 Once 16.9 10.6 18.8 16.1 15.1 12.5 11.5 8.3 17.1 12.9 13.7 13.2 12.7 11.3 17.3 12.7 12.1 12.7 14.2 10.1 18.2 14.9 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 3.8 0.9 3.3 1.0 4.8 2.1 6.9 1.7 8.6 0.0 5.1 2.2 4.0 0.7 4.5 5.5 5.4 2.3 4.8 1.1 4.3 1.9 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 8.9 7.6 8.1 10.6 5.7 6.8 6.7 10.9 6.2 8.8 8.1 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 35.7 16.5 31.7 11.3 28.2 12.4 26.9 17.8 24.6 15.9 32.1 15.2 29.7 17.2 34.9 16.5 34.1 15.5 31.5 17.1 31.4 13.2 30.8 14.0 5.6 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.3 8.3 4.6 2.6 5.5 9.6 5.1 13.9 10.1 5.8 7.2 7.1 3.7 8.1 12.5 6.8 13.9 15.6 2.8 11.9 8.9 4.4 9.1 8.6 4.8 9.2 7.5 3.6 9.0 6.4 3.4 7.2 35.5 37.2 41.3 31.3 46.8 31.7 26.6 34.1 36.2 28.6 33.8 34.9 19.9 38.5 18.3 37.3 28.0 37.2 28.8 36.6 35.4 32.3 38.2 34.0 13.8 6.0 11.1 4.7 9.7 4.7 15.5 9.5 11.4 12.9 13.2 7.5 16.2 12.5 15.5 6.4 14.5 8.6 14.9 8.7 12.2 6.3 12.0 6.5 3.1 3.7 4.0 6.1 2.6 4.4 6.0 8.6 8.6 4.3 4.3 6.5 6.1 7.8 11.8 9.1 4.8 7.1 4.7 6.2 6.5 6.5 3.7 5.7 36.1 40.8 42.8 38.4 47.0 34.0 26.4 37.4 34.3 29.0 33.6 43.7 18.9 47.5 20.0 44.5 27.8 50.0 28.8 41.5 36.3 38.4 38.1 40.9 11.5 3.7 3.3 5.7 3.7 4.0 8.8 3.1 2.2 16.0 4.9 5.4 21.7 4.3 1.4 10.2 4.0 2.5 14.9 6.8 3.1 11.8 8.2 5.5 10.1 4.3 2.3 13.7 4.8 3.9 9.5 4.8 4.0 9.5 3.7 2.3 4.1 36.5 5.7 42.4 4.5 47.5 8.3 28.0 7.2 36.2 5.1 34.6 6.8 21.0 9.1 20.9 4.8 28.6 6.1 30.0 6.7 36.6 4.8 38.9 40.9 11.6 37.7 7.7 36.8 7.1 49.0 7.1 35.7 11.4 47.6 8.0 53.0 12.5 50.5 11.7 53.8 7.6 46.5 10.5 40.4 9.2 44.3 7.5 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.7 2.7 1.8 4.3 3.4 5.7 2.9 3.3 2.3 5.1 3.4 8.1 3.6 3.7 2.1 4.2 3.2 4.4 3.6 3.1 2.0 3.7 37.3 5.4 42.8 3.7 47.9 8.5 27.6 8.6 35.7 4.1 34.8 5.4 20.6 5.4 20.7 3.9 29.0 5.6 30.1 5.9 36.6 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 85.3 85.4 83.8 86.3 86.9 82.7 83.8 87.7 82.0 85.1 86.4 7.8 7.7 7.2 8.6 4.1 5.9 6.8 4.5 5.3 7.8 6.4 6.3 3 to 5 times 3.6 2.6 3.2 1.6 4.1 2.8 4.2 5.4 2.7 3.2 3.4 2.9 6 to 9 times 2.3 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 2.9 1.8 1.3 2.2 1.2 1.4 10 to 19 times 2.3 0.6 0.9 1.6 0.0 0.8 2.0 1.8 0.8 2.0 0.8 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 40+ times 2.6 2.6 1.3 2.7 2.7 1.5 0.0 1.8 1.5 2.0 2.4 1.4 Never 32.1 52.1 39.2 36.3 52.1 43.7 45.4 55.4 55.3 36.8 52.8 44.4 1 or 2 times 29.5 27.2 27.7 28.7 19.2 24.2 23.5 17.9 21.5 27.8 23.9 25.2 3 to 5 times 15.0 10.5 16.3 15.7 16.4 17.1 16.3 14.3 12.8 15.6 12.2 15.6 6 to 9 times 8.6 3.8 7.7 8.7 5.5 7.2 4.9 8.0 5.1 7.7 5.0 6.9 10 to 19 times 5.3 3.5 3.8 6.0 2.7 3.5 4.6 1.8 2.5 5.3 3.0 3.4 20 to 29 times 3.8 0.3 1.7 1.6 0.0 1.4 2.0 0.9 1.1 2.7 0.4 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.5 40+ times 4.7 1.9 3.0 1.9 2.7 2.3 2.6 0.9 1.5 3.3 1.8 2.4 83.2 90.7 87.6 83.5 90.4 90.2 87.9 89.3 91.9 84.5 90.4 89.4 1 or 2 times 9.0 6.1 7.1 10.0 4.1 5.5 5.5 8.9 4.6 8.5 6.4 6.0 3 to 5 times 1.9 1.6 2.3 1.9 4.1 1.9 2.6 0.0 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.0 6 to 9 times 2.3 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 1.6 0.4 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.3 0.3 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.4 1.6 0.2 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 40+ times 1.3 0.3 0.7 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.2 0.6 0.6 89.8 95.2 90.4 88.9 91.8 92.1 92.7 92.0 93.5 90.3 94.0 91.7 1 or 2 times 6.2 3.2 6.0 7.6 5.5 4.8 3.3 4.5 3.8 5.9 3.8 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.7 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.0 1.2 2.6 2.7 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.9 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? All Students Surveyed* 80.3 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 88.7 89.3 87.6 87.3 86.5 83.7 77.7 72.1 80.3 85.5 85.0 84.6 5.7 5.2 3.0 7.6 5.4 7.8 12.3 13.5 10.8 8.0 7.1 6.4 3.4 1.6 1.0 3.1 0.0 2.2 5.3 3.6 2.8 3.8 1.8 1.8 2.9 1.3 1.3 3.4 5.4 2.6 5.7 6.3 3.4 3.7 3.0 2.2 3.2 2.6 1.8 3.4 0.0 4.1 4.0 8.1 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.1 1.7 2.6 0.8 2.0 0.0 1.9 5.0 5.4 3.3 2.6 2.8 1.8 3.1 2.6 0.8 2.3 1.4 2.0 3.3 0.9 2.2 2.9 2.0 1.5 1.7 2.6 1.1 2.0 1.4 1.7 5.0 3.6 2.1 2.6 2.6 1.5 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 1.1 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.7 3.6 0.6 0.8 1.6 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Gila County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Gila County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 369 44.2 289 40.5 435 47.3 28,932 46.1 10 264 31.6 224 31.4 282 30.7 18,766 29.9 12 202 24.2 201 28.2 202 22.0 15,119 24.1 835 100.0 714 100.0 919 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 391 47.7 308 43.8 455 50.2 30,383 49.5 Female 428 52.3 395 56.2 451 49.8 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 20 6.6 19 6.6 16 5.3 1,121 4.9 African American 6 2.0 14 4.9 7 2.3 658 2.9 Asian 1 0.3 1 0.3 5 1.7 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 2 0.7 1 0.3 0 0.0 225 1.0 White 105 34.8 90 31.3 137 45.5 6,774 29.7 Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 15 5.0 12 4.2 17 5.6 1,099 4.8 153 50.7 151 52.4 119 39.5 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number 184 Percent 32.3 State 2012 Number Percent 117 23.5 192 48.9 1,909 5.2 7 1.4 2 0.5 6 1.1 1,979 5.4 4 0.8 4 1.0 10 1.8 1,641 4.5 2 0.4 2 0.5 2 0.4 324 0.9 335 67.3 167 42.5 334 58.6 26,247 72.1 32 6.4 20 5.1 29 5.1 2,561 7.0 1 0.2 6 1.5 5 0.9 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 302 36.2 288 40.3 301 32.8 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 498 59.6 393 55.0 570 62.0 36,420 58.0 835 100.0 714 100.0 919 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 102 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 81 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 88 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 76 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 65 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 92 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 68 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 62 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 75 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 246 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 208 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 255 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 41 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 89 Students Sample size (Rx): 34 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 46 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 51 Students Sample size (Rx): 27 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 30 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 40 Students Sample size (Rx): 33 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 180 Students Sample size (Rx): 94 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 117 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Gila County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Gila County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Gila County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Gila County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 38.4 21.8 1.1 n/a 2.8 15.8 18.9 13.3 used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 9.7 22.4 14.1 2.5 13.4 1.8 n/a 2.5 1.4 1.8 16.5 3.6 1.4 9.5 7.4 11.5 3.6 2.0 9.7 1.0 1.5 2.5 0.8 0.3 14.2 1.0 2.5 28.8 14.4 38.3 48.5 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 16.1 28.0 11.6 5.2 23.6 2.8 n/a 5.2 3.2 3.6 17.6 11.6 5.2 45.6 31.7 55.3 70.4 n/a 12.5 26.3 11.0 2.4 23.4 2.9 n/a 7.7 1.0 1.9 10.5 4.3 6.7 45.5 27.3 50.7 67.4 15.7 7.7 17.2 6.0 3.6 13.2 2.8 2.0 5.2 2.4 2.0 14.0 3.6 4.0 40.8 19.3 45.5 62.5 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 18.1 29.4 10.9 6.2 25.9 2.6 n/a 2.6 3.1 4.1 11.3 9.8 4.6 48.7 29.9 54.9 78.8 n/a 9.4 24.0 7.6 3.5 22.8 1.8 n/a 6.4 5.3 4.1 9.9 11.0 8.1 54.5 29.1 58.3 74.9 16.8 9.1 21.4 7.0 4.3 19.8 1.6 2.7 7.0 2.1 2.1 13.2 10.1 5.8 45.3 30.3 55.1 67.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 8.3 2.5 0.0 0.6 19.1 3.0 1.7 16.6 19.7 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 46.9 38.7 smoked cigarettes? 61.6 Cigarettes 55.2 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 15.3 24.3 10.0 4.2 20.7 2.7 n/a 2.7 1.7 2.4 16.7 7.3 3.5 35.7 26.0 47.8 65.7 n/a 10.5 24.0 11.4 2.7 19.0 2.1 n/a 5.2 2.3 2.4 12.9 5.8 4.8 44.9 23.4 50.9 67.0 13.0 7.9 15.4 5.1 3.0 13.0 1.7 1.9 4.3 1.6 1.2 13.9 3.8 3.7 36.1 19.5 44.3 57.1 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 0.8 9.9 0.0 n/a 0.6 6.9 1.1 2.5 7.5 8.3 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 6.9 11.2 5.4 1.1 6.9 1.1 n/a 0.7 0.4 0.4 6.5 1.1 0.4 23.7 7.6 21.0 33.9 5.5 4.1 5.6 1.0 0.5 4.6 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 4.8 0.3 1.0 17.3 6.9 20.5 29.0 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 10.9 15.3 4.8 3.2 12.9 2.0 n/a 1.2 0.4 1.2 4.4 3.2 0.4 20.7 13.1 25.0 43.5 n/a 6.7 9.1 3.3 1.4 9.1 2.9 n/a 2.9 0.5 0.5 3.3 0.0 1.4 24.9 8.9 26.8 40.9 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 9.4 15.5 4.7 2.6 14.0 2.1 n/a 0.0 1.5 2.1 1.6 4.2 1.0 16.6 11.2 25.1 42.9 n/a 5.3 12.3 1.8 0.6 11.1 0.0 n/a 1.8 0.6 1.2 0.6 4.1 1.2 16.6 12.7 28.2 50.6 7.0 3.2 8.0 1.6 0.0 8.0 0.5 0.0 1.1 1.6 0.5 2.1 1.1 0.0 18.0 13.3 32.3 43.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 7.3 4.5 8.0 1.6 1.6 6.4 0.4 0.8 1.6 0.4 0.8 3.2 0.8 1.6 17.7 9.6 19.3 33.9 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.0 0.0 0.8 8.7 9.4 16.0 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 29.6 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 9.4 11.8 3.8 2.1 10.5 1.4 n/a 0.4 0.5 0.9 6.2 2.4 0.7 14.3 11.0 21.0 37.2 n/a 6.4 10.8 3.8 1.1 8.7 1.4 n/a 1.7 0.5 0.6 3.9 1.5 0.9 22.2 9.4 24.6 40.6 6.4 4.0 6.9 1.3 0.7 5.9 0.2 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.4 3.7 0.6 1.0 17.5 9.2 22.9 33.8 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 29.8 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 18.1 22.7 11.8 9.3 Been Arrested 4.2 3.8 9.5 7.4 0.5 Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 17.8 1.2 8.4 12.3 8.7 4.3 7.2 22.4 18.9 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 36.1 13.7 Grade 10 31.1 6.7 31.0 30.0 Grade 10 16.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 34.5 9.4 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 2.3 11.2 19.7 12.5 3.1 15.8 27.4 31.4 2.8 9.4 14.3 12.6 4.1 10.0 22.6 34.4 1.9 6.8 13.3 9.1 4.6 7.6 15.4 23.3 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 34.4 16.4 Grade 12 28.4 15.9 28.7 32.6 Grade 12 25.6 County County County 2008 2010 2012 31.0 20.4 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 2.1 10.2 15.9 11.8 4.1 6.7 15.7 25.0 2.6 12.6 17.3 18.4 8.0 13.8 19.6 27.8 2.0 14.3 12.4 12.8 2.0 11.6 12.8 30.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 31.5 9.7 24.7 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.5 9.3 19.7 10.9 3.7 8.4 21.0 21.2 24.7 6.7 19.1 15.7 2.3 10.3 17.2 13.9 5.2 10.6 24.9 29.3 1.6 9.2 12.6 9.7 3.9 8.3 18.1 22.8 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 27.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 38.3 12.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 31.6 11.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 1.8 19.3 21.7 8.8 3.9 30.3 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 19.2 Been Suspended from School 26.3 Sold Illegal Drugs 11.8 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 33.3 8.6 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 42.5 8.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 8.2 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 38.1 53.1 19.6 29.7 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 23.7 5.6 5.1 22.2 5.9 22.5 12.8 30.8 25.4 19.0 3.9 54.3 24.5 24.7 3.2 22.4 17.0 34.5 26.8 12.9 2.5 58.0 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 7.0 32.3 30.1 9.8 23.0 31.6 45.1 32.9 29.4 7.0 70.0 5.5 20.5 22.6 4.1 16.5 16.9 35.3 25.7 18.6 3.6 56.8 6.2 20.5 16.3 5.0 17.4 17.0 26.7 21.2 20.8 4.2 49.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 7.7 32.5 24.5 4.1 15.7 24.0 46.7 28.2 23.9 5.1 68.0 5.9 17.8 19.0 2.7 14.6 15.7 28.8 21.7 18.9 3.2 53.5 5.1 24.1 26.0 5.6 14.4 20.9 35.2 26.2 23.6 4.1 56.3 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 6.9 34.3 30.7 6.4 24.2 24.4 49.0 34.1 26.6 5.9 71.6 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 6.4 36.7 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 34.5 Played a dice game? 5.3 26.0 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 74.7 5.5 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 5.4 21.4 22.5 3.4 18.4 16.6 33.2 25.1 16.4 3.1 56.4 County 2010 5.7 22.8 21.3 5.6 19.1 15.9 30.6 24.3 20.6 4.0 53.4 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 42.1 44.7 46.8 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 56.7 49.4 50.4 29.7 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 41.2 Low Commitment to School 39.2 47.0 34.2 47.7 63.2 50.6 48.3 28.8 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 60.2 29.8 54.7 60.6 71.2 60.4 40.1 46.3 50.9 53.0 53.0 45.3 60.2 35.9 53.4 66.8 57.6 54.5 48.3 54.5 52.1 44.4 County 2010 41.0 22.7 47.3 55.5 61.4 62.2 36.5 41.2 42.2 47.3 42.1 46.7 46.5 31.1 45.7 60.0 47.0 57.6 44.2 43.2 50.9 50.5 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 50.4 36.4 47.0 53.9 69.3 50.8 42.5 53.5 48.8 57.4 53.1 46.8 55.7 43.1 58.2 58.8 45.4 45.1 33.6 56.2 56.6 53.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 39.3 31.0 46.2 56.8 68.5 46.9 40.1 45.3 47.1 52.5 48.2 35.3 51.2 33.2 50.3 51.8 38.0 37.4 31.9 54.3 58.6 55.6 County 2010 30.4 17.8 49.1 47.3 50.4 56.1 36.7 46.1 38.4 42.8 39.9 47.6 52.1 42.0 50.2 48.5 43.0 37.8 32.6 40.9 47.2 55.6 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 45.0 20.0 52.8 37.0 60.1 49.0 36.5 57.6 33.8 51.3 51.8 53.1 45.2 40.0 56.8 46.8 39.4 41.5 44.7 59.6 46.3 62.3 BH Norm County 2012 2008 29.0 21.4 54.6 44.9 62.6 49.7 35.2 44.9 46.0 58.1 50.5 45.7 45.6 35.0 48.1 51.8 39.5 43.4 31.3 47.6 50.4 61.2 County 2010 38.0 17.7 60.4 38.5 52.3 62.8 40.0 49.5 39.6 50.0 45.1 46.0 45.1 45.3 53.8 48.0 43.7 34.7 49.7 44.3 42.5 56.0 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 47.6 29.0 49.0 48.4 64.4 49.0 37.3 51.6 40.9 47.2 47.5 45.8 49.9 36.3 54.4 51.6 49.0 43.3 42.3 51.8 47.5 49.5 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 47.0 37.8 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 41.2 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 48.2 Academic Failure School Domain 43.2 Poor Family Management Family Domain 39.9 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 44.9 28.2 52.0 55.0 67.9 53.6 38.7 45.6 48.3 54.3 50.8 42.3 53.1 34.8 51.2 58.9 47.6 46.9 39.0 52.8 53.7 51.8 County 2010 37.1 20.0 50.8 49.1 56.0 60.5 37.3 44.5 40.5 46.5 42.1 46.8 47.9 38.0 49.1 53.5 45.0 46.0 41.9 42.8 47.8 53.4 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 62.2 60.9 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 63.3 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 41.6 56.6 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 47.1 57.4 40.9 46.5 57.6 49.8 55.7 53.6 56.0 41.4 34.1 County 2010 40.3 53.7 45.5 44.7 59.3 43.8 51.2 47.4 49.0 38.2 31.5 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 48.1 53.8 39.4 49.4 57.8 53.1 47.5 50.0 54.1 42.5 40.8 BH Norm County 2012 2008 52.7 55.6 36.8 55.9 68.7 65.6 62.9 54.9 54.9 38.1 39.1 County 2010 49.6 57.0 50.0 53.5 73.8 52.7 53.1 53.2 54.3 46.5 39.8 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 50.0 52.3 32.3 47.4 50.0 35.2 43.7 56.5 58.4 59.3 34.7 BH Norm County 2012 2008 31.3 51.5 28.4 58.9 48.3 40.3 52.5 53.3 45.0 43.2 33.9 County 2010 48.5 48.2 43.9 56.9 53.4 45.7 57.3 51.9 55.5 52.4 41.4 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 54.3 54.7 38.7 52.5 55.7 53.3 54.7 56.6 58.8 51.2 34.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 44.4 55.2 36.1 52.9 58.7 52.1 57.1 53.9 53.2 40.8 35.6 County 2010 45.0 53.5 46.5 50.1 62.3 46.9 53.1 50.3 52.2 44.2 36.5 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 61.1 57.5 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 57.3 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 65.8 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 52.4 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29.7 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 2.3 2.3 1.1 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 14.8 48.1 22.2 10.2 11.4 20.5 26.1 42.0 33.0 18.2 34.1 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 24.5 13.7 22.5 34.3 24.5 21.6 26.5 23.5 33.3 8.8 3.9 5.9 102 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 32.6 9.8 16.3 40.2 21.7 28.3 21.7 14.1 44.6 2.2 3.3 6.5 92 County 2008 23.1 6.2 20.0 41.5 15.4 27.7 16.9 3.1 40.0 1.5 1.5 13.8 65 County 2010 19.7 9.2 18.4 39.5 17.1 32.9 19.7 21.1 30.3 3.9 2.6 7.9 76 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 21.3 9.3 8.0 42.7 12.0 42.7 13.3 6.7 61.3 0.0 1.3 10.7 75 County 2008 16.1 3.2 8.1 32.3 16.1 30.6 25.8 8.1 61.3 0.0 1.6 3.2 62 County 2010 25.0 1.5 10.3 48.5 26.5 42.6 20.6 11.8 61.8 1.5 2.9 11.8 68 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 29.8 12.5 19.6 41.6 20.4 29.8 15.7 10.6 44.7 1.2 2.4 6.3 255 County 2008 26.4 5.3 17.3 41.3 17.8 27.9 25.0 9.1 45.7 1.4 1.4 7.2 208 County 2010 23.2 8.9 17.9 39.8 22.8 30.9 22.8 19.5 40.2 5.3 3.3 8.1 246 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 37.0 6.2 21.0 25.9 30.9 38.3 2.5 1.2 4.9 81 County 2010 Grade 8 30.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 88 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 89 3,000 51 3,911 40 3,747 180 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 2.2 8.5 7.8 10.9 10.0 14.9 5.6 11.6 Friends 68.5 72.7 70.6 80.8 67.5 80.9 68.9 78.6 Family/Relatives 23.6 17.4 19.6 14.7 27.5 12.7 23.3 14.8 Parties 25.8 25.9 25.5 28.9 27.5 30.4 26.1 28.6 Home 7.9 6.1 3.9 6.3 10.0 6.0 7.2 6.1 School 10.1 15.8 11.8 14.9 17.5 10.1 12.2 13.4 Other 37.1 28.8 27.5 22.3 30.0 21.0 32.8 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 41 34 1,637 46 27 2,321 30 33 2,478 117 94 6,436 Friends 53.7 47.1 48.7 76.1 59.3 59.8 73.3 69.7 62.8 67.5 58.5 58.2 Family/Relatives 26.8 23.5 16.8 30.4 14.8 16.6 30.0 24.2 16.3 29.1 21.3 16.5 Parties 19.5 14.7 21.4 15.2 14.8 19.6 23.3 24.2 19.5 18.8 18.1 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 12.2 11.8 28.2 23.9 22.2 31.3 16.7 15.2 24.7 17.9 16.0 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 12.2 17.6 13.5 17.4 18.5 14.3 16.7 6.1 19.5 15.4 13.8 16.1 School 14.6 8.8 12.9 28.3 7.4 15.6 6.7 18.2 12.7 17.9 11.7 13.8 Other 31.7 29.4 17.8 15.2 18.5 13.2 10.0 9.1 12.3 19.7 19.1 14.0 Over the Internet 0.0 2.9 2.4 4.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 3.0 0.9 1.7 2.1 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 5.1 4.3 3.7 4.2 0.0 9.1 3.6 1.7 4.3 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.0 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 13.3 11.8 3.6 1.4 0.4 0.0 1.1 60.4 11.5 12.2 5.8 1.4 0.7 0.4 7.6 87.5 6.5 4.3 0.0 1.8 90.7 6.1 0.0 0.7 2.5 14.3 8.8 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 60.0 13.1 13.3 2.8 2.8 1.4 0.8 5.8 90.3 6.7 1.9 0.0 1.1 94.4 3.1 1.4 0.3 0.8 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.4 4.3 92.1 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.6 4.7 4.7 87.7 0.4 5.9 2.8 1.2 14.2 5.1 60.2 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.4 0.0 16.1 5.5 75.2 1.2 0.0 0.4 4.3 1.2 0.4 0.0 2.3 93.1 3.2 1.4 0.9 1.9 4.2 3.7 89.3 0.5 5.5 0.0 0.9 8.3 1.4 74.2 9.2 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 8.8 3.2 86.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.5 1.1 8.1 87.8 1.8 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.1 2.6 94.5 0.0 9.5 2.6 1.1 7.3 5.1 66.3 8.1 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.5 0.4 5.5 3.0 87.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.4 1.8 County 2012 88.3 5.1 Grade 10 County 2010 93.1 3.7 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.5 5.6 89.8 1.5 2.5 0.5 1.0 4.1 2.6 91.8 0.0 6.7 1.0 0.5 4.1 2.6 77.9 7.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 8.7 3.6 86.7 2.1 1.0 0.0 3.1 1.0 1.0 County 2008 86.7 5.1 1.1 2.2 94.0 1.6 1.1 0.5 1.1 2.7 2.7 92.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.5 6.0 1.1 84.6 5.5 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 8.3 2.8 87.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 1.0 4.1 91.2 1.5 2.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.6 94.9 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 7.6 1.5 84.3 3.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.0 3.0 90.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.5 County 2012 94.9 1.5 Grade 12 County 2010 92.9 4.4 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 92.6 2.2 1.7 0.5 1.2 5.5 3.0 89.8 0.5 6.1 2.3 1.1 11.4 3.5 64.4 10.8 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 6.5 1.4 77.6 13.5 0.1 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.4 6.3 3.6 County 2008 87.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 86.3 6.2 n/a n/a 64.2 71.1 n/a n/a 69.2 73.8 n/a n/a 74.6 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 9.2 9.0 n/a n/a 9.5 7.1 n/a n/a 7.1 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 9.7 8.6 n/a n/a 8.4 8.4 n/a n/a 9.1 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 4.5 3.7 n/a n/a 4.4 3.2 n/a n/a 4.1 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.2 1.6 n/a n/a 2.6 1.6 n/a n/a 0.5 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.9 1.2 n/a n/a 1.5 1.1 n/a n/a 1.0 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.7 0.6 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 n/a n/a 0.5 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 8.5 4.3 n/a n/a 4.4 4.3 n/a n/a 3.0 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 1.4 4.1 89.2 3.9 1.4 1.4 0.7 5.0 4.0 88.8 0.0 12.5 3.5 3.1 12.0 8.0 51.7 9.2 0.2 0.0 1.2 2.6 0.5 12.3 8.3 74.9 1.9 0.5 0.5 4.1 1.7 0.5 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.4 3.1 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.7 68.5 0.0 74.5 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 3.9 2.1 0.0 3.3 1.1 0.3 County 2012 82.3 8.6 Grade 8 County 2010 84.6 7.5 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 88.2 6.9 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.6 2.4 92.3 4.0 0.7 0.4 1.6 4.7 3.7 89.5 0.3 5.5 0.6 0.7 9.3 3.1 71.3 9.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 1.6 0.9 10.5 6.6 79.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 2.6 1.0 0.1 County 2010 89.6 5.4 68.0 8.9 9.2 4.4 1.5 1.6 0.4 6.1 1.2 5.3 89.2 2.7 1.5 1.0 0.8 2.8 3.5 91.9 0.0 9.3 2.5 2.1 9.6 5.7 63.3 7.5 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.8 0.4 8.4 5.5 82.4 1.2 0.3 0.2 3.5 0.9 0.9 County 2012 87.0 5.9 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 29.0 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 74.0 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 17.3 Marijuana 39.0 11.1 years 33.5 11.4 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.4 years Average age: 56.7 Average age: 418 420 416 Sample 394 404 396 416 417 414 316 317 318 369 373 370 Sample Alcohol Percent 20.5 Cigarettes 80.6 73.7 91.1 93.1 88.1 58.8 69.2 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 51.4 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.1 years 44.3 12.4 years 51.3 271 271 271 Sample 249 254 251 269 270 268 231 231 230 235 239 238 Sample 12.9 years 66.8 Percent 17.7 19.3 33.9 69.1 77.0 72.8 91.3 92.2 87.0 57.0 82.4 58.8 Percent Grade 10 13.3 years 48.2 13.1 years 56.1 197 196 197 Sample 189 195 193 194 195 195 169 168 169 180 182 185 Sample 13.4 years 69.5 Percent 18.0 32.3 43.5 61.3 60.0 66.2 85.8 83.9 80.5 55.0 77.5 55.1 Percent Grade 12 12.5 years 40.1 12.1 years 46.6 886 887 884 Sample 832 853 840 879 882 877 716 716 717 784 794 793 Sample 12.4 years 62.7 Percent 17.5 22.9 33.8 69.7 74.9 71.7 89.9 90.6 85.9 57.4 75.1 54.5 Percent All Students Surveyed† 12.1 years 38.2 11.9 years 44.6 432 433 431 Sample 396 410 402 427 428 426 342 342 343 371 377 378 Sample 12.0 years 59.2 Percent 18.2 22.0 30.8 69.8 78.5 71.8 88.6 90.9 86.3 55.8 72.7 51.3 Percent Male †† 12.8 years 41.8 12.2 years 48.3 443 443 442 Sample 426 433 428 441 443 440 364 364 364 403 407 405 Sample 12.7 years 65.8 Percent 17.1 23.1 36.7 69.2 71.6 71.6 91.2 90.4 85.4 58.8 77.4 57.3 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 55.2 58.5 72.9 45.6 53.0 53.1 41.9 50.0 41.6 48.6 54.9 59.4 Once 15.2 18.8 14.2 11.7 12.1 8.5 13.5 21.4 12.4 18.5 13.7 17.0 12.3 17.3 8.3 18.2 12.9 20.1 13.9 19.2 12.3 15.2 12.8 13.9 6.9 1.8 2.2 7.0 2.5 6.2 3.1 1.1 2.3 9.3 4.2 6.0 8.4 2.0 5.6 7.3 3.2 5.7 11.2 3.4 14.0 10.9 5.2 7.3 11.5 4.7 9.2 8.8 3.0 6.6 8.3 3.0 6.3 6.4 2.6 5.0 66.3 16.3 69.6 10.5 82.8 8.2 55.9 8.5 67.1 10.4 73.3 10.1 58.7 7.8 58.9 11.5 65.7 10.1 60.9 11.5 66.4 10.7 75.7 9.2 9.4 2.9 7.5 3.7 4.6 1.7 16.0 7.5 9.6 4.0 6.8 3.2 14.5 7.8 9.4 6.8 8.9 4.4 12.9 5.7 8.6 4.5 6.3 2.8 1.1 4.0 2.2 6.5 0.8 1.9 3.3 8.9 2.0 6.8 1.8 4.8 3.4 7.8 1.6 12.0 2.2 8.7 2.4 6.6 2.0 7.8 1.4 4.4 59.4 12.7 62.0 10.1 74.3 8.4 50.9 11.2 57.3 10.1 57.4 10.8 59.2 9.5 61.3 8.9 53.8 10.9 56.7 11.4 60.4 9.8 64.3 9.7 10.9 4.3 3.3 8.9 5.3 3.0 6.5 3.5 2.1 11.7 11.2 3.3 14.5 6.5 4.4 11.1 6.7 3.8 12.8 5.0 1.7 9.9 5.2 3.7 11.4 6.8 3.8 11.7 6.7 2.8 10.8 5.6 3.6 9.1 5.3 3.0 9.4 90.2 10.6 86.6 5.2 88.4 11.7 85.4 7.3 87.5 10.4 82.9 11.7 82.0 11.0 82.9 13.3 82.1 10.8 86.5 9.7 86.0 8.7 85.2 6.2 1.8 5.3 1.8 5.3 2.6 5.6 2.8 4.4 3.6 7.3 4.2 5.1 3.4 5.7 5.2 6.6 4.8 5.7 2.5 5.1 3.1 6.2 3.6 0.4 0.7 2.0 1.3 1.2 0.7 3.8 0.5 2.4 0.4 1.9 1.0 2.8 2.2 3.1 1.0 2.2 1.1 2.1 1.0 2.4 1.0 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 0.7 3.0 1.7 1.9 1.6 2.8 4.5 2.1 3.2 2.1 2.4 2.4 Never 56.8 51.8 57.4 55.8 51.6 59.0 60.8 61.6 61.4 57.5 54.0 58.9 Once 16.5 11.0 16.5 12.7 15.1 12.5 14.4 6.5 15.0 15.9 13.7 13.2 6.8 16.5 14.2 9.5 12.1 12.7 13.3 11.0 15.5 12.9 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.8 2.9 6.1 3.6 4.8 2.1 8.4 4.7 5.7 2.4 5.1 2.2 3.4 0.6 4.2 1.6 5.4 2.3 5.6 2.9 5.5 2.8 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 8.1 9.4 8.1 10.2 9.3 6.8 11.9 8.9 6.2 9.8 9.3 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 32.1 23.0 38.6 16.2 28.2 12.4 29.7 16.8 33.1 15.1 32.1 15.2 34.8 15.5 38.0 14.7 34.1 15.5 32.0 19.2 36.8 15.5 30.8 14.0 8.0 4.7 5.5 5.1 4.9 5.1 4.6 2.6 5.5 15.8 7.4 8.9 8.6 4.5 9.8 7.1 3.7 8.1 11.6 11.0 12.3 9.8 3.3 10.3 8.9 4.4 9.1 11.4 7.1 8.2 7.3 4.4 7.8 6.4 3.4 7.2 26.6 38.5 30.0 43.1 46.8 31.7 21.3 37.6 29.0 34.7 33.8 34.9 14.8 42.3 23.9 40.2 28.0 37.2 22.0 39.1 28.3 39.9 38.2 34.0 16.5 8.8 13.0 6.2 9.7 4.7 13.9 9.4 16.9 8.7 13.2 7.5 20.5 9.0 14.1 7.1 14.5 8.6 16.6 9.0 14.5 7.2 12.0 6.5 3.7 7.0 2.7 3.8 2.6 4.4 8.4 8.9 6.2 6.2 4.3 6.5 4.5 7.7 4.3 12.0 4.8 7.1 5.4 7.8 4.2 6.4 3.7 5.7 25.6 40.2 31.2 44.7 47.0 34.0 21.8 47.5 27.3 44.1 33.6 43.7 16.0 47.1 22.3 54.9 27.8 50.0 22.0 44.2 27.9 46.9 38.1 40.9 16.6 8.5 1.5 13.6 4.4 3.0 8.8 3.1 2.2 11.9 6.4 4.0 11.8 4.1 2.9 10.2 4.0 2.5 15.0 5.2 6.5 8.2 3.8 3.8 10.1 4.3 2.3 14.7 7.0 3.5 11.8 4.1 3.1 9.5 3.7 2.3 7.0 26.2 3.5 30.8 4.5 47.5 8.9 21.3 8.2 29.0 5.1 34.6 8.5 17.6 4.9 24.5 4.8 28.6 8.0 22.5 5.3 28.8 4.8 38.9 40.8 17.6 50.3 9.6 36.8 7.1 47.3 12.4 46.5 9.8 47.6 8.0 59.1 13.0 55.7 5.9 53.8 7.6 47.4 14.8 50.4 8.8 44.3 7.5 6.2 1.5 3.8 1.9 2.7 1.8 4.0 6.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.3 4.5 3.2 3.8 1.1 3.7 2.1 5.1 3.3 3.8 2.1 3.1 2.0 7.4 26.5 2.5 32.0 3.7 47.9 8.0 22.4 6.5 30.2 4.1 34.8 3.2 16.9 7.6 25.9 3.9 29.0 6.5 22.8 4.9 30.0 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 All Students Surveyed* County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 74.0 80.2 85.4 74.9 85.9 86.9 68.5 81.6 87.7 72.8 82.3 86.4 1 or 2 times 11.6 9.9 7.2 11.0 5.7 5.9 12.7 6.1 5.3 11.7 7.8 6.3 3 to 5 times 6.3 3.1 3.2 6.4 3.8 2.8 3.6 4.6 2.7 5.6 3.7 2.9 6 to 9 times 3.2 2.2 1.5 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.6 1.3 2.0 2.1 1.4 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.5 0.9 2.3 1.1 0.8 6.1 1.0 0.8 3.0 0.8 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.7 0.4 1.8 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.2 40+ times 3.2 2.2 1.3 2.7 1.1 1.5 6.1 2.6 1.5 3.9 1.9 1.4 Never 19.4 36.2 39.2 24.1 45.6 43.7 32.5 49.5 55.3 24.5 42.0 44.4 1 or 2 times 28.9 24.4 27.7 22.7 18.6 24.2 25.4 18.4 21.5 26.0 21.3 25.2 3 to 5 times 24.3 18.6 16.3 20.5 19.0 17.1 17.8 19.4 12.8 21.3 18.9 15.6 6 to 9 times 7.7 9.7 7.7 13.2 8.0 7.2 9.6 5.6 5.1 10.0 8.2 6.9 10 to 19 times 7.0 5.3 3.8 7.3 3.4 3.5 7.1 4.6 2.5 7.1 4.6 3.4 20 to 29 times 6.0 1.2 1.7 3.6 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.1 4.1 1.7 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.7 2.2 0.6 1.8 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.1 0.5 40+ times 6.0 2.4 3.0 6.8 3.0 2.3 5.1 0.0 1.5 6.0 2.1 2.4 Never 70.0 84.5 87.6 71.6 87.5 90.2 76.8 86.7 91.9 72.4 85.9 89.4 1 or 2 times 15.7 8.5 7.1 15.8 6.8 5.5 10.1 7.7 4.6 14.1 7.8 6.0 3 to 5 times 4.9 1.9 2.3 4.5 1.5 1.9 4.5 1.5 1.6 4.7 1.7 2.0 6 to 9 times 2.8 2.4 1.1 1.8 1.1 0.9 2.0 2.0 0.7 2.3 1.9 0.9 10 to 19 times 2.8 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.5 3.0 1.5 0.4 2.3 1.0 0.5 20 to 29 times 2.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 2.0 0.5 0.2 1.7 0.3 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 40+ times 1.4 0.7 0.7 4.5 2.3 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.5 2.3 1.0 0.6 84.2 87.9 90.4 84.7 90.5 92.1 88.3 91.3 93.5 85.5 89.4 91.7 1 or 2 times 8.1 6.5 6.0 7.7 4.9 4.8 6.1 3.6 3.8 7.4 5.4 5.1 3 to 5 times 4.6 1.9 1.5 2.3 1.9 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.1 3.0 1.8 1.3 6 to 9 times 1.1 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.1 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.4 2.6 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 40+ times 1.1 1.0 0.7 2.7 1.5 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.6 1.6 1.0 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 83.3 82.9 87.6 74.5 85.4 83.7 76.9 79.1 80.3 79.0 82.8 84.6 8.0 4.1 3.0 17.5 6.5 7.8 14.1 12.3 10.8 12.5 6.7 6.4 4.0 2.1 1.0 7.0 1.6 2.2 5.8 4.3 2.8 5.4 2.4 1.8 2.9 1.3 1.3 3.5 1.6 2.6 4.5 4.3 3.4 3.5 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.0 1.8 5.5 2.4 4.1 3.2 2.7 4.2 3.3 1.8 3.1 1.8 1.6 0.8 4.0 2.0 1.9 3.2 1.1 3.3 2.8 1.6 1.8 2.2 0.8 0.8 6.5 0.8 2.0 1.3 3.2 2.2 3.3 1.3 1.5 4.7 2.6 1.1 3.5 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.6 2.1 3.6 2.2 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Graham County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Graham County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 289 36.7 169 20.1 245 32.5 28,932 46.1 10 245 31.1 359 42.7 283 37.5 18,766 29.9 12 254 32.2 312 37.1 226 30.0 15,119 24.1 788 100.0 840 100.0 754 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 386 49.5 427 51.6 387 52.4 30,383 49.5 Female 394 50.5 400 48.4 351 47.6 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 16 5.5 24 8.0 17 6.8 1,121 4.9 African American 13 4.4 9 3.0 10 4.0 658 2.9 Asian 0 0.0 2 0.7 1 0.4 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 1 0.3 5 1.7 2 0.8 225 1.0 White 106 36.2 100 33.3 102 40.8 6,774 29.7 Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 11 3.8 8 2.7 8 3.2 1,099 4.8 146 49.8 152 50.7 110 44.0 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 59 13.9 55 10.7 54 11.6 1,909 5.2 11 2.6 3 0.6 7 1.5 1,979 5.4 2 0.5 1 0.2 3 0.6 1,641 4.5 2 0.5 4 0.8 1 0.2 324 0.9 332 78.1 414 80.7 379 81.5 26,247 72.1 14 3.3 29 5.7 16 3.4 2,561 7.0 5 1.2 7 1.4 5 1.1 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 293 37.2 300 35.7 250 33.2 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 425 53.9 513 61.1 465 61.7 36,420 58.0 788 100.0 840 100.0 754 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 30 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 19 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 47 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 61 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 101 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 66 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 70 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 96 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 65 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 161 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 216 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 178 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 16 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 18 Students Sample size (Rx): 13 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 57 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 41 Students Sample size (Rx): 23 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 52 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 34 Students Sample size (Rx): 20 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 125 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 93 Students Sample size (Rx): 56 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Graham County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Graham County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Graham County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Graham County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 12.9 3.2 n/a 2.1 14.8 11.0 20.8 12.7 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 8.2 12.0 5.1 2.5 8.2 0.6 n/a 3.8 1.9 1.9 7.0 1.9 3.2 19.1 10.1 21.4 31.6 5.6 6.8 8.5 1.7 1.7 7.3 0.9 1.3 2.1 0.4 0.8 8.4 0.0 0.8 10.1 3.0 18.5 27.6 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 13.2 20.1 10.7 3.9 16.2 2.1 n/a 3.0 3.0 1.7 14.1 6.4 5.1 30.2 16.4 36.1 56.1 n/a 17.2 23.3 11.9 3.8 19.5 1.2 n/a 4.9 2.9 2.0 17.4 5.2 5.5 29.9 20.6 37.6 57.5 16.1 6.1 12.5 2.9 1.8 11.1 1.4 1.8 3.2 1.4 1.4 10.8 3.2 3.2 28.6 12.9 28.3 52.0 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 13.6 22.6 10.3 4.5 19.3 1.6 n/a 2.0 1.6 4.5 13.9 11.5 4.5 34.7 18.1 48.1 61.1 n/a 14.9 22.9 11.1 4.7 18.9 1.0 n/a 4.0 4.1 5.1 13.1 11.1 6.4 39.7 24.2 47.9 63.5 17.1 10.1 14.4 5.1 1.4 13.4 0.9 2.3 6.0 1.4 0.9 7.8 5.5 5.5 31.3 19.3 43.6 53.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 3.5 1.4 2.8 17.4 3.9 2.8 14.8 33.5 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 45.2 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 13.2 21.2 10.7 4.0 16.7 2.0 n/a 2.8 2.0 3.0 15.3 7.1 4.1 26.0 15.7 39.0 53.7 n/a 14.5 20.9 10.3 3.9 17.0 1.0 n/a 4.4 3.1 3.1 13.8 6.8 5.4 31.5 19.9 38.2 54.7 13.0 7.5 11.8 3.2 1.6 10.5 1.1 1.8 3.7 1.1 1.1 9.1 2.9 3.1 23.4 11.6 29.7 44.5 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 0.7 7.1 1.4 n/a 0.7 8.5 1.4 12.4 6.7 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 3.2 6.3 1.3 1.3 5.7 0.0 n/a 2.5 0.6 0.0 3.2 1.3 1.3 12.8 5.0 11.0 19.7 2.2 2.6 4.3 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.4 5.5 2.1 7.6 10.6 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 8.1 10.3 3.9 1.7 8.1 1.3 n/a 0.9 1.7 0.9 6.0 2.1 1.3 14.5 7.6 15.1 34.7 n/a 10.6 13.4 6.1 2.6 9.9 0.3 n/a 1.5 1.7 0.9 5.0 1.2 1.5 12.9 7.2 18.9 32.8 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 6.2 10.7 4.9 1.6 8.6 0.4 n/a 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.0 3.3 0.4 10.3 6.9 15.1 36.8 n/a 4.1 11.8 3.7 0.7 8.4 0.3 n/a 0.3 2.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.0 15.9 13.6 25.3 40.1 9.8 3.7 7.0 3.3 0.5 5.6 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 14.4 9.2 21.2 35.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 7.2 3.6 4.6 0.7 1.1 3.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.4 1.1 12.5 4.8 11.9 26.9 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 6.4 0.0 1.1 1.1 7.4 4.2 10.5 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 20.6 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 7.0 11.2 5.2 1.6 8.4 0.8 n/a 0.9 0.7 0.8 5.1 2.0 0.9 10.5 6.1 13.4 30.2 n/a 6.7 11.4 4.3 1.6 8.5 0.3 n/a 1.3 1.9 0.6 3.0 0.9 1.3 14.0 9.2 19.7 33.0 6.4 3.3 5.2 1.2 0.7 4.4 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 2.2 0.3 0.7 10.8 5.2 13.3 24.1 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 32.4 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 11.5 11.5 Grade 8 3.8 0.7 Carried a Handgun to School 4.3 11.4 16.7 0.0 4.1 7.4 3.8 1.2 2.1 16.5 7.1 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 28.1 9.7 Grade 10 25.8 7.4 23.7 19.8 Grade 10 16.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 37.1 10.0 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 2.1 8.3 14.0 6.2 3.3 12.0 16.5 23.1 1.4 5.9 14.6 9.3 2.5 10.3 18.3 20.0 0.7 7.2 7.8 5.7 2.5 8.4 13.2 18.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 28.1 15.9 Grade 12 27.2 14.7 21.5 25.6 Grade 12 22.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 31.7 15.7 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 1.6 8.4 10.5 4.1 2.4 7.7 6.8 19.3 1.6 12.4 9.1 7.8 4.9 10.4 10.2 22.5 1.8 6.8 8.1 6.4 3.6 8.7 5.4 14.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 24.2 8.1 18.5 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.4 8.2 13.5 5.4 3.5 7.3 14.7 17.3 24.7 6.7 13.9 15.7 2.1 9.5 13.0 8.3 3.4 9.6 15.6 19.8 0.8 6.1 7.8 5.3 2.4 6.4 11.9 13.7 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 20.4 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 27.6 11.6 County County County 2008 2010 2012 33.6 11.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 8.0 Carried a Handgun 15.7 7.2 5.9 Been Arrested 2.4 4.5 6.7 3.1 19.8 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 20.1 Been Suspended from School 14.2 Sold Illegal Drugs 10.5 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 19.7 2.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 25.8 7.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 7.7 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 28.4 43.0 20.6 28.7 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 23.5 5.8 3.8 23.0 2.0 17.2 13.9 26.4 23.0 18.0 2.5 55.7 18.8 20.6 2.5 14.4 10.1 28.8 16.9 15.0 5.0 46.9 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 5.8 29.3 33.9 4.6 21.4 21.4 41.9 32.8 24.5 2.1 69.3 5.4 23.4 23.0 4.6 14.8 15.1 33.9 21.7 20.9 4.0 54.1 5.0 24.5 19.2 3.2 16.5 19.3 28.4 25.6 24.2 4.6 57.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 8.9 28.3 31.6 5.3 13.5 23.5 47.4 35.5 24.5 6.8 67.2 7.9 25.1 22.2 5.3 14.9 19.1 35.1 25.8 22.8 4.6 55.4 4.1 22.8 16.1 3.2 10.5 13.2 29.1 23.2 21.3 5.5 49.3 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 6.4 30.1 32.5 5.2 21.6 21.8 44.1 32.0 23.5 4.5 68.3 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 4.9 32.3 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 32.0 Played a dice game? 5.6 21.7 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 68.3 4.5 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 6.0 23.1 22.2 4.4 14.7 15.6 33.3 22.3 20.5 4.4 53.2 County 2010 5.0 23.6 19.5 2.8 14.9 15.7 28.0 24.0 21.3 4.2 54.6 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 35.1 36.4 49.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 55.8 48.9 48.3 21.5 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 45.3 Low Commitment to School 34.5 42.7 24.5 32.7 56.0 33.9 40.6 20.7 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 27.2 17.1 32.1 27.9 50.6 33.8 23.5 34.1 26.1 34.8 42.2 37.7 51.0 20.4 44.2 39.4 50.0 38.3 40.9 24.7 31.4 31.2 County 2010 25.7 10.6 33.9 30.2 46.7 36.7 14.8 25.5 20.1 32.0 30.7 37.4 49.8 15.3 36.1 35.4 49.8 30.0 42.9 25.7 19.0 33.3 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 33.5 23.8 34.0 36.6 52.5 35.4 29.2 43.8 32.8 42.3 43.3 38.8 54.8 34.5 49.1 41.6 37.4 36.6 29.0 43.5 32.7 40.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 34.3 14.9 35.6 33.6 54.5 37.5 29.6 41.7 32.2 43.5 42.9 43.9 51.2 34.2 51.3 47.0 42.3 36.1 25.6 35.9 41.9 40.6 County 2010 29.0 11.4 38.5 32.4 45.0 34.8 24.6 34.2 25.3 35.7 41.9 49.5 48.2 25.5 42.6 41.3 41.9 30.0 34.5 33.8 36.1 34.2 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 28.7 13.4 48.2 25.6 48.4 29.7 22.4 39.2 31.6 41.4 43.8 39.1 43.9 32.3 47.3 37.1 38.5 34.5 44.0 48.3 30.3 50.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 32.5 14.0 50.5 31.9 53.8 44.4 27.3 37.0 31.3 42.2 44.2 33.3 42.7 32.8 47.1 45.3 34.7 43.1 37.0 39.6 35.1 48.7 County 2010 26.7 14.2 52.5 30.5 38.9 43.3 20.7 30.5 24.8 33.5 34.7 45.3 40.6 31.0 43.7 36.7 31.8 28.5 33.8 33.8 32.1 44.3 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 34.5 19.4 41.0 32.1 52.4 32.6 25.3 41.9 33.0 41.5 44.3 41.3 49.9 29.0 48.2 42.9 44.7 36.6 41.3 42.4 32.8 41.0 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 40.5 40.8 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 45.6 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 51.1 Academic Failure School Domain 38.4 Poor Family Management Family Domain 33.5 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 32.2 15.0 40.5 31.8 53.4 39.3 27.5 38.4 30.6 41.2 43.2 38.8 47.9 31.1 48.5 45.0 40.8 39.1 32.7 35.1 37.5 41.9 County 2010 27.2 12.0 41.2 31.1 43.7 38.0 20.3 30.3 23.4 33.8 36.0 44.3 46.4 24.2 41.0 38.1 41.0 29.5 36.8 31.4 29.7 37.1 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 66.9 68.3 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54.7 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 45.5 71.3 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54.8 74.7 43.7 61.0 64.3 47.0 63.0 60.5 58.3 53.8 49.6 County 2010 66.1 72.4 53.1 60.2 73.8 55.1 70.5 62.7 71.7 60.6 49.3 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 60.0 62.3 39.7 62.8 70.6 64.4 68.0 63.4 62.9 52.9 46.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 60.4 60.9 48.3 62.1 71.8 61.6 64.2 56.5 57.9 49.1 48.8 County 2010 66.8 68.3 46.8 64.3 75.7 66.9 70.7 55.3 58.7 49.6 51.9 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 58.7 58.1 37.2 63.1 58.4 52.4 65.3 60.6 57.0 59.6 49.8 BH Norm County 2012 2008 62.3 60.0 44.8 61.7 58.9 60.8 75.2 57.3 58.1 56.8 45.8 County 2010 65.3 56.5 45.2 59.7 59.8 46.4 67.4 60.1 61.8 64.6 54.8 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 60.2 64.3 41.1 60.3 63.8 56.9 65.9 64.4 62.5 55.4 45.1 BH Norm County 2012 2008 60.0 63.3 46.1 61.7 65.6 58.4 68.1 57.5 58.0 52.7 47.8 County 2010 66.1 66.1 48.4 61.6 70.3 56.9 69.7 59.0 63.5 57.5 52.0 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 61.6 55.6 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 62.8 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 64.5 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 53.8 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 40.2 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 2.1 4.3 2.1 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 15.8 25.5 19.1 25.5 25.5 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party 29.8 15.8 5.3 15.8 21.1 30.0 6.7 20.0 20.0 26.7 20.0 16.7 10.0 23.3 0.0 3.3 3.3 30 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 25.8 7.6 15.2 42.4 21.2 24.2 16.7 7.6 50.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 66 County 2008 14.9 10.9 14.9 46.5 24.8 24.8 10.9 10.9 42.6 0.0 0.0 3.0 101 County 2010 14.8 8.2 16.4 47.5 29.5 31.1 21.3 8.2 47.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 61 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 15.4 3.1 6.2 52.3 12.3 40.0 26.2 9.2 46.2 1.5 3.1 7.7 65 County 2008 10.4 5.2 8.3 43.8 13.5 32.3 12.5 5.2 45.8 1.0 1.0 9.4 96 County 2010 8.6 4.3 5.7 57.1 10.0 22.9 25.7 7.1 50.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 70 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 23.0 6.2 14.6 41.6 17.4 30.3 19.7 9.0 41.0 1.7 2.8 3.9 178 County 2008 13.0 7.9 12.0 43.5 19.0 27.8 12.0 7.9 43.1 0.9 0.5 6.0 216 County 2010 14.9 6.2 12.4 46.6 20.5 25.5 22.4 8.1 44.1 0.0 0.6 5.0 161 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. I got it some other way I took it from a store or someone else's home 8.5 26.3 14.9 I took it from home 5.3 10.6 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me 15.8 31.6 5.3 0.0 5.3 19 County 2010 Grade 8 21.3 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 47 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 18 3,000 41 3,911 34 3,747 93 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 5.6 8.5 7.3 10.9 2.9 14.9 5.4 11.6 Friends 77.8 72.7 73.2 80.8 79.4 80.9 76.3 78.6 Family/Relatives 22.2 17.4 26.8 14.7 23.5 12.7 24.7 14.8 Parties 33.3 25.9 29.3 28.9 20.6 30.4 26.9 28.6 Home 5.6 6.1 4.9 6.3 0.0 6.0 3.2 6.1 School 16.7 15.8 17.1 14.9 5.9 10.1 12.9 13.4 Other 33.3 28.8 31.7 22.3 14.7 21.0 25.8 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 16 13 1,637 57 23 2,321 52 20 2,478 125 56 6,436 Friends 62.5 38.5 48.7 63.2 56.5 59.8 69.2 50.0 62.8 65.6 50.0 58.2 Family/Relatives 31.2 30.8 16.8 31.6 26.1 16.6 34.6 30.0 16.3 32.8 28.6 16.5 Parties 31.2 38.5 21.4 33.3 30.4 19.6 30.8 35.0 19.5 32.0 33.9 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 25.0 38.5 28.2 31.6 47.8 31.3 25.0 15.0 24.7 28.0 33.9 28.0 0.0 7.7 13.5 19.3 8.7 14.3 7.7 35.0 19.5 12.0 17.9 16.1 School 25.0 15.4 12.9 12.3 26.1 15.6 17.3 5.0 12.7 16.0 16.1 13.8 Other Doctor/Pharmacy 18.8 23.1 17.8 12.3 26.1 13.2 21.2 25.0 12.3 16.8 25.0 14.0 Over the Internet 0.0 7.7 2.4 3.5 4.3 1.4 1.9 0.0 0.9 2.4 3.6 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 5.1 3.5 4.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 1.6 1.8 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 13.8 6.9 2.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 56.7 10.8 12.1 4.5 3.8 1.9 0.6 9.6 90.4 3.2 3.8 1.9 0.6 92.3 2.6 3.2 0.0 1.9 13.5 5.2 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 49.3 14.0 11.5 7.0 3.1 2.1 1.4 11.5 91.2 4.2 3.2 0.4 1.1 93.6 4.6 1.1 0.0 0.7 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.0 5.0 92.4 0.4 2.1 0.0 2.5 3.8 1.7 92.1 0.4 3.3 2.5 0.4 7.1 2.5 72.6 11.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.2 0.4 8.7 2.5 85.5 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.7 0.4 1.1 3.4 91.7 1.4 2.3 0.3 0.3 1.7 1.7 96.0 0.3 5.1 1.7 0.9 10.3 2.0 68.0 11.7 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 8.8 4.6 85.2 0.9 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 7.2 88.9 1.4 1.8 0.4 0.0 1.8 1.8 96.1 0.4 8.2 2.8 2.5 7.8 5.0 65.8 7.5 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.7 5.3 2.1 90.0 0.0 1.8 0.4 2.5 1.1 0.4 County 2012 90.7 3.2 Grade 10 County 2010 92.8 3.7 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 1.2 3.3 93.5 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.4 3.2 0.0 96.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.4 8.5 1.6 80.2 7.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 6.5 1.2 90.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 County 2008 92.3 5.2 0.3 2.7 95.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 2.0 0.3 97.0 0.7 1.7 0.7 0.3 4.0 3.0 86.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.0 1.3 93.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.5 90.5 0.5 4.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 97.7 0.5 1.4 1.8 0.5 7.7 2.3 80.2 5.9 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 5.0 1.4 91.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 0.0 County 2012 95.1 1.8 Grade 12 County 2010 95.0 2.6 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 93.2 2.1 1.4 0.1 1.3 3.8 1.7 93.1 0.6 5.8 1.9 1.0 9.2 3.9 66.4 11.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 3.1 1.4 84.4 9.8 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.1 5.9 2.8 County 2008 88.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 88.4 5.8 n/a n/a 71.2 71.1 n/a n/a 68.3 73.8 n/a n/a 78.8 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 9.5 9.0 n/a n/a 8.5 7.1 n/a n/a 7.2 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 7.4 8.6 n/a n/a 9.3 8.4 n/a n/a 6.3 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 4.1 3.7 n/a n/a 2.8 3.2 n/a n/a 1.8 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.6 1.6 n/a n/a 3.9 1.6 n/a n/a 1.4 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 n/a n/a 1.8 1.1 n/a n/a 0.0 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.4 0.6 n/a n/a 0.4 0.5 n/a n/a 1.4 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 4.5 4.3 n/a n/a 5.0 4.3 n/a n/a 3.2 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.8 0.0 97.5 1.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.1 0.8 96.3 0.8 12.8 1.7 1.2 12.0 5.4 57.0 9.1 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.8 10.4 6.2 80.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.4 0.8 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.4 2.9 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 10-11 times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.6 75.5 0.7 78.5 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 3.2 0.6 0.0 4.5 0.3 1.7 County 2012 93.4 1.2 Grade 8 County 2010 90.5 4.4 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 85.4 6.6 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.6 2.9 93.3 1.4 1.9 0.6 0.4 2.1 1.6 95.3 0.5 4.7 1.7 0.9 8.3 2.8 72.8 8.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 8.4 3.8 86.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.1 County 2010 93.2 3.5 72.4 8.4 7.8 2.9 2.4 1.1 0.7 4.3 0.7 4.1 92.1 1.2 1.9 0.4 0.1 1.3 1.5 96.6 0.5 7.7 2.1 1.5 9.1 4.3 67.2 7.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 6.9 3.2 87.6 0.4 0.7 0.1 2.4 0.9 0.4 County 2012 92.9 2.1 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 10.6 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 91.7 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 5.5 Marijuana 18.6 11.2 years 12.7 12.0 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.4 years Average age: 31.1 Average age: 244 242 241 Sample 238 236 236 242 243 243 201 202 202 228 228 228 Sample Alcohol Percent 7.6 Cigarettes 95.1 90.5 97.0 98.0 95.5 83.3 87.3 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 71.1 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.0 years 29.9 12.8 years 30.1 281 279 281 Sample 279 270 279 281 280 281 267 271 269 271 277 274 Sample 13.0 years 52.3 Percent 12.5 11.9 26.9 81.1 83.6 75.1 93.6 95.6 89.6 76.8 88.8 72.3 Percent Grade 10 14.7 years 34.8 13.7 years 45.7 224 223 222 Sample 215 217 216 222 222 222 215 215 215 212 217 216 Sample 14.1 years 55.9 Percent 14.4 21.2 35.2 77.9 74.8 73.4 94.0 88.4 81.9 67.5 89.4 72.7 Percent Grade 12 13.5 years 25.8 12.9 years 31.0 749 744 744 Sample 732 723 731 745 745 746 683 688 686 711 722 718 Sample 13.1 years 46.5 Percent 10.8 13.3 24.1 83.6 84.7 79.6 94.7 94.0 88.9 76.1 88.5 72.0 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.4 years 27.9 12.6 years 31.3 384 383 382 Sample 374 370 374 383 383 383 341 344 341 363 367 365 Sample 12.9 years 44.0 Percent 12.8 15.1 25.1 79.9 83.0 77.0 95.6 93.6 89.7 71.3 87.7 70.7 Percent Male †† 13.8 years 23.5 13.2 years 31.0 349 345 347 Sample 343 338 342 347 347 348 328 330 331 334 340 338 Sample 13.2 years 49.9 Percent 8.7 11.8 23.4 87.3 86.2 81.9 93.6 94.2 88.2 81.1 89.4 73.4 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 73.1 77.7 72.9 57.5 59.0 53.1 47.8 46.3 41.6 56.9 61.1 59.4 Once 9.0 9.6 11.4 6.6 12.1 8.5 12.6 14.9 11.4 15.1 13.7 17.0 10.7 20.1 12.8 20.6 12.9 20.1 11.2 15.8 11.8 14.1 12.8 13.9 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.2 0.9 1.3 3.1 1.1 2.3 7.5 1.4 6.0 7.0 1.5 5.9 7.3 3.2 5.7 10.0 3.3 8.0 9.2 4.6 6.4 11.5 4.7 9.2 7.6 2.4 6.1 6.1 2.2 4.6 6.4 2.6 5.0 76.5 12.4 85.4 8.0 82.8 8.2 70.9 7.8 75.8 9.1 73.3 10.1 63.2 11.0 65.9 12.4 65.7 10.1 69.1 9.9 75.8 9.7 75.7 9.2 5.9 1.3 2.7 1.3 4.6 1.7 8.1 5.2 7.2 1.9 6.8 3.2 7.4 4.0 8.3 4.1 8.9 4.4 7.4 4.0 6.1 2.4 6.3 2.8 0.7 3.3 0.4 2.2 0.8 1.9 2.0 6.1 0.8 5.3 1.8 4.8 3.7 10.7 0.9 8.3 2.2 8.7 2.4 7.3 0.7 5.2 1.4 4.4 77.8 5.2 84.8 6.2 74.3 8.4 71.2 5.2 70.0 9.0 57.4 10.8 69.0 5.1 69.7 6.4 53.8 10.9 71.6 5.1 74.6 7.3 64.3 9.7 5.2 5.2 2.0 3.1 1.8 2.2 6.5 3.5 2.1 9.2 3.7 1.4 7.9 4.5 1.5 11.1 6.7 3.8 8.1 3.7 4.4 8.7 6.4 2.8 11.4 6.8 3.8 8.0 4.0 2.6 6.6 4.2 2.1 9.1 5.3 3.0 4.6 92.2 1.8 95.5 5.2 88.4 9.2 85.6 7.1 86.9 10.4 82.9 9.8 86.1 6.0 89.4 13.3 82.1 8.5 87.1 5.1 90.4 8.7 85.2 3.3 3.3 0.4 2.7 5.3 2.6 6.3 3.5 5.6 2.6 7.3 4.2 4.1 4.1 2.8 3.7 6.6 4.8 4.9 3.6 3.1 3.0 6.2 3.6 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 2.2 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 0.7 0.4 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.8 3.7 1.4 3.2 2.1 1.3 2.4 Never 71.1 54.6 57.4 63.8 57.1 59.0 66.7 57.3 61.4 66.2 56.4 58.9 Once 11.2 7.9 11.9 15.0 15.1 12.5 15.1 8.7 13.5 13.5 13.7 13.2 9.4 11.8 12.4 15.1 12.1 12.7 12.2 9.7 12.7 14.5 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.6 0.0 7.0 1.8 4.8 2.1 5.5 2.3 4.5 3.8 5.1 2.2 4.7 1.3 6.0 2.3 5.4 2.3 5.0 1.5 5.8 2.7 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 5.3 9.7 8.1 4.6 7.5 6.8 6.1 6.9 6.2 5.3 8.0 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 27.2 9.9 20.4 9.8 28.2 12.4 31.6 15.5 25.5 12.8 32.1 15.2 31.8 15.7 32.1 15.6 34.1 15.5 30.8 14.5 25.9 12.7 30.8 14.0 3.3 3.3 2.0 4.0 1.8 4.9 4.6 2.6 5.5 9.4 4.1 6.7 7.7 2.2 11.3 7.1 3.7 8.1 11.5 4.9 11.2 11.3 3.3 9.0 8.9 4.4 9.1 9.0 4.2 7.4 7.6 2.4 8.6 6.4 3.4 7.2 54.3 29.1 59.1 22.3 46.8 31.7 32.7 35.3 40.5 27.5 33.8 34.9 24.8 37.3 28.8 37.2 28.0 37.2 34.0 34.8 42.9 28.7 38.2 34.0 7.9 4.0 6.7 5.8 9.7 4.7 11.5 7.4 13.2 6.2 13.2 7.5 14.1 10.2 9.2 11.1 14.5 8.6 11.7 7.7 9.9 7.5 12.0 6.5 2.6 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.6 4.4 5.3 7.1 4.0 8.1 4.3 6.5 3.9 8.8 5.3 7.2 4.8 7.1 4.3 7.0 4.1 6.1 3.7 5.7 53.0 33.8 59.4 21.0 47.0 34.0 33.5 41.0 41.0 35.2 33.6 43.7 25.7 48.1 30.0 45.9 27.8 50.0 34.5 42.2 43.6 33.9 38.1 40.9 5.3 4.6 0.7 8.9 1.3 4.9 8.8 3.1 2.2 10.6 6.8 3.5 8.8 5.5 1.5 10.2 4.0 2.5 10.6 6.0 1.8 9.6 4.8 5.3 10.1 4.3 2.3 9.6 6.1 2.3 9.1 4.0 3.7 9.5 3.7 2.3 1.3 54.3 4.9 58.9 4.5 47.5 5.0 33.0 7.3 41.8 5.1 34.6 7.1 26.5 4.3 30.1 4.8 28.6 5.0 34.8 5.7 43.8 4.8 38.9 35.8 4.6 25.2 8.4 36.8 7.1 44.2 8.3 39.6 8.1 47.6 8.0 51.4 10.2 46.9 10.5 53.8 7.6 45.2 8.3 37.1 8.9 44.3 7.5 2.6 2.0 2.7 1.8 2.7 1.8 4.7 3.2 2.6 1.8 3.3 2.3 3.5 3.2 4.8 2.4 3.7 2.1 3.9 3.0 3.2 2.0 3.1 2.0 0.7 54.3 2.2 59.7 3.7 47.9 4.7 34.8 5.9 42.1 4.1 34.8 4.6 27.1 3.3 32.1 3.9 29.0 3.9 35.8 4.0 44.8 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 90.1 85.4 81.1 84.6 86.9 78.5 82.8 87.7 80.0 85.9 86.4 9.0 4.5 7.2 6.5 7.1 5.9 6.8 7.2 5.3 7.1 6.3 6.3 3 to 5 times 4.8 2.9 3.2 4.8 3.2 2.8 4.2 3.2 2.7 4.6 3.1 2.9 6 to 9 times 0.6 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.1 1.3 2.6 2.3 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.4 10 to 19 times 2.4 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.4 0.8 3.6 1.8 0.8 2.5 0.7 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.4 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 40+ times 2.4 0.8 1.3 2.8 1.8 1.5 3.3 2.3 1.5 2.9 1.6 1.4 Never 34.1 42.6 39.2 29.1 47.3 43.7 41.2 62.6 55.3 34.6 50.3 44.4 1 or 2 times 23.4 28.1 27.7 29.4 22.1 24.2 27.9 17.8 21.5 27.6 22.8 25.2 3 to 5 times 16.8 15.3 16.3 20.6 14.6 17.1 17.5 10.5 12.8 18.7 13.6 15.6 6 to 9 times 10.2 6.2 7.7 9.3 6.4 7.2 6.2 3.7 5.1 8.3 5.5 6.9 10 to 19 times 7.8 3.3 3.8 4.8 4.3 3.5 4.9 2.7 2.5 5.4 3.5 3.4 20 to 29 times 2.4 2.5 1.7 2.5 1.8 1.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.5 30 to 39 times 2.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 40+ times 3.0 1.7 3.0 3.7 2.8 2.3 1.6 1.4 1.5 2.8 2.0 2.4 82.5 90.9 87.6 87.0 90.0 90.2 88.9 94.1 91.9 86.8 91.5 89.4 1 or 2 times 6.6 5.0 7.1 7.4 4.6 5.5 7.8 2.7 4.6 7.4 4.2 6.0 3 to 5 times 3.0 1.7 2.3 2.8 2.1 1.9 1.0 0.9 1.6 2.2 1.6 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.4 2.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.2 1.9 0.9 10 to 19 times 2.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.5 20 to 29 times 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 40+ times 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.1 0.6 88.6 93.8 90.4 92.3 92.8 92.1 93.5 95.5 93.5 92.0 93.9 91.7 1 or 2 times 6.0 4.1 6.0 4.8 4.3 4.8 4.9 2.7 3.8 5.1 3.8 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.2 0.8 1.5 1.1 0.7 1.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 1.3 6 to 9 times 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 10 to 19 times 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? All Students Surveyed* 80.2 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 87.7 88.8 87.6 83.2 90.0 83.7 79.9 86.2 80.3 82.9 88.5 84.6 6.5 2.2 3.0 10.4 4.7 7.8 12.5 4.6 10.8 10.4 3.8 6.4 3.2 1.7 1.0 5.2 2.2 2.2 6.2 2.8 2.8 5.2 2.2 1.8 3.2 2.2 1.3 5.5 2.5 2.6 5.6 3.2 3.4 5.1 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.2 1.8 5.2 3.9 4.1 4.5 1.4 4.2 4.4 2.6 3.1 0.0 0.4 0.8 3.2 0.7 1.9 1.4 3.2 3.3 1.9 1.4 1.8 2.6 0.9 0.8 2.0 2.2 2.0 3.1 0.5 2.2 2.5 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.3 1.1 2.0 2.2 1.7 3.8 2.3 2.1 2.7 1.9 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Greenlee County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Greenlee County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 79 48.8 79 31.0 119 39.4 28,932 46.1 10 57 35.2 99 38.8 115 38.1 18,766 29.9 12 26 16.0 77 30.2 68 22.5 15,119 24.1 162 100.0 255 100.0 302 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 69 43.7 125 49.4 154 51.9 30,383 49.5 Female 89 56.3 128 50.6 143 48.1 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 4 3.4 11 7.2 8 4.5 1,121 4.9 African American 4 3.4 3 2.0 3 1.7 658 2.9 Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 225 1.0 White 46 39.7 73 47.7 84 47.2 6,774 29.7 Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 9 7.8 7 4.6 16 9.0 1,099 4.8 53 45.7 59 38.6 66 37.1 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 4 9.3 4 4.0 4 3.8 1,909 5.2 2 4.7 7 7.1 6 5.8 1,979 5.4 1 2.3 0 0.0 1 1.0 1,641 4.5 1 2.3 1 1.0 1 1.0 324 0.9 29 67.4 80 80.8 84 80.8 26,247 72.1 5 11.6 6 6.1 4 3.8 2,561 7.0 1 2.3 1 1.0 4 3.8 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 116 71.6 153 60.0 178 58.9 22,831 43 26.5 99 38.8 104 34.4 36,420 36.3 58.0 162 100.0 255 100.0 302 100.0 62,817 100.0 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 30 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 21 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 22 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 27 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 27 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 11 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 34 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 25 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 13 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 91 Students** Someone under 21 years County 2010 Sample: 73 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 46 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home Got at a party 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 18 Students Sample size (Rx): 9 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 8 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 14 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 20 Students Sample size (Rx): 14 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 16 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 23 Students Sample size (Rx): 15 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 61 Students Sample size (Rx): 38 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 38 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Home 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Greenlee County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Greenlee County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 20.5 21.5 1.3 n/a 0.0 17.7 12.7 25.3 19.0 used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 17.9 26.9 12.8 5.1 19.2 5.1 n/a 6.4 2.6 2.6 17.9 6.4 0.0 14.4 11.7 15.2 8.2 3.6 12.5 0.9 1.8 1.8 2.7 0.0 22.1 0.9 3.5 24.3 22.8 43.9 55.2 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 17.3 21.2 7.7 3.8 17.3 1.9 n/a 1.9 1.9 1.9 17.0 1.9 1.9 24.5 31.5 42.0 81.1 n/a 19.6 26.8 9.3 5.2 22.7 2.0 n/a 3.1 0.0 0.0 18.4 5.1 5.1 35.7 40.4 49.5 76.8 15.2 16.4 18.0 6.3 3.6 18.2 1.8 2.7 2.7 0.9 1.8 14.2 2.7 1.8 31.9 25.7 46.9 69.0 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 28.0 44.0 8.0 12.0 40.0 8.0 n/a 8.0 4.0 16.0 28.0 20.0 16.0 68.0 57.7 76.0 88.0 n/a 9.6 27.4 8.2 5.5 26.0 1.4 n/a 4.1 0.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 5.5 46.6 38.4 56.2 78.1 29.4 22.1 29.4 13.2 8.8 25.0 4.4 1.5 4.4 0.0 1.5 14.7 5.9 5.9 57.4 37.3 65.7 86.8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 26.9 16.5 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 50.6 26.9 smoked cigarettes? 62.8 Cigarettes 67.1 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 19.9 26.9 10.3 3.2 21.2 1.9 n/a 2.5 1.3 3.2 21.0 3.8 3.2 29.9 28.3 39.9 75.2 n/a 16.1 27.0 10.1 5.2 22.6 2.8 n/a 4.4 0.8 3.2 15.3 6.4 3.6 34.1 35.6 51.8 72.8 18.2 15.9 19.6 8.7 4.8 17.6 2.1 2.1 2.8 1.4 1.0 17.3 2.7 3.4 34.8 27.2 50.0 67.7 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 5.1 0.0 7.6 0.0 n/a 0.0 12.7 15.2 11.4 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 12.8 14.1 6.4 1.3 10.3 1.3 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 1.3 0.0 6.4 12.8 21.8 32.1 7.7 7.3 8.9 5.5 1.8 5.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 1.7 13.0 10.6 20.4 28.4 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 3.8 13.5 3.8 0.0 11.5 0.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.9 0.0 7.5 9.3 10.0 37.7 n/a 9.3 10.3 4.1 2.1 6.2 2.1 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.1 1.0 12.4 20.2 20.6 33.7 10.0 10.3 6.3 2.7 0.0 6.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 13.4 10.7 25.7 30.0 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 20.0 20.0 4.0 8.0 16.0 4.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 8.0 8.0 36.0 23.1 40.0 56.0 n/a 5.5 15.1 4.1 1.4 13.7 1.4 n/a 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.0 27.4 24.7 32.9 42.5 17.9 7.4 8.8 2.9 1.5 8.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.5 0.0 20.9 22.4 28.4 51.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 7.7 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 43.0 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 10.3 15.4 3.2 1.3 12.8 0.6 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 1.9 1.3 13.4 9.4 13.7 43.3 n/a 9.3 12.9 4.8 1.6 9.7 1.6 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.6 2.8 0.4 14.9 19.2 24.6 35.7 11.0 8.4 7.9 3.8 1.0 6.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 5.8 0.7 0.7 15.0 13.4 24.2 34.4 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 40.3 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 22.1 15.4 Grade 8 42.6 6.1 Grade 8 14.0 17.7 16.5 10.1 11.4 27.8 8.9 3.8 Been Arrested Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School 0.9 19.5 15.3 6.9 4.3 5.1 23.7 20.3 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 38.9 11.3 Grade 10 36.6 7.1 22.2 21.4 Grade 10 17.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 46.4 10.5 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 0.0 5.3 10.5 10.5 0.0 3.5 15.8 19.6 2.0 10.1 19.4 8.2 5.1 6.2 19.2 14.1 0.0 6.1 13.3 6.4 3.5 7.1 20.2 10.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 34.2 16.7 Grade 12 53.7 22.4 37.5 25.0 Grade 12 28.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 69.2 46.2 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 3.8 11.5 11.5 19.2 7.7 11.5 23.1 53.8 5.3 11.7 22.1 10.5 6.5 9.2 14.3 29.9 5.9 17.6 16.2 11.8 7.4 11.9 16.2 27.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 42.9 10.2 24.5 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 2.5 8.0 19.1 12.3 3.7 5.6 17.9 21.7 24.7 6.7 18.8 15.7 3.2 10.6 19.3 11.9 6.7 7.5 16.5 20.0 1.7 14.0 14.7 7.8 4.7 7.4 20.7 18.3 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 20.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 35.2 12.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 47.2 13.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 2.5 8.9 5.1 7.6 5.1 15.2 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 17.7 Been Suspended from School 17.7 Sold Illegal Drugs 12.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 31.6 11.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.1 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 43.0 44.3 22.8 32.9 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 36.2 10.3 7.7 35.1 5.2 27.2 28.2 49.6 50.4 32.8 2.5 73.7 35.9 26.9 5.1 25.6 10.3 43.6 43.6 35.9 2.6 73.1 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 1.8 24.6 21.1 5.4 22.8 22.8 38.6 38.6 19.3 1.8 71.9 15.3 33.3 19.2 5.1 16.3 27.3 37.4 32.3 33.3 5.1 62.6 5.3 27.2 25.4 3.5 15.9 23.7 28.1 33.3 33.6 5.3 61.4 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 7.7 42.3 30.8 11.5 38.5 30.8 57.7 46.2 23.1 0.0 76.9 9.6 24.7 20.5 2.7 13.7 15.1 37.0 25.4 21.9 4.1 60.3 13.2 27.9 22.4 7.5 17.6 32.4 45.6 42.6 51.5 8.8 73.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 3.7 32.1 28.4 5.6 30.2 24.1 44.4 42.0 23.5 1.9 73.5 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 3.8 34.2 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 32.9 Played a dice game? 3.8 26.6 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 73.4 2.5 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 11.2 31.6 22.0 4.4 18.5 18.4 39.2 33.9 30.8 4.0 65.2 County 2010 9.0 30.9 28.5 5.1 20.7 27.4 40.5 42.1 37.4 5.0 69.0 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 36.4 43.4 46.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 61.8 57.1 62.3 24.7 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 53.2 Low Commitment to School 34.6 58.2 31.6 50.0 60.3 52.6 42.3 27.3 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 54.4 33.8 58.2 58.4 58.4 51.3 41.8 49.4 54.5 41.0 51.3 36.4 52.6 32.9 50.6 53.9 59.2 48.0 44.7 50.0 41.6 34.7 County 2010 40.3 16.9 56.3 57.8 69.6 52.0 34.5 42.9 45.4 50.8 48.2 43.5 53.1 26.3 53.3 51.4 67.1 42.5 47.8 47.3 43.4 34.1 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 21.1 14.0 26.3 26.3 37.5 38.3 28.1 45.6 33.3 35.1 49.1 40.4 51.8 37.5 56.2 53.3 33.3 44.4 43.2 50.0 46.3 51.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 42.4 17.0 38.4 42.4 54.1 45.8 35.4 42.4 39.4 53.5 62.6 46.9 49.5 36.7 44.9 48.5 36.8 38.9 29.2 46.4 49.5 57.7 County 2010 33.3 18.4 47.7 44.6 51.8 46.4 34.2 34.2 36.3 45.9 45.5 39.8 51.4 38.7 55.4 58.5 45.7 33.3 37.6 43.6 49.0 42.7 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 57.7 24.0 50.0 61.5 61.5 45.8 46.2 73.1 69.2 69.2 61.5 50.0 37.5 50.0 66.7 52.4 30.4 47.8 48.0 56.0 56.0 52.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 40.3 20.8 48.6 34.2 60.0 50.7 29.9 40.3 35.1 43.2 45.2 34.2 38.4 41.6 49.4 55.6 34.7 40.3 42.5 47.9 50.0 51.4 County 2010 45.6 14.1 55.9 41.2 65.7 66.7 38.2 48.5 44.1 58.2 56.1 47.8 51.5 52.5 49.2 61.3 63.8 41.4 38.5 40.0 40.6 52.4 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 43.2 22.8 37.9 44.7 52.5 45.6 32.7 56.2 39.8 45.7 52.8 48.1 46.1 32.3 61.7 55.5 50.0 57.1 45.5 47.6 42.7 50.3 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 54.4 45.6 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 52.6 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 44.6 Academic Failure School Domain 64.5 Poor Family Management Family Domain 49.4 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 45.5 23.5 47.6 44.8 57.2 49.0 35.7 43.9 42.8 46.6 54.0 39.8 47.1 37.0 48.0 52.2 43.2 42.1 38.0 48.0 47.2 48.8 County 2010 38.9 16.7 53.0 49.0 61.9 53.2 35.2 40.9 41.7 50.7 49.0 43.1 52.1 38.3 53.1 57.0 57.4 38.4 41.4 44.0 44.9 42.3 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 49.3 50.0 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 56.4 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 30.4 65.4 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 60.8 57.0 50.6 51.9 52.6 71.8 88.6 59.7 50.0 41.9 39.2 County 2010 39.5 55.5 44.1 50.0 47.4 38.1 67.2 55.2 56.5 39.4 40.2 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 49.1 71.9 42.1 59.6 64.8 57.9 61.4 52.0 58.3 38.5 41.5 BH Norm County 2012 2008 54.5 60.6 50.5 57.1 60.6 48.5 66.7 45.3 49.5 41.1 41.2 County 2010 60.5 58.4 59.6 50.9 79.6 62.5 70.8 51.7 61.8 48.9 51.0 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 38.5 34.6 26.9 61.5 16.0 34.6 73.1 56.5 60.9 69.6 37.5 BH Norm County 2012 2008 61.0 45.9 45.5 57.9 50.7 52.6 76.3 45.8 47.2 52.1 58.3 County 2010 60.3 54.4 50.0 41.2 31.3 48.5 79.4 57.1 60.3 52.6 55.6 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 48.8 62.7 34.0 52.2 48.7 53.4 69.6 51.6 53.3 46.8 34.5 BH Norm County 2012 2008 58.4 55.2 49.0 55.8 55.2 56.9 76.4 49.8 49.0 44.6 45.7 County 2010 52.2 56.3 51.3 48.3 56.1 49.7 71.3 54.2 59.7 46.8 48.5 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 51.9 43.6 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 48.1 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 74.4 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 42.7 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29.9 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 38.1 47.6 31.8 36.4 27.3 13.6 40.9 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 43.3 20.0 20.0 20.0 23.3 16.7 16.7 10.0 20.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 30 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 27.3 9.1 36.4 36.4 0.0 18.2 36.4 18.2 63.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 County 2008 33.3 3.7 25.9 33.3 22.2 14.8 11.1 14.8 29.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 27 County 2010 18.5 3.7 7.4 63.0 14.8 25.9 25.9 11.1 44.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 38.5 23.1 30.8 69.2 38.5 53.8 38.5 38.5 61.5 7.7 7.7 7.7 13 County 2008 20.0 0.0 4.0 32.0 4.0 16.0 12.0 8.0 40.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 25 County 2010 17.6 8.8 17.6 35.3 14.7 35.3 8.8 8.8 38.2 5.9 11.8 11.8 34 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 37.0 15.2 30.4 45.7 26.1 28.3 32.6 19.6 45.7 2.2 2.2 2.2 46 County 2008 26.0 2.7 24.7 34.2 16.4 16.4 11.0 13.7 30.1 2.7 2.7 4.1 73 County 2010 26.4 11.0 15.4 38.5 17.6 26.4 16.5 9.9 34.1 2.2 5.5 4.4 91 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 23.8 4.8 23.8 19.0 18.2 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me 9.5 27.3 19.0 Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me My parent or guardian gave it to me 0.0 9.1 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 0.0 21 County 2010 Grade 8 27.3 0.0 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 22 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 18 3,000 20 3,911 23 3,747 61 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 5.6 8.5 10.0 10.9 17.4 14.9 11.5 11.6 Friends 88.9 72.7 90.0 80.8 65.2 80.9 80.3 78.6 Family/Relatives 27.8 17.4 10.0 14.7 30.4 12.7 23.0 14.8 Parties 27.8 25.9 15.0 28.9 26.1 30.4 23.0 28.6 Home 0.0 6.1 0.0 6.3 8.7 6.0 3.3 6.1 School 11.1 15.8 5.0 14.9 8.7 10.1 8.2 13.4 Other 16.7 28.8 15.0 22.3 26.1 21.0 19.7 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 2,321 16 15 2,478 38 38 6,436 8 9 1,637 14 14 Friends 37.5 55.6 48.7 64.3 57.1 59.8 56.2 46.7 62.8 55.3 52.6 58.2 Family/Relatives 25.0 11.1 16.8 50.0 7.1 16.6 25.0 13.3 16.3 34.2 10.5 16.5 Parties 12.5 22.2 21.4 57.1 14.3 19.6 18.8 20.0 19.5 31.6 18.4 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 25.0 66.7 28.2 50.0 21.4 31.3 31.2 20.0 24.7 36.8 31.6 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 37.5 11.1 13.5 0.0 21.4 14.3 37.5 26.7 19.5 23.7 21.1 16.1 School 0.0 11.1 12.9 28.6 7.1 15.6 12.5 6.7 12.7 15.8 7.9 13.8 Other 0.0 0.0 17.8 0.0 7.1 13.2 18.8 26.7 12.3 7.9 13.2 14.0 Over the Internet 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 6.2 6.7 0.9 2.6 2.6 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 4.2 6.2 0.0 3.6 2.6 0.0 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 15.2 6.3 2.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 44.3 11.4 12.7 8.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 20.3 93.7 5.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 96.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 17.7 7.6 1.3 0.0 3.8 0.0 1.3 57.0 19.0 13.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 5.1 89.9 5.1 3.8 1.3 0.0 94.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.0 0.0 98.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 96.5 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 71.9 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 7.0 0.0 89.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.1 88.9 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 7.1 1.0 88.9 0.0 8.1 2.0 0.0 12.1 6.1 61.6 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 12.1 2.0 84.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 95.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 3.8 1.9 93.4 0.0 10.6 0.9 3.5 14.2 6.2 53.1 11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 13.4 5.4 79.5 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County 2012 91.1 7.1 Grade 10 County 2010 91.8 6.1 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.0 7.7 84.6 3.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 76.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 7.7 3.8 84.6 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 County 2008 84.6 7.7 0.0 5.5 91.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 97.3 1.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 84.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 1.4 91.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 2.9 0.0 89.7 0.0 11.8 2.9 0.0 11.8 1.5 66.2 5.9 0.0 2.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.5 85.3 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County 2012 85.3 2.9 Grade 12 County 2010 98.6 1.4 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 94.4 3.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 3.1 3.7 92.6 0.6 5.0 0.0 1.2 12.4 3.1 65.2 12.4 1.2 1.2 1.9 0.0 4.3 0.6 78.4 12.3 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.6 County 2008 90.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 93.0 5.3 n/a n/a 67.8 71.1 n/a n/a 67.3 73.8 n/a n/a 66.2 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 9.6 9.0 n/a n/a 8.0 7.1 n/a n/a 4.4 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 7.0 8.6 n/a n/a 8.8 8.4 n/a n/a 8.8 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 1.7 3.7 n/a n/a 4.4 3.2 n/a n/a 1.5 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.6 1.6 n/a n/a 6.2 1.6 n/a n/a 2.9 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 2.6 1.2 n/a n/a 0.0 1.1 n/a n/a 2.9 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.9 0.6 n/a n/a 1.8 0.5 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 7.8 4.3 n/a n/a 3.5 4.3 n/a n/a 13.2 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.0 2.6 93.0 1.8 2.6 0.0 0.9 5.2 0.0 94.0 0.0 20.5 4.3 3.4 12.8 3.4 50.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.0 6.9 86.2 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.9 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.0 1.9 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 1.3 70.9 0.0 68.4 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 County 2012 92.2 3.5 Grade 8 County 2010 92.4 1.3 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 89.9 8.9 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 5.6 92.0 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.8 4.4 1.6 92.8 0.4 11.2 1.6 0.0 10.4 5.2 62.9 8.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 11.6 3.2 82.5 0.4 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 County 2010 94.0 3.2 67.2 7.8 8.1 2.7 4.1 1.7 1.0 7.4 0.0 4.5 93.5 0.7 1.4 0.0 2.4 4.1 0.7 92.8 0.0 14.8 2.7 2.7 13.1 4.0 55.0 7.7 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.3 8.8 5.1 83.4 3.4 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 County 2012 90.2 4.7 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 28.4 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 79.7 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 13.0 Marijuana 41.0 11.4 years 23.5 12.5 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.1 years Average age: 62.2 Average age: 119 117 119 Sample 115 113 116 118 119 118 73 76 76 98 104 102 Sample Alcohol Percent 20.4 Cigarettes 75.6 73.7 94.5 92.1 86.8 84.7 84.6 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 49.0 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.6 years 34.8 12.5 years 51.3 112 113 113 Sample 112 113 110 114 114 114 92 93 92 110 110 109 Sample 12.5 years 69.9 Percent 13.4 25.7 30.0 76.3 77.2 70.2 92.4 89.2 82.6 72.7 88.2 60.6 Percent Grade 10 13.8 years 60.3 13.6 years 66.2 68 68 68 Sample 67 67 68 68 68 68 61 61 61 66 67 66 Sample 13.6 years 91.2 Percent 20.9 28.4 51.5 61.8 58.8 52.9 80.3 72.1 73.8 45.5 79.1 54.5 Percent Grade 12 13.4 years 36.1 12.5 years 50.7 299 298 300 Sample 294 293 294 300 301 300 226 230 229 274 281 277 Sample 12.3 years 71.7 Percent 15.0 24.2 34.4 74.3 72.4 67.7 89.8 85.7 81.7 70.4 84.7 54.9 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.0 years 32.0 12.4 years 45.0 153 151 153 Sample 148 147 148 153 153 152 113 116 115 138 139 139 Sample 12.1 years 64.1 Percent 14.9 22.4 29.7 78.4 77.8 75.7 90.3 86.2 85.2 67.4 84.9 51.8 Percent Male †† 13.7 years 39.4 12.6 years 55.9 142 143 143 Sample 142 142 141 142 143 143 110 111 111 131 137 134 Sample 12.5 years 79.0 Percent 14.8 26.1 39.0 71.1 68.5 60.1 89.1 85.6 78.4 75.6 83.9 58.2 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 57.7 52.2 72.9 46.5 59.6 53.1 45.2 26.9 41.6 49.6 49.1 59.4 Once 10.3 19.2 19.5 15.9 12.1 8.5 12.1 22.2 9.2 20.2 13.7 17.0 11.0 26.0 7.5 34.3 12.9 20.1 11.2 22.4 12.8 21.8 12.8 13.9 6.4 1.3 5.1 4.4 2.7 5.3 3.1 1.1 2.3 7.1 2.0 10.1 6.4 4.6 0.0 7.3 3.2 5.7 9.6 5.5 2.7 7.5 6.0 17.9 11.5 4.7 9.2 7.6 2.8 6.4 5.9 4.2 6.2 6.4 2.6 5.0 70.5 11.5 65.5 10.6 82.8 8.2 60.6 11.1 61.8 14.5 73.3 10.1 56.2 6.8 47.0 15.2 65.7 10.1 62.4 10.0 59.9 13.1 75.7 9.2 9.0 3.8 12.4 2.7 4.6 1.7 11.1 5.1 7.3 8.2 6.8 3.2 8.2 9.6 9.1 6.1 8.9 4.4 9.6 6.0 9.7 5.5 6.3 2.8 1.3 3.8 3.5 5.3 0.8 1.9 0.0 12.1 0.9 7.3 1.8 4.8 5.5 13.7 3.0 19.7 2.2 8.7 2.0 10.0 2.4 9.3 1.4 4.4 76.9 11.5 69.6 8.9 74.3 8.4 69.7 9.1 67.0 14.7 57.4 10.8 67.1 4.1 47.8 17.9 53.8 10.9 71.2 8.4 63.5 13.2 64.3 9.7 2.6 3.8 2.6 8.0 5.4 3.6 6.5 3.5 2.1 8.1 5.1 3.0 6.4 5.5 3.7 11.1 6.7 3.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 14.9 1.5 6.0 11.4 6.8 3.8 6.0 5.2 4.0 9.0 4.5 4.2 9.1 5.3 3.0 2.6 83.3 4.5 88.3 5.2 88.4 5.1 88.9 2.8 90.7 10.4 82.9 8.2 84.9 11.9 80.3 13.3 82.1 5.2 86.0 5.6 87.4 8.7 85.2 9.0 3.8 5.4 3.6 5.3 2.6 4.0 4.0 5.6 3.7 7.3 4.2 2.7 4.1 6.1 3.0 6.6 4.8 5.2 4.0 5.6 3.5 6.2 3.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 1.4 4.1 3.0 1.5 2.2 1.1 0.8 2.0 0.7 0.4 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 2.6 2.7 1.7 1.0 0.0 2.8 2.7 6.1 3.2 2.0 2.5 2.4 Never 57.7 55.9 57.4 58.2 57.9 59.0 65.8 64.6 61.4 60.2 58.7 58.9 Once 17.9 14.1 16.2 9.9 15.1 12.5 18.4 9.2 16.8 12.1 13.7 13.2 6.8 16.4 10.8 9.2 12.1 12.7 14.9 12.9 15.2 10.6 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 2.6 2.6 4.5 3.6 4.8 2.1 5.1 3.1 4.7 0.9 5.1 2.2 5.5 1.4 4.6 0.0 5.4 2.3 4.4 2.4 4.6 1.8 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 5.1 9.9 8.1 6.1 7.5 6.8 4.1 10.8 6.2 5.2 9.2 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 24.1 19.0 26.5 22.5 28.2 12.4 34.0 24.7 33.0 11.3 32.1 15.2 34.2 11.0 48.5 22.7 34.1 15.5 30.9 18.9 34.3 18.2 30.8 14.0 8.9 5.1 6.3 7.8 1.0 11.8 4.6 2.6 5.5 8.2 6.2 8.2 10.4 4.7 8.5 7.1 3.7 8.1 9.6 2.7 11.0 7.6 4.5 3.0 8.9 4.4 9.1 8.8 4.8 8.4 8.8 3.3 8.4 6.4 3.4 7.2 36.7 38.5 30.4 35.6 46.8 31.7 18.6 44.8 32.1 35.5 33.8 34.9 31.5 35.6 13.6 50.0 28.0 37.2 28.1 40.1 27.0 39.1 38.2 34.0 9.0 9.0 16.8 8.9 9.7 4.7 12.5 11.5 15.9 6.5 13.2 7.5 11.0 9.6 21.2 7.6 14.5 8.6 10.9 10.1 17.5 7.7 12.0 6.5 5.1 3.8 3.0 5.9 2.6 4.4 5.2 7.3 4.7 6.5 4.3 6.5 6.8 5.5 3.0 3.0 4.8 7.1 5.7 5.7 3.6 5.5 3.7 5.7 34.6 35.9 29.7 42.2 47.0 34.0 18.8 44.8 30.8 44.3 33.6 43.7 31.5 47.9 15.2 65.2 27.8 50.0 27.5 42.9 26.6 48.5 38.1 40.9 9.0 7.7 3.8 13.7 4.9 1.0 8.8 3.1 2.2 21.9 4.2 2.1 11.3 6.6 1.9 10.2 4.0 2.5 11.0 2.7 4.1 9.1 4.5 3.0 10.1 4.3 2.3 14.6 4.9 3.2 11.7 5.5 1.8 9.5 3.7 2.3 6.4 37.2 8.8 29.4 4.5 47.5 5.2 21.9 4.7 31.1 5.1 34.6 2.7 31.5 4.5 13.6 4.8 28.6 4.9 29.6 6.2 26.3 4.8 38.9 38.5 11.5 44.1 16.7 36.8 7.1 53.1 10.4 47.2 10.4 47.6 8.0 53.4 8.2 66.7 10.6 53.8 7.6 48.6 10.1 50.7 12.8 44.3 7.5 3.8 2.6 2.9 1.0 2.7 1.8 8.3 3.1 5.7 1.9 3.3 2.3 0.0 2.7 3.0 0.0 3.7 2.1 4.5 2.8 4.0 1.1 3.1 2.0 5.1 38.5 5.9 29.4 3.7 47.9 2.1 22.9 2.8 32.1 4.1 34.8 4.1 31.5 4.5 15.2 3.9 29.0 3.6 30.4 4.4 27.0 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? All Students Surveyed* County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 77.2 76.7 85.4 73.7 82.3 86.9 72.7 80.9 87.7 74.5 79.8 86.4 1 or 2 times 10.1 7.8 7.2 10.1 6.2 5.9 7.8 7.4 5.3 9.4 7.1 6.3 3 to 5 times 6.3 6.9 3.2 5.1 2.7 2.8 7.8 0.0 2.7 6.3 3.7 2.9 6 to 9 times 3.8 3.4 1.5 3.0 2.7 1.3 3.9 1.5 1.3 3.5 2.7 1.4 10 to 19 times 2.5 1.7 0.9 3.0 1.8 0.8 5.2 0.0 0.8 3.5 1.3 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 40+ times 0.0 2.6 1.3 4.0 4.4 1.5 2.6 7.4 1.5 2.4 4.4 1.4 Never 15.2 22.0 39.2 23.2 27.4 43.7 26.0 43.3 55.3 21.6 28.9 44.4 1 or 2 times 19.0 30.5 27.7 26.3 27.4 24.2 33.8 20.9 21.5 26.3 27.2 25.2 3 to 5 times 35.4 24.6 16.3 27.3 20.4 17.1 20.8 11.9 12.8 27.8 20.1 15.6 6 to 9 times 16.5 8.5 7.7 9.1 11.5 7.2 5.2 7.5 5.1 10.2 9.4 6.9 10 to 19 times 8.9 8.5 3.8 5.1 4.4 3.5 10.4 7.5 2.5 7.8 6.7 3.4 20 to 29 times 1.3 2.5 1.7 3.0 3.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.1 2.0 2.7 1.5 30 to 39 times 1.3 0.0 0.6 2.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.5 40+ times 2.5 3.4 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.3 2.6 7.5 1.5 3.1 4.4 2.4 86.1 82.1 87.6 78.6 89.4 90.2 84.4 82.4 91.9 82.7 84.9 89.4 1 or 2 times 8.9 6.0 7.1 12.2 8.0 5.5 7.8 13.2 4.6 9.8 8.4 6.0 3 to 5 times 2.5 6.0 2.3 5.1 1.8 1.9 1.3 0.0 1.6 3.1 3.0 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.3 1.7 1.1 3.1 0.0 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.7 2.0 0.7 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.3 2.6 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.5 5.2 0.0 0.4 2.0 1.3 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 40+ times 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.6 88.6 87.9 90.4 90.9 91.2 92.1 87.0 86.8 93.5 89.0 88.9 91.7 1 or 2 times 6.3 10.3 6.0 7.1 6.1 4.8 3.9 7.4 3.8 5.9 8.1 5.1 3 to 5 times 2.5 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.0 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 10 to 19 times 1.3 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.4 5.2 0.0 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 40+ times 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 4.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2010 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 87.3 84.0 87.6 81.4 84.7 83.7 79.5 76.1 80.3 82.7 82.4 84.6 3.8 4.7 3.0 9.3 7.2 7.8 12.3 10.4 10.8 8.4 7.0 6.4 2.5 0.9 1.0 7.2 0.9 2.2 5.5 3.0 2.8 5.2 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.9 1.3 8.2 1.8 2.6 4.1 4.5 3.4 4.8 2.5 2.2 2.5 5.7 1.8 7.2 2.7 4.1 6.8 4.5 4.2 5.6 4.2 3.1 3.8 0.9 0.8 0.0 2.7 1.9 8.2 6.0 3.3 3.6 2.8 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.8 4.1 0.9 2.0 2.7 1.5 2.2 2.4 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 1.7 4.1 6.0 2.1 1.2 1.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.4 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey La Paz County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey La Paz County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 118 33.8 126 34.4 153 40.8 28,932 46.1 10 124 35.5 146 39.9 126 33.6 18,766 29.9 12 107 30.7 94 25.7 96 25.6 15,119 24.1 349 100.0 366 100.0 375 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 189 55.4 195 54.2 187 50.5 30,383 49.5 Female 152 44.6 165 45.8 183 49.5 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 20 12.7 23 13.7 26 13.7 1,121 4.9 African American 1 0.6 2 1.2 2 1.1 658 2.9 Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 2 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 225 1.0 26 16.6 22 13.1 51 26.8 6,774 29.7 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 6 3.8 11 6.5 13 6.8 1,099 4.8 102 65.0 110 65.5 97 51.1 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 45 26.3 44 23.7 47 27.5 1,909 5.2 6 3.5 5 2.7 3 1.8 1,979 5.4 1 0.6 1 0.5 1 0.6 1,641 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 324 0.9 99 57.9 115 61.8 98 57.3 26,247 72.1 20 11.7 21 11.3 17 9.9 2,561 7.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 2.3 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 157 45.0 168 45.9 190 50.7 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 171 49.0 186 50.8 171 45.6 36,420 58.0 349 100.0 366 100.0 375 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 30 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 19 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 17 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 19 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 41 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 42 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 22 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 36 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 34 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 71 Students** Someone under 21 years County 2010 Sample: 96 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 93 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home Got at a party 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 11 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 23 Students Sample size (Rx): 7 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 27 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 26 Students Sample size (Rx): 12 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 16 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 19 Students Sample size (Rx): 12 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 68 Students Sample size (Rx): 31 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 54 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Home 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 La Paz County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 La Paz County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 La Paz County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 La Paz County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 0.0 n/a 1.7 16.5 21.7 10.3 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 9.7 17.7 8.1 4.8 11.3 0.8 n/a 1.6 0.8 0.8 12.1 0.0 0.8 26.0 3.2 27.2 51.6 2.7 11.3 16.0 8.0 4.0 12.7 0.7 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.7 11.3 0.0 0.0 21.3 4.1 30.4 38.7 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 14.9 28.7 10.7 4.9 23.0 1.7 n/a 4.1 0.8 3.3 8.2 2.5 2.5 28.7 18.7 38.0 65.6 n/a 14.0 28.7 12.6 7.0 22.4 1.4 n/a 5.6 1.4 2.8 17.5 5.6 7.0 32.2 13.9 43.7 68.5 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 17.2 33.3 12.1 12.1 27.3 1.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 3.0 7.1 7.1 5.1 48.5 19.8 57.0 71.7 n/a 17.0 24.5 7.4 5.3 22.3 2.1 n/a 10.6 1.1 3.2 10.6 5.3 3.2 38.3 21.3 52.1 75.5 8.7 12.1 17.4 7.6 4.3 15.2 2.2 1.1 5.4 1.1 1.1 9.8 3.3 4.4 44.6 16.3 40.2 67.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 9.2 12.1 13.6 4.3 3.4 12.8 0.0 2.6 5.1 1.7 1.7 10.3 3.4 2.5 35.0 7.8 39.0 57.5 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 8.7 1.7 0.0 1.7 16.2 2.6 2.6 21.7 8.6 34.8 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 47.9 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 14.0 27.7 10.4 6.0 22.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 0.3 2.7 10.7 3.8 3.3 32.1 15.6 42.6 61.2 n/a 13.3 23.8 9.7 5.8 18.6 1.4 n/a 5.5 1.1 2.2 13.9 3.6 3.9 31.7 12.2 40.2 64.5 6.4 11.8 15.6 6.7 3.9 13.4 0.8 1.4 4.2 0.8 1.1 10.6 1.9 1.9 31.8 8.4 35.8 52.2 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 2.6 1.7 6.0 0.0 n/a 0.0 7.9 1.7 10.4 7.8 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 4.8 4.8 2.4 0.8 3.2 0.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.8 10.7 3.2 9.6 20.2 0.7 7.4 8.0 2.0 1.3 6.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 9.4 2.0 8.8 18.0 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 8.3 18.9 4.9 2.5 14.8 0.8 n/a 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.6 0.8 1.7 13.3 5.7 11.7 39.3 n/a 7.0 11.2 5.6 1.4 8.4 0.0 n/a 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.7 2.1 12.6 7.6 12.7 32.4 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 8.1 13.1 3.0 2.0 10.1 1.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 21.2 3.0 21.9 38.4 n/a 10.6 14.9 4.3 2.1 12.8 0.0 n/a 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 7.4 12.8 45.2 2.2 6.6 7.6 1.1 2.2 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 16.7 2.2 10.9 25.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 2.7 6.9 6.8 2.6 1.7 6.8 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.8 0.0 17.8 2.6 16.9 25.8 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 4.3 0.0 1.7 0.9 9.6 6.1 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 23.3 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 8.0 14.3 4.2 2.1 11.0 0.6 n/a 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.3 1.5 1.2 14.4 3.8 12.7 33.5 n/a 7.2 10.0 4.2 1.4 7.8 0.0 n/a 1.4 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.3 1.1 10.6 6.1 11.6 31.5 1.7 7.0 7.5 2.0 1.7 6.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 2.5 0.3 0.3 14.0 2.2 12.0 22.4 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 38.5 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 13.8 12.9 Grade 8 11.5 0.7 2.7 7.3 8.0 4.0 3.3 27.2 10.7 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 33.1 11.9 Grade 10 35.3 6.9 24.6 21.8 Grade 10 16.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 44.7 13.7 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 3.3 7.4 22.1 11.6 5.7 9.8 24.8 17.9 1.4 11.2 23.1 9.7 6.2 9.8 18.2 19.4 0.8 5.7 13.1 13.9 6.6 10.7 17.1 20.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 37.6 13.8 Grade 12 37.0 6.5 22.2 29.8 Grade 12 13.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 39.0 13.7 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 1.0 10.9 10.9 12.9 0.0 7.0 10.9 22.0 2.1 6.4 14.0 11.7 2.1 5.4 17.0 17.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 9.5 2.1 10.6 13.5 22.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 37.0 7.6 20.2 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 2.1 9.7 18.2 13.0 3.3 8.6 18.3 17.4 24.7 6.7 13.4 15.7 1.1 8.8 19.4 8.8 3.3 7.0 19.3 16.0 0.5 5.1 9.5 10.4 4.3 7.6 20.3 16.9 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 20.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 35.1 9.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 40.9 11.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 0.0 8.0 11.2 1.7 19.2 20.5 Carried a Handgun 5.6 14.5 Been Arrested Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them 4.9 0.8 8.6 3.4 22.2 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 17.9 Been Suspended from School 11.2 Sold Illegal Drugs 12.8 Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 38.3 8.8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 35.5 4.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 7.7 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 22.2 36.8 17.1 19.7 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 22.0 4.0 6.5 20.1 8.2 21.5 25.0 35.1 21.6 20.8 2.7 57.0 33.1 20.2 4.9 21.0 17.2 27.4 30.9 13.7 3.2 59.2 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 7.3 33.9 25.8 4.9 26.0 28.2 44.4 26.8 21.8 8.9 68.5 2.1 33.6 22.5 5.6 14.7 15.4 31.0 26.8 23.9 1.4 59.4 11.9 25.2 17.1 6.8 18.8 16.8 33.3 26.7 19.0 5.9 57.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 3.9 30.4 17.6 4.0 16.7 26.5 41.2 29.4 18.8 9.8 66.7 2.1 31.9 18.3 6.4 10.6 20.2 35.5 30.1 19.1 6.4 63.8 2.1 22.1 8.5 6.4 9.7 11.7 27.7 22.8 24.5 3.2 52.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 5.6 28.9 20.8 4.7 21.1 23.9 40.8 26.0 23.1 7.3 64.4 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 5.2 22.2 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 18.3 Played a dice game? 5.2 28.2 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 58.1 3.4 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 3.6 33.0 20.6 5.6 15.8 17.3 30.9 29.1 19.2 3.3 60.5 County 2010 6.1 23.1 16.1 7.3 17.5 18.8 32.6 23.6 21.2 3.9 56.1 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 40.0 35.4 45.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 50.0 55.2 51.3 27.8 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 46.5 Low Commitment to School 35.7 46.2 28.2 52.2 69.9 38.1 37.7 28.1 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 46.0 26.2 47.2 45.9 61.5 46.3 25.6 40.0 34.7 49.6 52.0 34.9 60.9 26.4 55.8 49.2 55.5 41.2 39.2 34.2 37.4 40.8 County 2010 43.1 16.0 37.6 50.0 69.3 54.7 19.3 35.6 35.6 44.7 44.6 39.7 69.8 21.8 48.3 56.2 53.7 46.3 35.8 34.2 38.0 43.2 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 39.5 22.9 35.0 34.5 59.2 44.2 37.5 43.3 35.5 48.4 33.3 45.2 53.8 42.7 49.6 53.9 46.5 34.5 30.8 45.7 56.3 47.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 42.5 18.0 40.3 36.6 67.8 44.3 26.6 47.9 37.9 49.0 51.0 42.4 61.4 38.1 56.2 47.8 38.1 37.3 28.1 40.3 48.2 53.6 County 2010 27.8 19.4 46.3 42.1 57.3 53.2 30.1 35.0 28.9 44.2 47.9 47.5 64.0 27.2 49.5 47.5 31.0 37.4 26.0 47.5 52.9 52.9 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 39.0 22.1 45.5 36.4 59.6 53.8 29.4 41.7 43.1 46.1 45.1 33.0 46.6 47.9 55.3 49.5 36.8 54.3 38.1 49.5 49.5 56.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 40.4 16.7 57.0 20.4 60.6 45.1 30.9 43.0 35.1 53.2 55.9 40.4 51.1 51.1 54.4 57.5 44.2 43.0 35.2 49.5 50.0 62.9 County 2010 37.5 5.6 60.0 35.5 69.1 52.2 27.1 34.4 24.2 46.3 40.9 43.2 56.0 38.2 51.1 53.9 39.3 39.1 41.1 46.2 38.2 50.5 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 41.6 24.5 39.1 36.3 63.0 49.7 31.9 43.8 37.9 45.9 42.1 41.9 54.4 39.0 51.8 53.1 44.9 43.6 37.9 43.3 48.6 48.9 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 46.2 43.0 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 48.7 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 62.9 Academic Failure School Domain 44.0 Poor Family Management Family Domain 44.0 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 43.2 20.5 46.9 35.6 63.8 45.2 27.3 43.9 36.1 50.3 52.6 39.3 58.5 37.4 55.6 50.7 45.7 40.1 33.7 40.6 44.9 51.6 County 2010 36.5 14.3 46.3 43.7 65.4 53.6 24.9 35.1 30.4 44.9 44.7 43.2 64.4 27.7 49.4 53.0 43.2 41.7 34.3 41.3 42.5 48.1 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 56.1 51.8 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 48.7 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 42.7 58.8 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54.8 64.5 44.0 50.0 61.0 52.4 53.2 62.4 61.2 43.6 47.5 County 2010 52.3 64.7 33.8 37.3 69.2 47.0 52.0 45.8 51.7 36.1 34.5 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 54.0 61.7 35.2 52.9 69.9 69.9 56.6 48.2 50.9 44.2 42.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 62.1 63.2 34.3 56.6 75.5 63.6 59.4 48.9 57.7 44.6 51.1 County 2010 51.6 65.3 33.1 42.7 62.6 60.2 58.7 48.4 60.0 35.8 45.6 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 52.4 50.5 39.6 54.0 49.5 64.8 59.0 49.5 47.3 44.1 41.7 BH Norm County 2012 2008 54.3 51.6 45.2 59.1 58.5 54.3 68.1 52.3 56.5 58.8 45.5 County 2010 50.0 49.5 33.3 53.8 56.5 48.4 58.9 46.5 55.2 52.4 54.9 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 53.2 57.3 39.1 52.4 61.8 61.2 52.5 49.8 51.7 45.3 43.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 57.5 60.7 40.4 55.0 66.1 57.3 59.5 54.5 58.6 47.9 48.4 County 2010 51.5 60.9 33.4 43.3 63.7 51.8 56.0 46.8 55.0 40.2 43.3 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 53.0 50.4 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 63.8 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 42.2 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 47.3 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 45.2 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 0.0 0.0 5.9 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 0.0 52.6 15.8 11.8 35.3 17.6 17.6 35.3 29.4 17.6 35.3 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 33.3 10.0 26.7 36.7 13.3 23.3 33.3 16.7 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 23.8 11.9 19.0 64.3 26.2 21.4 23.8 16.7 35.7 2.4 2.4 7.1 42 County 2008 26.8 12.2 19.5 41.5 29.3 19.5 36.6 26.8 36.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 41 County 2010 10.5 5.3 0.0 47.4 26.3 21.1 15.8 15.8 31.6 15.8 0.0 5.3 19 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 20.6 5.9 17.6 50.0 23.5 35.3 23.5 23.5 44.1 5.9 14.7 8.8 34 County 2008 25.0 8.3 19.4 41.7 19.4 36.1 25.0 13.9 52.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 36 County 2010 22.7 0.0 9.1 18.2 9.1 31.8 22.7 13.6 36.4 4.5 0.0 0.0 22 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 24.7 10.8 20.4 53.8 23.7 25.8 25.8 18.3 38.7 4.3 6.5 6.5 93 County 2008 26.0 9.4 18.8 43.8 25.0 29.2 27.1 16.7 42.7 0.0 0.0 4.2 96 County 2010 23.9 5.6 14.1 33.8 15.5 25.4 25.4 15.5 29.6 5.6 0.0 1.4 71 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 26.3 5.3 26.3 36.8 10.5 36.8 0.0 0.0 5.3 19 County 2010 Grade 8 35.3 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 17 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 23 3,000 26 3,911 19 3,747 68 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 4.3 8.5 11.5 10.9 21.1 14.9 11.8 11.6 Friends 78.3 72.7 65.4 80.8 68.4 80.9 70.6 78.6 Family/Relatives 30.4 17.4 26.9 14.7 10.5 12.7 23.5 14.8 Parties 43.5 25.9 11.5 28.9 21.1 30.4 25.0 28.6 Home 8.7 6.1 7.7 6.3 15.8 6.0 10.3 6.1 School 13.0 15.8 15.4 14.9 10.5 10.1 13.2 13.4 Other 47.8 28.8 19.2 22.3 42.1 21.0 35.3 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 2,321 16 12 2,478 54 31 6,436 11 7 1,637 27 12 Friends 72.7 57.1 48.7 63.0 50.0 59.8 75.0 83.3 62.8 68.5 64.5 58.2 Family/Relatives 36.4 28.6 16.8 37.0 8.3 16.6 50.0 16.7 16.3 40.7 16.1 16.5 Parties 36.4 14.3 21.4 33.3 8.3 19.6 43.8 0.0 19.5 37.0 6.5 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 27.3 0.0 28.2 22.2 16.7 31.3 56.2 33.3 24.7 33.3 19.4 28.0 9.1 14.3 13.5 14.8 25.0 14.3 37.5 0.0 19.5 20.4 12.9 16.1 School 27.3 0.0 12.9 25.9 25.0 15.6 31.2 8.3 12.7 27.8 12.9 13.8 Other Doctor/Pharmacy 18.2 0.0 17.8 11.1 0.0 13.2 25.0 8.3 12.3 16.7 3.2 14.0 Over the Internet 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.0 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 5.1 7.4 0.0 4.2 6.2 0.0 3.6 5.6 0.0 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 12.8 9.6 4.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.6 11.2 8.8 7.2 1.6 1.6 2.4 9.6 92.8 2.4 3.2 1.6 0.0 96.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 10.3 6.0 1.7 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.0 60.7 9.4 8.5 8.5 0.9 1.7 0.9 9.4 87.9 5.2 3.4 1.7 1.7 93.9 3.5 0.0 1.7 0.9 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.0 4.9 91.0 3.3 0.8 0.0 1.7 7.4 2.5 88.4 0.8 5.8 2.5 0.8 10.0 4.2 68.3 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 9.8 4.1 83.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 6.6 0.8 0.8 0.0 2.1 96.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 7.0 2.8 88.1 0.0 10.0 0.0 1.4 7.9 5.0 68.6 7.1 0.7 0.0 0.7 2.1 1.4 7.7 4.2 83.1 2.1 1.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 4.3 89.7 2.6 2.6 0.8 1.7 5.8 1.7 90.1 0.8 10.7 1.7 0.8 7.4 4.1 67.8 6.6 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.8 2.5 88.4 4.1 0.8 0.0 3.3 1.7 0.8 County 2012 82.6 6.6 Grade 10 County 2010 90.3 4.2 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.0 5.9 90.1 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 93.1 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 82.2 8.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 97.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County 2008 95.0 3.0 1.1 2.2 94.6 1.1 1.1 3.2 0.0 5.3 1.1 90.4 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.1 6.4 2.1 80.9 4.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 3.2 6.5 88.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 96.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 95.8 1.0 4.2 0.0 1.0 6.2 3.1 80.2 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.1 93.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.0 0.0 County 2012 93.8 3.1 Grade 12 County 2010 90.3 6.5 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 91.7 3.3 0.6 0.9 1.5 5.6 2.4 89.6 0.6 6.2 1.2 0.9 8.0 4.7 69.8 8.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 3.5 1.2 86.2 7.3 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.9 4.7 3.2 County 2008 88.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 86.1 4.9 n/a n/a 68.2 71.1 n/a n/a 69.2 73.8 n/a n/a 88.5 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 7.9 9.0 n/a n/a 5.0 7.1 n/a n/a 5.2 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 13.2 8.6 n/a n/a 10.8 8.4 n/a n/a 3.1 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 4.6 3.7 n/a n/a 4.2 3.2 n/a n/a 1.0 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.3 1.6 n/a n/a 0.0 1.6 n/a n/a 2.1 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.3 1.2 n/a n/a 1.7 1.1 n/a n/a 0.0 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.6 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 3.3 4.3 n/a n/a 9.2 4.3 n/a n/a 0.0 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.0 1.3 96.7 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 5.9 4.6 88.8 0.0 8.6 2.0 1.3 10.6 4.6 64.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 8.7 6.7 84.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.6 3.8 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.0 72.8 1.7 79.5 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 0.8 1.6 0.0 2.6 2.6 0.9 County 2012 90.8 5.3 Grade 8 County 2010 92.7 4.8 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 85.5 6.0 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3 2.0 96.1 0.8 0.8 1.4 0.8 5.0 2.5 90.3 0.8 8.6 0.6 1.4 7.8 5.0 68.0 7.8 0.6 0.0 0.3 2.2 1.1 8.3 6.7 80.8 0.8 0.6 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 County 2010 91.1 5.0 73.8 6.3 9.8 3.5 1.1 1.1 0.0 4.4 0.3 2.5 94.5 1.7 1.1 0.3 0.8 4.9 3.0 91.0 0.5 8.2 1.4 1.1 8.4 4.1 69.8 6.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3 0.0 6.5 4.1 88.0 1.4 0.5 0.0 3.0 0.8 0.3 County 2012 88.9 5.1 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 18.0 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 90.7 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 9.4 Marijuana 30.7 11.0 years 19.5 12.2 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.1 years Average age: 48.6 Average age: 149 150 146 Sample 149 147 150 150 149 150 145 147 146 146 147 148 Sample Alcohol Percent 8.8 Cigarettes 93.3 89.3 94.5 100.0 95.2 69.9 72.1 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 60.1 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.4 years 36.4 12.3 years 39.2 121 120 120 Sample 118 118 120 123 123 123 103 102 102 106 109 109 Sample 12.5 years 65.0 Percent 17.8 16.9 25.8 73.2 86.2 78.0 90.3 95.1 90.2 62.3 73.4 56.0 Percent Grade 10 14.9 years 49.0 13.6 years 45.3 96 95 96 Sample 90 92 92 96 96 96 86 89 89 87 90 90 Sample 14.1 years 72.9 Percent 16.7 10.9 25.0 65.6 75.0 75.0 88.4 86.5 79.8 59.8 87.8 64.4 Percent Grade 12 13.7 years 32.8 12.2 years 37.3 366 365 362 Sample 357 357 362 369 368 369 334 338 337 339 346 347 Sample 12.6 years 60.5 Percent 14.0 12.0 22.4 78.3 86.1 81.8 91.6 95.0 89.6 64.9 76.6 59.9 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.6 years 33.7 12.6 years 37.0 181 181 179 Sample 177 176 179 182 181 182 164 167 166 169 170 171 Sample 12.3 years 57.0 Percent 15.8 12.5 17.9 76.9 85.6 82.4 90.9 92.2 92.8 65.1 78.8 59.1 Percent Male †† 13.9 years 32.2 11.9 years 36.9 180 179 178 Sample 175 176 178 182 182 182 165 167 166 165 171 172 Sample 12.8 years 64.0 Percent 12.0 11.4 26.4 79.7 86.3 81.3 92.1 97.6 86.7 64.8 74.3 60.5 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 66.1 61.1 72.9 49.3 54.7 53.1 33.0 55.1 41.6 50.8 57.6 59.4 Once 18.5 8.9 18.1 13.4 12.1 8.5 16.7 18.1 19.8 12.3 13.7 17.0 18.1 26.6 14.6 18.0 12.9 20.1 17.7 17.1 17.7 14.2 12.8 13.9 4.0 0.0 2.4 3.4 0.7 3.4 3.1 1.1 2.3 5.6 3.5 6.9 7.5 0.9 4.7 7.3 3.2 5.7 8.5 5.3 8.5 6.7 2.2 3.4 11.5 4.7 9.2 5.8 2.8 5.8 5.5 1.2 3.8 6.4 2.6 5.0 82.9 8.9 78.1 8.9 82.8 8.2 71.5 9.7 77.5 4.9 73.3 10.1 69.6 14.1 78.7 5.6 65.7 10.1 74.9 10.6 78.0 6.8 75.7 9.2 4.9 1.6 8.9 0.7 4.6 1.7 6.2 4.2 8.8 2.9 6.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 9.0 2.2 8.9 4.4 6.4 2.8 8.9 1.8 6.3 2.8 0.0 1.6 2.1 1.4 0.8 1.9 2.8 5.6 0.0 5.9 1.8 4.8 0.0 5.4 1.1 3.4 2.2 8.7 1.1 4.2 1.2 3.3 1.4 4.4 76.2 8.2 66.2 8.8 74.3 8.4 67.6 12.7 51.5 12.9 57.4 10.8 64.9 11.7 50.6 12.4 53.8 10.9 69.8 10.9 57.7 10.9 64.3 9.7 7.4 2.5 1.6 8.8 8.1 3.4 6.5 3.5 2.1 4.9 5.6 2.8 13.9 9.9 2.0 11.1 6.7 3.8 9.6 4.3 2.1 14.6 6.7 2.2 11.4 6.8 3.8 7.0 4.2 2.2 11.8 8.3 2.7 9.1 5.3 3.0 4.1 95.1 4.7 92.6 5.2 88.4 6.3 82.4 9.9 82.9 10.4 82.9 7.4 81.9 13.5 89.9 13.3 82.1 5.9 86.6 8.6 88.9 8.7 85.2 1.6 1.6 4.7 1.4 5.3 2.6 8.5 4.2 3.8 2.9 7.3 4.2 8.5 4.3 4.5 2.2 6.6 4.8 6.1 3.3 4.4 2.0 6.2 3.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 2.8 1.4 3.8 1.0 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 2.2 1.1 1.7 0.8 1.5 0.6 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 0.8 0.7 1.7 0.7 5.7 2.8 3.2 2.2 3.2 1.4 2.6 2.4 Never 58.2 49.3 57.4 53.2 46.6 59.0 67.0 57.3 61.4 58.5 50.6 58.9 Once 15.6 12.3 18.2 16.9 15.1 12.5 13.5 16.3 21.4 15.5 13.7 13.2 6.4 16.0 7.9 15.7 12.1 12.7 12.3 14.8 16.5 16.2 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.1 1.6 8.8 0.7 4.8 2.1 2.8 3.5 5.8 1.9 5.1 2.2 4.3 0.0 4.5 2.2 5.4 2.3 3.6 2.0 6.8 1.5 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 8.2 6.1 8.1 10.6 8.7 6.8 6.4 12.4 6.2 8.7 8.5 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 36.1 21.3 25.7 25.7 28.2 12.4 34.3 16.8 28.3 22.1 32.1 15.2 34.0 12.8 30.3 16.9 34.1 15.5 34.8 17.3 27.7 22.3 30.8 14.0 3.3 2.5 5.7 7.6 4.2 7.6 4.6 2.6 5.5 10.5 4.2 7.7 8.0 4.4 10.6 7.1 3.7 8.1 7.4 9.6 12.8 14.6 3.4 5.6 8.9 4.4 9.1 7.2 5.0 8.4 9.5 4.0 8.1 6.4 3.4 7.2 31.1 35.2 29.2 37.3 46.8 31.7 26.6 36.9 26.5 35.1 33.8 34.9 23.4 42.6 29.2 37.5 28.0 37.2 27.3 37.8 28.3 36.7 38.2 34.0 13.9 6.6 18.3 5.6 9.7 4.7 13.5 7.8 11.7 8.1 13.2 7.5 5.3 12.8 11.4 13.6 14.5 8.6 11.5 8.7 14.4 8.5 12.0 6.5 5.7 6.6 2.1 7.7 2.6 4.4 5.0 7.1 8.1 13.5 4.3 6.5 7.4 6.4 3.4 3.4 4.8 7.1 5.9 6.7 4.4 8.5 3.7 5.7 32.0 38.8 28.9 39.4 47.0 34.0 29.8 39.7 23.4 41.1 33.6 43.7 25.5 45.2 30.7 39.8 27.8 50.0 29.4 40.8 27.6 40.1 38.1 40.9 13.2 4.1 2.5 16.2 6.3 2.8 8.8 3.1 2.2 12.8 7.8 2.8 16.1 4.5 2.7 10.2 4.0 2.5 12.9 5.4 3.2 13.6 10.2 3.4 10.1 4.3 2.3 13.0 5.9 2.8 15.5 6.7 2.9 9.5 3.7 2.3 9.1 32.2 7.0 28.2 4.5 47.5 5.7 31.2 10.7 25.0 5.1 34.6 7.5 25.8 4.5 28.4 4.8 28.6 7.3 30.1 7.6 27.2 4.8 38.9 41.8 8.2 40.4 17.7 36.8 7.1 44.0 12.1 48.2 9.8 47.6 8.0 52.7 8.6 45.5 9.1 53.8 7.6 45.5 9.8 44.3 12.9 44.3 7.5 4.1 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.7 1.8 5.0 4.3 5.4 2.7 3.3 2.3 5.4 2.2 9.1 3.4 3.7 2.1 4.8 3.1 5.0 2.6 3.1 2.0 9.0 34.4 6.4 31.2 3.7 47.9 5.0 29.8 7.1 26.8 4.1 34.8 6.5 24.7 3.4 29.5 3.9 29.0 6.7 30.1 5.9 29.3 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 All Students Surveyed* County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 81.6 75.5 85.4 75.9 76.4 86.9 84.0 88.5 87.7 79.9 79.2 86.4 1 or 2 times 10.4 11.3 7.2 8.3 8.9 5.9 4.3 3.1 5.3 8.0 8.4 6.3 3 to 5 times 0.8 4.6 3.2 4.1 7.3 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.5 4.9 2.9 6 to 9 times 2.4 2.6 1.5 2.8 0.8 1.3 2.1 2.1 1.3 2.5 1.9 1.4 10 to 19 times 1.6 0.7 0.9 4.1 2.4 0.8 2.1 2.1 0.8 2.7 1.6 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.8 2.0 0.4 0.7 1.6 0.5 2.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.4 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 40+ times 1.6 2.0 1.3 3.4 2.4 1.5 3.2 2.1 1.5 2.7 2.2 1.4 Never 24.8 34.4 39.2 33.1 34.7 43.7 36.6 64.6 55.3 31.1 42.4 44.4 1 or 2 times 30.4 32.5 27.7 23.9 30.6 24.2 22.6 12.5 21.5 25.8 26.6 25.2 3 to 5 times 26.4 19.9 16.3 19.7 15.7 17.1 20.4 10.4 12.8 22.2 16.0 15.6 6 to 9 times 7.2 8.6 7.7 13.4 7.4 7.2 5.4 4.2 5.1 9.2 7.1 6.9 10 to 19 times 4.0 0.7 3.8 4.2 6.6 3.5 7.5 1.0 2.5 5.0 2.7 3.4 20 to 29 times 3.2 2.0 1.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.5 30 to 39 times 2.4 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.5 2.2 3.1 0.4 1.4 1.6 0.5 40+ times 1.6 1.3 3.0 3.5 1.7 2.3 5.4 3.1 1.5 3.3 1.9 2.4 Never 77.8 87.3 87.6 84.7 91.8 90.2 88.3 94.6 91.9 83.2 90.7 89.4 1 or 2 times 14.3 8.0 7.1 5.6 4.9 5.5 3.2 3.2 4.6 8.0 5.8 6.0 3 to 5 times 4.8 3.3 2.3 3.5 1.6 1.9 3.2 1.1 1.6 3.8 2.2 2.0 6 to 9 times 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.9 4.3 0.0 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.6 0.0 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 40+ times 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.6 88.8 88.1 90.4 90.9 92.6 92.1 89.4 95.8 93.5 89.8 91.6 91.7 1 or 2 times 7.2 9.3 6.0 4.2 4.9 4.8 6.4 2.1 3.8 5.8 6.0 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.6 0.7 1.5 1.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.5 3.2 0.0 0.5 1.7 0.3 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.8 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 86.4 89.4 87.6 81.7 81.6 83.7 80.9 83.7 80.3 83.1 85.4 84.6 6.4 2.6 3.0 12.0 5.3 7.8 12.8 10.9 10.8 10.2 5.6 6.4 3.2 1.3 1.0 7.0 0.9 2.2 8.5 2.2 2.8 6.1 1.4 1.8 3.2 0.7 1.3 6.3 0.9 2.6 7.4 0.0 3.4 5.5 0.6 2.2 2.4 0.0 1.8 4.2 1.8 4.1 9.6 4.3 4.2 5.0 1.7 3.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 2.8 2.6 1.9 6.4 0.0 3.3 3.0 1.1 1.8 2.4 0.0 0.8 4.9 2.6 2.0 5.3 1.1 2.2 4.2 1.1 1.5 1.6 0.0 1.1 2.1 0.0 1.7 4.3 1.1 2.1 2.5 0.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Maricopa County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Maricopa County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 16,911 51.4 19,118 45.1 18,821 46.1 28,932 46.1 10 8,647 26.3 12,105 28.5 11,867 29.1 18,766 29.9 12 7,371 22.4 11,212 26.4 10,158 24.9 15,119 24.1 32,929 100.0 42,435 100.0 40,846 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 15,699 48.6 20,301 48.8 19,624 49.3 30,383 49.5 Female 16,590 51.4 21,269 51.2 20,183 50.7 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 416 3.5 681 4.4 575 4.2 1,121 4.9 African American 294 2.4 427 2.7 411 3.0 658 2.9 Asian 103 0.9 141 0.9 147 1.1 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 115 1.0 181 1.2 133 1.0 225 1.0 White 2,205 18.4 3,463 22.2 3,735 27.1 6,774 29.7 Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 494 4.1 591 3.8 609 4.4 1,099 4.8 8,379 69.8 10,138 64.9 8,152 59.2 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number 441 Percent 2.3 County 2010 Number 658 Percent County 2012 Number 2.6 638 Percent 2.6 State 2012 Number Percent 1,909 5.2 1,142 5.9 1,702 6.6 1,524 6.2 1,979 5.4 804 4.1 1,361 5.3 1,374 5.6 1,641 4.5 204 1.0 274 1.1 224 0.9 324 0.9 15,244 78.4 19,376 75.5 17,901 72.5 26,247 72.1 1,438 7.4 1,720 6.7 1,658 6.7 2,561 7.0 173 0.9 556 2.2 1,366 5.5 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 12,006 36.5 15,622 36.8 13,762 33.7 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 19,446 59.1 25,647 60.4 24,685 60.4 36,420 58.0 32,929 100.0 42,435 100.0 40,846 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 2,307 Students** Someone under 21 years County 2010 Sample: 2,971 Students** Got at a party County 2008 Sample: 2,826 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Store or someone else's home Took it from home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 3,242 Students** Someone under 21 years County 2010 Sample: 3,268 Students** Got at a party County 2008 Sample: 2,553 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Store or someone else's home Took it from home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 3,902 Students** Someone under 21 years County 2010 Sample: 4,332 Students** Got at a party County 2008 Sample: 2,913 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Store or someone else's home Took it from home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 9,451 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 10,571 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 8,292 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 1,535 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 1,823 Students Sample size (Rx): 977 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet School 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 1,801 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 2,524 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,487 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet School 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 2,145 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 2,614 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,663 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet School 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 6,961 Students Sample size (Rx): 4,127 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 5,481 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Maricopa County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Maricopa County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 2.1 n/a 1.8 11.3 16.1 9.1 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 9.0 15.9 8.5 3.0 11.0 1.7 n/a 3.8 0.9 0.6 13.9 2.3 2.0 16.1 5.6 20.9 42.9 6.7 6.6 10.7 4.3 1.9 8.3 1.5 1.8 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.2 1.6 1.7 14.7 3.3 17.0 35.6 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 12.3 25.4 12.2 8.5 19.8 2.3 n/a 4.5 1.9 2.0 12.1 6.2 5.1 31.1 10.8 37.1 64.6 n/a 12.8 23.0 11.7 7.8 17.7 1.8 n/a 8.2 2.6 1.5 11.2 5.0 5.9 33.0 10.6 34.5 63.2 10.6 10.3 18.8 8.2 7.3 15.4 1.8 2.6 7.7 1.4 1.5 8.5 3.8 5.3 34.0 7.7 28.4 58.0 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 13.4 28.8 14.3 8.8 24.4 2.4 n/a 7.5 3.3 3.8 8.3 10.8 8.5 42.5 15.7 48.4 73.8 n/a 14.2 27.4 14.0 9.6 22.9 1.7 n/a 10.8 3.6 2.2 8.5 8.0 9.5 44.2 15.7 44.0 71.9 13.0 11.9 24.0 10.2 11.0 20.5 1.9 3.1 10.2 1.9 1.8 6.6 6.9 8.6 44.4 13.1 39.5 68.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 7.8 3.7 1.1 1.1 13.7 2.6 1.9 14.7 5.8 23.9 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 46.5 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 10.9 21.4 10.4 6.1 16.5 2.0 n/a 4.0 1.8 2.0 12.1 5.4 4.2 25.3 9.4 32.9 57.4 n/a 11.5 21.0 10.9 6.1 16.1 1.7 n/a 6.9 2.1 1.3 11.7 4.6 5.1 28.4 9.7 30.9 56.4 9.4 9.0 16.5 7.0 5.8 13.5 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.2 3.6 4.5 27.9 7.0 26.0 50.6 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 2.2 1.1 5.3 0.9 n/a 0.8 5.5 1.6 3.3 8.1 5.3 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 5.4 7.9 3.5 1.4 5.5 0.6 n/a 1.7 0.3 0.2 5.5 0.8 0.8 8.1 2.2 7.5 20.6 3.6 3.9 5.3 1.8 0.8 4.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.7 0.6 7.2 1.6 6.5 16.2 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 5.7 12.0 4.8 3.3 8.9 1.0 n/a 1.4 0.7 0.6 2.9 2.0 1.8 15.0 3.8 16.0 36.6 n/a 5.9 11.5 4.8 3.2 8.3 0.7 n/a 3.1 1.1 0.5 2.9 1.5 2.1 17.2 4.9 14.6 34.2 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 5.7 13.7 5.5 2.3 10.6 0.9 n/a 2.3 1.1 0.8 1.2 3.2 2.6 19.5 6.0 23.6 47.0 n/a 6.1 12.4 5.0 2.8 9.4 0.7 n/a 3.7 1.3 0.5 1.3 1.9 2.7 21.9 6.9 21.2 44.9 4.5 4.2 9.9 3.2 3.4 7.6 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.9 2.5 23.2 5.7 19.8 44.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 4.8 4.7 9.3 3.3 3.0 7.2 0.7 0.7 1.9 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.1 1.8 17.9 3.2 12.6 31.9 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.4 0.4 0.8 7.1 8.2 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 22.6 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 5.5 10.4 4.2 2.2 7.5 0.8 n/a 1.3 0.6 0.5 3.8 1.8 1.5 11.9 3.5 13.7 31.8 n/a 5.7 10.1 4.2 2.3 7.3 0.6 n/a 2.6 0.8 0.4 3.6 1.3 1.7 14.3 4.2 13.2 30.9 4.2 4.2 7.7 2.6 2.1 5.9 0.6 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.7 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.1 11.6 27.9 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 28.3 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 12.8 11.4 Grade 8 7.9 1.2 Carried a Handgun to School 1.3 6.1 15.6 1.0 5.3 10.8 5.0 1.8 4.2 16.6 9.5 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 27.8 6.5 Grade 10 23.6 5.6 21.2 20.0 Grade 10 17.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 26.7 6.7 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.2 6.2 15.1 7.8 3.2 9.4 12.7 19.0 2.1 7.0 14.7 8.7 4.2 10.5 13.2 20.5 1.2 4.6 9.0 6.0 2.3 9.9 10.8 19.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 26.8 13.3 Grade 12 24.7 12.1 30.5 28.9 Grade 12 26.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 26.9 15.0 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 1.3 7.7 12.1 7.5 2.7 10.7 9.0 22.0 1.7 6.2 10.3 7.7 2.7 10.6 8.4 20.9 1.2 5.1 6.9 5.9 1.9 11.0 7.7 21.2 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 23.7 6.2 19.0 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.3 7.2 15.7 7.1 3.3 7.2 15.8 15.7 24.7 6.7 15.4 15.7 1.6 6.4 14.0 7.3 3.4 7.9 13.8 16.6 1.1 5.0 9.3 5.5 2.0 7.6 12.7 15.2 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 18.5 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 27.0 7.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 27.6 7.8 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 7.4 Carried a Handgun 17.5 6.2 6.6 Been Arrested 3.6 4.7 3.3 4.6 17.4 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 20.3 Been Suspended from School 11.6 Sold Illegal Drugs 11.3 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 23.3 3.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 26.5 4.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 31.8 43.5 19.1 34.0 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 25.3 4.5 4.7 24.9 4.8 26.9 16.6 32.0 25.8 24.4 4.7 59.5 27.7 26.3 4.9 27.1 15.8 36.0 28.2 22.1 5.6 61.5 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 5.0 30.8 24.9 4.8 24.0 18.9 43.9 30.0 21.7 6.6 65.0 4.6 27.5 21.9 4.5 21.1 15.5 36.1 27.2 20.7 4.9 59.6 4.1 24.0 20.6 3.9 20.1 16.3 31.3 24.4 22.7 4.2 57.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 4.2 26.7 18.1 4.6 14.6 16.6 40.1 24.7 18.4 6.0 59.5 3.7 24.6 17.7 4.1 13.8 14.1 35.2 23.9 19.1 5.3 56.1 3.5 21.6 15.3 3.5 13.3 15.5 29.9 20.6 21.4 5.2 53.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 5.5 30.8 26.8 5.6 27.0 18.5 42.8 29.8 22.6 6.5 65.8 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 6.3 32.5 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 31.7 Played a dice game? 6.5 24.8 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 68.9 6.7 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 4.4 26.8 22.8 4.6 21.9 15.3 35.8 26.7 20.9 5.3 59.5 County 2010 4.1 24.0 21.3 4.2 21.5 16.2 31.3 24.1 23.1 4.7 57.3 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 36.0 38.4 36.5 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 52.9 38.2 48.9 26.2 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 40.2 Low Commitment to School 28.7 44.3 28.4 43.4 57.6 38.4 45.9 26.7 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 35.2 19.4 47.5 36.8 53.2 46.1 28.0 40.7 26.5 35.7 42.6 40.6 43.5 23.7 46.9 36.2 53.0 42.5 31.6 36.0 32.8 33.7 County 2010 29.1 14.1 44.5 33.2 47.9 49.3 24.9 36.4 21.6 32.7 36.7 39.9 42.0 23.3 45.9 36.3 51.4 41.4 32.9 33.1 30.2 34.9 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 35.0 21.2 45.4 41.3 54.1 42.0 37.5 49.7 30.3 38.2 45.5 44.2 46.7 40.6 52.9 37.4 43.5 42.0 24.6 50.2 39.1 43.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 33.1 19.9 48.1 41.3 53.5 45.5 36.5 44.0 29.2 38.7 47.4 42.0 46.4 37.5 49.5 38.4 42.3 39.9 20.4 43.1 39.1 41.5 County 2010 30.5 12.8 51.9 37.7 44.4 50.8 36.0 40.7 25.5 33.1 39.5 45.7 43.4 39.3 49.6 38.0 42.1 36.7 20.3 42.4 37.0 40.3 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 34.2 15.7 55.4 37.4 50.5 47.8 38.5 46.2 30.8 38.3 42.5 47.1 42.8 41.1 48.7 34.4 38.8 45.4 32.0 53.1 34.1 48.1 BH Norm County 2012 2008 31.2 14.9 58.5 37.7 48.5 50.7 36.4 41.3 27.9 35.4 43.4 43.5 38.8 38.0 47.8 34.5 39.5 40.5 24.1 43.7 33.4 44.0 County 2010 30.6 11.5 62.4 34.9 42.9 57.0 36.8 37.7 26.2 32.0 36.4 47.9 38.9 43.1 48.2 36.2 39.9 40.1 27.1 44.7 36.0 45.6 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 36.3 22.7 47.9 38.9 55.1 44.0 33.0 46.2 29.6 38.6 43.4 42.8 45.2 33.4 49.9 37.1 47.1 44.5 32.3 44.9 36.4 41.1 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 37.9 38.9 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 42.7 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 45.6 Academic Failure School Domain 45.4 Poor Family Management Family Domain 36.8 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 33.6 18.3 50.6 38.3 52.1 47.2 32.7 41.8 27.7 36.5 44.2 41.8 43.0 31.5 47.9 36.4 46.2 41.2 26.4 40.1 34.7 38.7 County 2010 29.9 13.0 51.1 34.9 45.6 51.7 31.1 38.0 23.9 32.6 37.4 43.6 41.7 33.5 47.7 36.8 45.4 39.6 27.5 39.0 33.8 39.3 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 59.7 61.5 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 51.1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 38.6 58.5 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54.9 58.4 40.3 55.5 60.8 53.0 63.5 63.0 60.5 52.6 33.5 County 2010 52.7 59.0 43.6 51.2 65.7 53.6 62.5 60.0 61.1 52.7 33.3 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 57.7 58.7 44.9 56.4 66.4 60.1 65.7 56.4 54.4 47.1 35.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 58.4 61.4 46.7 57.9 69.1 61.0 67.4 54.9 55.1 45.8 36.6 County 2010 61.9 61.9 51.4 56.7 71.9 63.1 66.4 53.9 56.6 47.8 37.5 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 52.0 51.7 38.0 51.6 54.0 43.9 67.0 55.9 54.8 55.8 32.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 56.7 54.9 43.6 57.1 56.4 45.9 69.4 56.7 57.3 57.2 36.4 County 2010 56.5 54.7 46.7 55.1 58.0 47.8 68.1 53.4 56.8 55.9 36.6 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 53.7 57.1 40.1 53.7 60.0 51.8 63.4 58.8 57.1 51.4 32.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 56.4 58.3 43.0 56.6 62.0 53.4 66.2 58.9 58.1 51.9 35.2 County 2010 56.3 58.8 46.6 53.8 65.6 54.9 65.0 56.3 58.5 52.0 35.5 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 52.5 53.3 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 59.3 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 60.7 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 51.6 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 31.0 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 3.3 3.0 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 19.2 39.3 31.1 19.7 20.0 18.4 23.7 42.1 32.8 12.1 28.1 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 24.8 8.3 29.1 38.0 23.5 16.9 19.2 21.0 14.9 3.6 3.5 5.5 2,307 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 22.8 12.8 26.2 54.5 26.1 27.7 16.4 14.9 32.0 2.6 2.6 6.9 2,553 County 2008 17.5 10.6 23.8 50.6 23.6 23.9 16.2 15.9 30.9 2.0 2.3 6.0 3,268 County 2010 17.3 9.9 24.2 49.5 27.1 23.5 16.3 16.1 29.8 2.6 2.7 6.0 3,242 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 16.3 9.0 14.7 58.9 23.5 39.9 17.9 14.4 42.8 4.2 5.7 11.6 2,913 County 2008 12.4 5.9 14.2 56.6 19.4 30.6 14.1 14.4 40.9 2.3 3.4 9.0 4,332 County 2010 12.0 5.9 15.2 54.4 23.6 31.1 15.8 16.4 39.2 2.9 4.5 10.6 3,902 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 22.3 11.2 24.4 51.8 24.4 28.8 18.1 16.4 31.8 3.3 3.9 7.9 8,292 County 2008 17.4 8.4 21.9 49.9 21.3 24.3 15.6 16.2 31.3 2.4 2.8 6.9 10,571 County 2010 16.9 7.9 21.7 48.7 24.8 25.0 16.8 17.4 30.0 3.0 3.6 7.8 9,451 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 24.5 9.8 21.7 15.4 17.1 17.6 2.8 2.5 4.7 2,971 County 2010 Grade 8 20.3 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 5.1 2,826 County 2008 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 1,823 3,000 2,524 3,911 2,614 3,747 6,961 10,658 9.2 8.5 11.6 10.9 16.4 14.9 12.8 11.6 Friends 74.2 72.7 82.2 80.8 82.7 80.9 80.3 78.6 Family/Relatives 17.2 17.4 13.6 14.7 11.6 12.7 13.8 14.8 Parties 27.3 25.9 29.0 28.9 30.8 30.4 29.2 28.6 Home 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.3 5.7 6.0 5.9 6.1 School 17.0 15.8 15.1 14.9 10.0 10.1 13.7 13.4 Other 27.2 28.8 19.7 22.3 18.9 21.0 21.3 23.7 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 1,535 977 1,637 1,801 1,487 2,321 2,145 1,663 2,478 5,481 4,127 6,436 Friends 59.9 46.9 48.7 68.5 60.1 59.8 71.0 63.0 62.8 67.1 58.1 58.2 Family/Relatives 22.4 17.0 16.8 20.4 17.1 16.6 19.6 15.3 16.3 20.7 16.4 16.5 Parties 27.8 22.7 21.4 29.9 18.4 19.6 26.9 18.0 19.5 28.1 19.3 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 31.9 30.7 28.2 30.9 32.6 31.3 26.8 26.0 24.7 29.6 29.5 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 13.2 13.4 13.5 16.2 14.7 14.3 22.8 19.4 19.5 17.9 16.3 16.1 School 16.1 12.8 12.9 23.8 15.6 15.6 16.3 12.0 12.7 18.7 13.5 13.8 Other 18.4 17.0 17.8 16.5 11.3 13.2 14.4 11.2 12.3 16.2 12.6 14.0 Over the Internet 3.5 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 0.8 0.9 2.3 1.3 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 7.7 4.9 5.1 5.8 3.7 4.2 6.9 3.0 3.6 6.8 3.7 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 10.3 5.5 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 61.3 13.0 11.0 4.5 1.9 0.9 0.6 6.8 91.4 4.9 2.4 0.6 0.8 95.6 2.1 1.1 0.3 0.8 12.4 6.6 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.8 60.1 12.9 11.3 4.4 1.8 1.2 0.7 7.5 90.4 5.6 2.5 0.6 0.9 94.0 2.9 1.3 0.5 1.2 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.4 1.5 95.0 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 4.5 1.8 92.3 0.6 4.2 1.3 1.1 9.6 3.1 69.4 10.7 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.4 8.0 3.4 86.8 1.0 0.3 0.2 2.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.2 96.0 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 3.4 1.6 93.8 0.4 3.7 1.2 0.6 8.2 2.9 74.0 8.9 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 6.5 3.1 88.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.5 1.9 95.5 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.7 2.8 1.4 94.6 0.5 4.6 1.7 1.1 8.3 3.0 74.1 6.7 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 4.9 2.4 90.7 1.2 0.3 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.4 County 2012 92.2 3.3 Grade 10 County 2010 93.1 3.6 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.5 1.9 95.5 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.7 3.1 1.7 94.1 0.4 1.9 0.6 0.5 5.4 1.2 83.7 6.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 4.5 1.8 92.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.5 0.2 County 2008 92.8 3.6 0.3 1.6 96.0 1.3 0.9 0.3 0.6 2.0 0.9 96.2 0.2 1.4 0.7 0.3 4.5 1.6 86.1 5.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 3.8 1.6 93.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 2.3 95.0 1.2 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.2 96.0 0.3 2.9 1.2 0.6 4.8 2.2 83.8 4.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2 3.2 1.6 93.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.5 0.3 County 2012 94.4 2.3 Grade 12 County 2010 95.6 2.3 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 94.6 2.3 1.1 0.5 0.8 4.8 2.1 91.7 0.6 5.4 1.4 1.0 9.5 3.4 67.9 10.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 4.7 1.0 83.3 9.5 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 5.9 2.9 County 2008 88.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 88.8 6.0 n/a n/a 71.4 71.1 n/a n/a 74.7 73.8 n/a n/a 79.2 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 8.7 9.0 n/a n/a 6.9 7.1 n/a n/a 5.4 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 8.6 8.6 n/a n/a 8.3 8.4 n/a n/a 7.0 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 3.7 3.7 n/a n/a 3.0 3.2 n/a n/a 2.8 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.7 1.6 n/a n/a 1.4 1.6 n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.3 1.2 n/a n/a 1.0 1.1 n/a n/a 0.8 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.5 0.6 n/a n/a 0.5 0.5 n/a n/a 0.5 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 4.1 4.3 n/a n/a 4.1 4.3 n/a n/a 3.1 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.4 1.2 95.3 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 3.5 2.2 92.8 0.7 7.9 2.3 1.6 12.1 4.7 60.7 10.0 0.3 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.5 8.6 4.6 84.2 1.1 0.3 0.1 2.9 0.9 0.5 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.5 1.4 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.5 81.2 0.9 77.5 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 2.0 0.6 0.2 3.4 1.0 0.4 County 2012 89.4 4.7 Grade 8 County 2010 92.1 4.4 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 87.1 6.8 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3 1.1 95.8 1.8 1.0 0.4 0.8 3.7 1.8 93.3 0.4 4.5 1.4 0.7 8.4 3.3 71.5 9.8 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.4 7.5 3.8 86.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.5 0.2 County 2010 93.3 3.6 74.3 7.4 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 3.9 0.4 1.7 95.3 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.7 2.9 1.8 94.1 0.6 5.7 1.8 1.2 9.2 3.6 70.4 7.6 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 6.2 3.2 88.3 1.1 0.3 0.1 2.2 0.7 0.4 County 2012 91.5 3.7 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 16.2 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 85.1 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 7.2 Marijuana 17.5 11.3 years 15.0 12.1 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.3 years Average age: 40.3 Average age: 18,479 18,446 18,374 Sample 17,533 17,669 17,578 18,358 18,414 18,412 14,560 14,688 14,697 16,382 16,720 16,605 Sample Alcohol Percent 6.5 Cigarettes 91.0 84.3 96.3 97.6 92.4 76.1 82.6 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 64.0 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.6 years 35.0 12.8 years 30.4 11,682 11,672 11,663 Sample 11,358 11,415 11,457 11,630 11,654 11,658 10,746 10,804 10,830 11,065 11,254 11,207 Sample 13.1 years 60.4 Percent 17.9 12.6 31.9 67.5 82.2 68.4 91.1 95.3 85.3 62.0 88.4 65.9 Percent Grade 10 14.8 years 46.8 14.1 years 42.0 10,000 10,001 9,997 Sample 9,667 9,763 9,767 9,942 9,971 9,976 9,167 9,211 9,224 9,445 9,579 9,545 Sample 14.3 years 71.0 Percent 23.2 19.8 44.2 59.9 69.6 59.8 86.4 88.8 73.6 55.0 89.0 64.8 Percent Grade 12 13.7 years 28.7 12.9 years 27.3 40,161 40,119 40,034 Sample 38,558 38,847 38,802 39,930 40,039 40,046 34,473 34,703 34,751 36,892 37,553 37,357 Sample 12.9 years 53.8 Percent 14.3 11.6 27.9 73.7 83.1 73.6 92.0 94.5 85.2 66.5 86.0 64.8 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.5 years 31.1 12.7 years 28.5 19,216 19,198 19,155 Sample 18,288 18,376 18,404 19,080 19,127 19,126 16,150 16,250 16,289 17,427 17,736 17,646 Sample 12.6 years 53.3 Percent 16.4 12.2 26.9 70.5 82.6 73.2 91.0 94.1 84.7 60.8 84.8 60.3 Percent Male †† 13.9 years 26.3 13.1 years 26.0 19,946 19,926 19,896 Sample 19,333 19,532 19,455 19,867 19,923 19,930 17,519 17,645 17,653 18,597 18,931 18,834 Sample 13.1 years 54.1 Percent 12.3 11.0 28.8 76.9 83.7 74.0 93.1 95.0 85.7 72.2 87.3 69.4 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 73.4 74.5 72.9 53.7 53.8 53.1 42.3 41.4 41.6 59.5 60.2 59.4 Once 11.7 8.7 11.6 7.9 12.1 8.5 13.7 16.8 13.2 16.9 13.7 17.0 13.1 21.2 12.4 20.1 12.9 20.1 12.6 14.3 12.3 13.6 12.8 13.9 3.1 0.9 2.2 2.9 1.0 2.1 3.1 1.1 2.3 7.6 2.8 5.4 7.3 3.2 5.7 7.3 3.2 5.7 10.7 4.7 8.1 11.6 4.9 9.5 11.5 4.7 9.2 6.4 2.5 4.7 6.4 2.6 5.0 6.4 2.6 5.0 82.2 8.0 84.6 7.6 82.8 8.2 69.7 10.0 74.9 9.7 73.3 10.1 64.2 10.0 67.2 9.6 65.7 10.1 73.9 9.1 77.4 8.7 75.7 9.2 4.7 1.9 4.2 1.5 4.6 1.7 8.2 3.8 6.3 2.9 6.8 3.2 9.1 4.5 8.4 4.2 8.9 4.4 6.9 3.2 5.9 2.6 6.3 2.8 1.0 2.1 0.7 1.5 0.8 1.9 2.1 6.2 1.6 4.5 1.8 4.8 2.6 9.5 2.2 8.3 2.2 8.7 1.7 5.2 1.3 4.1 1.4 4.4 76.5 7.7 75.5 8.1 74.3 8.4 58.8 11.1 57.1 10.7 57.4 10.8 56.0 11.0 52.3 11.3 53.8 10.9 66.0 9.5 64.4 9.7 64.3 9.7 6.2 3.5 1.7 6.3 3.4 1.9 6.5 3.5 2.1 10.5 6.0 3.7 11.2 6.8 3.6 11.1 6.7 3.8 11.1 6.6 3.8 11.9 6.9 4.0 11.4 6.8 3.8 8.7 5.0 2.8 9.1 5.2 2.9 9.1 5.3 3.0 4.5 88.3 4.7 88.4 5.2 88.4 10.0 80.7 10.6 82.8 10.4 82.9 11.4 81.4 13.6 82.0 13.3 82.1 7.9 84.3 8.7 85.2 8.7 85.2 5.5 2.8 5.5 2.6 5.3 2.6 7.8 5.1 7.3 4.2 7.3 4.2 7.6 5.0 6.6 4.8 6.6 4.8 6.7 4.1 6.3 3.6 6.2 3.6 1.3 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.7 2.2 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.9 1.0 2.1 1.1 2.3 1.2 2.2 1.1 1.8 0.9 1.7 0.9 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 Never 65.6 58.4 57.4 63.8 60.0 59.0 67.9 62.9 61.4 65.7 60.0 58.9 Once 13.6 10.1 14.9 12.5 15.1 12.5 12.6 12.1 13.3 13.2 13.7 13.2 10.8 10.7 11.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.6 10.9 13.7 12.7 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 3.4 1.3 4.5 2.0 4.8 2.1 4.2 1.7 5.0 2.2 5.1 2.2 4.0 2.0 5.1 2.1 5.4 2.3 3.8 1.6 4.8 2.1 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 5.9 7.7 8.1 5.5 6.4 6.8 4.6 5.7 6.2 5.4 6.8 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 30.2 13.6 27.3 11.8 28.2 12.4 33.0 17.4 31.9 14.9 32.1 15.2 34.4 17.0 34.4 15.4 34.1 15.5 32.1 15.6 30.5 13.6 30.8 14.0 5.4 2.4 5.0 4.3 2.3 5.1 4.6 2.6 5.5 8.6 4.1 8.4 6.8 3.4 7.7 7.1 3.7 8.1 10.2 5.2 9.7 8.7 4.6 8.6 8.9 4.4 9.1 7.6 3.7 7.2 6.2 3.2 6.8 6.4 3.4 7.2 43.3 35.0 49.2 30.5 46.8 31.7 28.5 38.6 35.2 34.4 33.8 34.9 23.4 38.8 28.3 37.6 28.0 37.2 33.8 37.0 39.7 33.5 38.2 34.0 10.2 4.9 9.1 4.3 9.7 4.7 13.6 7.8 13.1 7.1 13.2 7.5 15.5 10.3 14.6 8.3 14.5 8.6 12.6 7.2 11.7 6.2 12.0 6.5 2.4 4.1 2.4 4.1 2.6 4.4 4.5 7.1 4.2 6.4 4.3 6.5 5.1 7.2 4.8 6.7 4.8 7.1 3.7 5.8 3.5 5.5 3.7 5.7 43.4 36.5 49.6 32.8 47.0 34.0 28.4 45.3 34.9 43.5 33.6 43.7 23.1 51.8 28.1 51.2 27.8 50.0 33.7 43.1 39.7 40.7 38.1 40.9 9.4 3.5 2.1 8.3 2.8 1.9 8.8 3.1 2.2 11.7 4.9 2.8 9.8 3.7 2.4 10.2 4.0 2.5 11.2 5.0 2.8 9.6 4.0 2.1 10.1 4.3 2.3 10.6 4.3 2.5 9.1 3.4 2.1 9.5 3.7 2.3 4.4 44.1 4.3 50.0 4.5 47.5 6.1 29.2 4.7 35.9 5.1 34.6 5.2 24.0 4.3 28.8 4.8 28.6 5.1 34.5 4.4 40.4 4.8 38.9 39.9 7.7 35.7 6.3 36.8 7.1 49.9 9.8 47.8 7.4 47.6 8.0 56.4 9.0 55.3 7.1 53.8 7.6 47.2 8.6 44.3 6.8 44.3 7.5 2.8 1.7 2.7 1.6 2.7 1.8 3.8 2.3 2.9 2.2 3.3 2.3 4.1 2.2 3.4 1.9 3.7 2.1 3.4 2.0 2.9 1.8 3.1 2.0 3.5 44.5 3.3 50.4 3.7 47.9 4.8 29.5 3.6 36.1 4.1 34.8 4.0 24.3 3.4 29.0 3.9 29.0 4.0 34.8 3.4 40.7 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? All Students Surveyed* County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 83.9 86.4 85.4 83.2 88.2 86.9 85.1 88.6 87.7 84.0 87.5 86.4 8.0 6.7 7.2 7.7 5.4 5.9 7.1 5.2 5.3 7.7 5.9 6.3 3 to 5 times 3.0 2.9 3.2 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.7 2.9 6 to 9 times 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 10 to 19 times 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.8 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 40+ times 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 Never 30.3 39.8 39.2 31.7 44.6 43.7 43.7 56.6 55.3 34.2 45.4 44.4 1 or 2 times 29.0 28.2 27.7 27.2 24.5 24.2 25.7 21.3 21.5 27.6 25.4 25.2 3 to 5 times 18.3 15.8 16.3 18.9 17.1 17.1 16.2 12.3 12.8 17.9 15.3 15.6 6 to 9 times 8.9 7.6 7.7 9.5 6.7 7.2 6.6 4.8 5.1 8.5 6.6 6.9 10 to 19 times 5.6 3.6 3.8 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 2.3 2.5 5.4 3.2 3.4 20 to 29 times 2.4 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.1 2.1 1.3 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 40+ times 4.5 2.8 3.0 3.5 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.3 1.5 3.6 2.3 2.4 Never 81.8 88.0 87.6 82.4 90.5 90.2 86.9 92.4 91.9 83.3 89.8 89.4 1 or 2 times 10.2 6.9 7.1 9.7 5.4 5.5 7.6 4.2 4.6 9.4 5.8 6.0 3 to 5 times 3.4 2.4 2.3 3.2 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.6 1.6 3.1 2.0 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 1.4 0.9 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.5 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 40+ times 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.6 87.2 90.5 90.4 87.7 92.1 92.1 90.1 93.6 93.5 88.1 91.7 91.7 1 or 2 times 7.7 5.9 6.0 7.0 4.9 4.8 5.9 3.7 3.8 7.0 5.0 5.1 3 to 5 times 2.1 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.1 1.1 1.9 1.4 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 40+ times 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 89.1 88.4 87.6 82.2 84.3 83.7 78.5 80.5 80.3 84.3 85.2 84.6 5.1 2.7 3.0 10.9 7.8 7.8 14.2 10.8 10.8 9.2 6.3 6.4 1.9 1.0 1.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 3.9 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.8 1.8 2.4 1.3 1.3 4.8 2.4 2.6 5.4 3.1 3.4 3.8 2.1 2.2 2.7 1.7 1.8 4.9 4.3 4.1 5.4 4.5 4.2 4.0 3.2 3.1 1.1 0.8 0.8 2.6 1.9 1.9 4.5 3.3 3.3 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.8 3.8 2.0 2.0 3.2 2.1 2.2 2.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.1 2.6 1.5 1.7 2.9 1.9 2.1 2.2 1.4 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Mohave County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Mohave County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 549 31.0 1,061 47.0 1,048 42.2 28,932 46.1 10 701 39.6 776 34.4 835 33.6 18,766 29.9 12 522 29.5 420 18.6 602 24.2 15,119 24.1 1,772 100.0 2,257 100.0 2,485 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 851 48.9 1,067 48.0 1,180 48.7 30,383 49.5 Female 890 51.1 1,157 52.0 1,244 51.3 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 24 7.0 34 6.6 34 5.2 1,121 4.9 African American 5 1.5 5 1.0 14 2.2 658 2.9 Asian 4 1.2 6 1.2 6 0.9 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 7 2.0 8 1.6 5 0.8 225 1.0 White 115 33.4 178 34.6 243 37.3 6,774 29.7 Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 29 8.4 38 7.4 50 7.7 1,099 4.8 160 46.5 246 47.8 299 45.9 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 26 1.9 36 2.1 53 3.1 1,909 5.2 12 0.9 25 1.5 22 1.3 1,979 5.4 21 1.5 27 1.6 24 1.4 1,641 4.5 5 0.4 14 0.8 18 1.0 324 0.9 1,195 87.9 1,397 83.3 1,461 85.0 26,247 72.1 89 6.5 104 6.2 113 6.6 2,561 7.0 11 0.8 74 4.4 27 1.6 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 344 19.4 515 22.8 651 26.2 22,831 1,359 76.7 1,677 74.3 1,718 69.1 36,420 36.3 58.0 1,772 100.0 2,257 100.0 2,485 100.0 62,817 100.0 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 162 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 216 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 119 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 225 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 219 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 246 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 220 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 172 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 194 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 607 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 607 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 559 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 134 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 144 Students Sample size (Rx): 68 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 144 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 215 Students Sample size (Rx): 142 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 141 Students Sample size (Rx): 130 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 99 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 500 Students Sample size (Rx): 340 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 377 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Mohave County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Mohave County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Mohave County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Mohave County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 2.5 n/a 1.9 17.2 12.5 23.4 13.6 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 12.8 23.1 14.1 4.0 17.1 2.0 n/a 7.0 0.7 0.9 18.9 1.5 4.6 24.5 11.8 32.0 57.3 7.7 10.3 15.0 5.8 2.6 12.2 2.4 2.2 4.7 0.7 1.0 11.4 1.6 1.9 22.4 5.3 25.7 46.4 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 14.8 29.1 16.2 6.6 24.9 3.1 n/a 5.0 2.1 2.8 12.2 4.4 6.6 36.3 14.4 43.1 73.3 n/a 12.8 27.5 15.0 6.1 23.3 2.9 n/a 8.7 2.4 1.6 12.8 3.3 6.0 33.7 13.6 36.0 68.5 11.3 12.5 24.7 11.9 6.4 22.1 2.1 2.5 10.7 1.1 1.6 12.6 3.6 6.6 42.6 8.6 38.7 68.7 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 13.3 30.4 14.3 3.4 27.5 2.0 n/a 7.1 3.6 4.9 9.4 8.1 7.5 41.5 18.4 49.6 78.0 n/a 17.4 31.5 15.7 5.8 27.7 2.4 n/a 11.2 2.7 1.4 13.1 4.8 9.2 44.4 19.6 47.6 77.1 14.5 14.9 28.6 14.9 9.7 27.1 2.4 2.6 13.6 2.8 1.6 11.7 6.9 8.3 52.1 16.4 47.9 76.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 4.0 1.7 1.3 19.3 1.5 1.7 13.2 7.3 26.1 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 53.8 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 14.0 27.7 14.5 4.8 23.3 2.4 n/a 4.8 2.4 3.0 13.6 4.6 5.3 30.7 13.4 39.8 68.7 n/a 13.7 26.3 14.7 5.1 21.3 2.4 n/a 8.4 1.7 1.3 15.6 2.8 6.0 31.6 13.9 36.5 65.1 10.7 12.2 21.9 10.3 5.8 19.5 2.3 2.4 9.1 1.4 1.4 11.9 3.6 5.2 37.0 9.2 35.8 61.8 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 1.5 0.6 5.3 1.0 n/a 1.1 7.6 1.3 10.9 7.3 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 6.6 11.5 5.2 1.9 8.2 0.4 n/a 3.0 0.3 0.3 7.5 0.5 1.8 13.2 3.9 13.0 29.8 4.0 5.7 8.4 3.0 1.6 6.1 0.8 1.0 1.6 0.1 0.1 4.1 0.2 0.7 11.6 2.1 9.9 25.2 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 8.1 13.1 4.7 2.2 11.2 0.7 n/a 1.5 0.4 0.7 3.4 1.2 2.8 16.8 6.1 17.9 40.4 n/a 5.3 15.7 7.3 1.9 13.1 0.9 n/a 3.4 1.3 0.4 4.1 1.3 3.2 17.8 4.7 13.9 34.4 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 6.7 13.1 5.0 1.2 12.7 0.6 n/a 2.6 1.0 0.4 1.8 2.4 2.0 16.5 6.1 20.8 43.6 n/a 10.7 14.3 7.1 1.9 12.1 1.2 n/a 4.6 1.5 0.5 2.9 1.5 1.9 20.1 8.7 21.3 43.7 4.9 3.6 13.4 6.1 1.6 11.8 1.2 0.5 2.6 0.5 0.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 21.7 6.8 22.3 43.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 4.3 5.4 12.3 4.7 1.9 10.2 1.1 0.9 1.5 0.4 0.4 2.8 0.8 1.6 22.2 2.6 15.1 35.9 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 4.3 0.8 0.6 0.4 5.1 7.6 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 24.3 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 7.5 12.4 4.7 1.6 10.5 0.8 n/a 1.6 0.7 0.6 3.5 1.3 1.8 13.1 4.7 15.6 36.4 n/a 6.9 13.5 6.3 1.9 10.7 0.8 n/a 3.5 0.9 0.4 5.4 1.0 2.3 16.2 5.1 15.0 34.1 4.4 5.1 11.1 4.4 1.7 9.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 0.3 0.3 3.0 0.8 1.3 17.9 3.4 14.8 33.4 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 32.5 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 13.5 16.5 Grade 8 13.5 0.4 Carried a Handgun to School 2.0 9.1 24.2 1.1 5.4 12.4 9.4 2.7 5.3 18.2 14.8 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 28.9 8.0 Grade 10 26.6 7.3 25.7 20.9 Grade 10 19.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 28.0 8.0 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.0 6.4 16.7 10.2 3.9 9.2 14.0 22.2 1.7 5.3 17.8 10.3 3.8 9.9 15.2 18.0 1.6 6.6 11.0 10.6 3.2 13.0 13.2 25.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 30.9 14.2 Grade 12 25.0 12.8 28.3 29.4 Grade 12 25.1 County County County 2008 2010 2012 26.4 15.6 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 0.8 5.6 13.8 9.7 1.9 7.4 13.0 19.2 1.7 7.2 11.4 9.3 3.3 10.6 14.0 23.9 2.1 7.5 12.0 9.4 2.7 11.8 11.8 23.3 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 26.5 8.0 22.7 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 0.7 6.6 16.9 9.5 3.4 6.7 14.5 18.1 24.7 6.7 18.3 15.7 1.8 7.4 19.5 10.8 5.2 8.9 18.6 20.0 1.5 6.3 11.8 9.8 2.9 9.6 15.0 20.6 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 20.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 31.4 8.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 28.9 9.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 7.8 Carried a Handgun 20.3 11.8 8.2 Been Arrested 7.1 4.1 7.4 3.0 23.0 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 16.7 Been Suspended from School 19.9 Sold Illegal Drugs 11.7 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 27.3 5.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 33.6 6.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 6.3 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 31.6 46.6 25.0 25.0 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 25.9 3.9 4.0 24.6 5.3 19.3 16.6 31.8 22.2 21.6 4.5 54.9 28.8 26.8 6.2 22.8 18.5 35.9 26.9 24.6 5.4 60.0 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 6.2 31.6 23.2 7.0 19.4 27.7 46.1 28.3 21.7 6.4 67.5 4.5 24.0 21.7 4.6 15.7 17.3 35.0 20.3 21.5 4.1 57.6 2.4 22.2 20.6 4.8 17.4 20.4 27.7 22.8 25.1 3.8 56.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 2.7 24.7 19.8 2.9 13.3 21.2 38.4 18.9 22.9 5.9 59.9 4.1 22.7 17.6 6.0 11.6 16.4 30.2 19.1 17.3 6.0 52.9 3.8 22.5 17.4 3.8 10.5 18.7 31.9 22.0 23.4 5.6 56.3 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 4.8 30.2 25.3 5.5 19.3 25.0 44.0 26.6 23.5 6.1 65.9 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 5.0 33.7 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 33.1 Played a dice game? 6.2 26.4 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 69.7 5.8 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 4.2 26.0 23.2 5.6 18.2 17.7 34.5 23.1 22.1 5.1 57.8 County 2010 3.3 23.8 21.4 4.7 16.5 18.4 30.4 22.4 23.2 4.5 55.8 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 38.6 36.5 42.4 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 58.6 46.8 52.1 30.9 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 48.8 Low Commitment to School 30.9 40.1 28.8 42.4 57.0 37.3 43.0 19.5 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 49.0 20.0 61.2 53.7 66.2 57.7 38.4 48.7 38.2 47.6 50.7 56.7 50.7 34.3 54.1 54.3 56.3 51.7 42.3 46.6 48.0 47.4 County 2010 32.7 12.6 53.8 45.3 56.7 62.5 35.4 42.9 34.0 35.3 42.6 51.3 47.2 29.5 49.0 43.6 56.5 51.0 36.9 40.7 41.1 52.3 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 43.3 16.4 43.9 47.0 65.1 44.9 42.2 51.5 35.5 45.1 48.7 45.8 50.7 51.1 56.5 49.2 43.5 40.9 29.3 53.0 48.2 56.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 38.4 15.7 43.8 40.7 61.5 52.0 35.5 46.2 29.0 43.8 49.5 46.0 51.1 46.1 55.2 48.1 47.1 43.1 23.6 45.6 47.2 54.2 County 2010 39.3 13.3 51.6 46.3 55.6 62.2 41.2 46.8 36.3 42.4 43.1 51.9 49.2 48.6 51.9 50.5 40.3 43.7 25.8 46.1 48.4 55.5 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 40.5 10.0 51.5 33.5 58.3 45.3 32.0 44.6 35.9 45.0 45.0 45.0 43.6 47.6 53.1 39.3 41.7 42.2 36.5 50.9 43.3 61.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 44.0 13.5 57.9 36.0 62.9 54.3 37.7 42.1 34.1 47.8 44.0 42.7 43.7 50.0 51.9 42.1 43.7 42.1 33.9 52.7 47.0 58.6 County 2010 40.3 12.3 57.8 32.8 55.8 61.0 36.3 40.5 36.0 46.6 37.8 44.2 39.9 45.7 53.9 51.3 43.1 41.9 37.6 46.0 46.4 63.9 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 41.2 15.5 45.9 40.0 60.6 44.2 35.1 46.0 34.2 43.4 46.2 46.5 47.9 43.9 54.1 45.6 47.6 40.5 35.4 47.4 43.8 55.3 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 39.1 39.8 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 44.2 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 48.5 Academic Failure School Domain 38.4 Poor Family Management Family Domain 47.0 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 44.4 17.1 54.6 45.9 64.0 54.9 37.3 46.6 34.2 46.3 49.0 50.4 49.5 41.6 54.1 49.5 50.3 46.6 33.9 47.5 47.5 52.2 County 2010 36.8 12.8 54.1 42.5 56.1 62.0 37.6 43.7 35.3 40.4 41.6 49.8 46.1 41.5 51.6 48.5 46.3 45.5 33.0 44.2 45.3 56.8 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 59.2 62.7 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54.8 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 36.5 58.4 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 40.6 50.8 36.7 44.2 51.4 38.9 51.8 53.7 52.6 45.3 27.0 County 2010 31.5 55.1 35.4 36.4 56.6 42.2 45.7 51.2 54.0 41.7 28.9 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 55.2 58.1 39.4 48.8 66.9 57.6 56.6 55.1 51.7 42.9 30.6 BH Norm County 2012 2008 53.4 62.3 41.6 50.0 68.8 56.8 57.6 50.1 50.0 43.6 35.0 County 2010 47.1 57.4 45.7 47.5 65.4 54.3 57.3 44.2 48.1 39.0 32.7 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 55.1 49.7 32.0 51.6 52.5 47.0 63.6 56.1 53.8 58.3 31.8 BH Norm County 2012 2008 57.8 51.0 34.8 52.8 56.1 47.6 60.9 57.1 55.8 60.5 32.1 County 2010 51.5 55.5 37.9 46.0 56.9 43.6 54.8 48.5 52.9 52.0 32.0 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 54.9 55.7 36.3 50.8 61.4 53.6 58.3 57.7 54.6 50.8 30.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 48.2 54.8 38.1 47.9 58.5 46.7 55.5 53.1 52.3 47.9 30.9 County 2010 41.6 56.0 39.5 42.6 59.7 46.6 51.9 47.7 51.4 43.8 31.2 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 54.5 52.8 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 62.6 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 55.4 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 53.6 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 28.7 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 0.8 0.8 0.8 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 18.5 37.5 31.0 28.6 10.9 22.7 22.7 43.7 39.5 11.8 19.3 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 26.5 9.3 19.8 37.7 24.1 18.5 21.0 21.6 18.5 3.7 3.1 4.3 162 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 22.8 13.0 19.9 51.6 26.0 32.9 13.4 21.1 42.3 2.4 2.0 6.5 246 County 2008 15.1 7.3 22.4 50.2 21.5 30.6 16.0 22.4 36.5 0.9 0.5 5.9 219 County 2010 17.8 9.8 22.7 48.4 22.7 26.7 16.9 19.6 32.4 1.8 1.8 6.2 225 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 20.1 6.2 16.0 57.2 21.6 41.8 17.5 18.6 54.6 2.6 3.6 10.3 194 County 2008 13.4 6.4 13.4 41.9 19.2 33.7 12.8 18.6 47.7 4.7 4.1 9.9 172 County 2010 15.0 6.8 10.5 49.1 19.5 32.7 13.2 14.5 34.5 2.7 2.3 4.5 220 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 21.1 10.4 22.7 51.9 23.8 33.8 14.3 21.8 42.8 2.1 2.3 6.6 559 County 2008 20.4 9.4 22.9 43.3 20.8 27.5 14.7 19.9 32.9 3.0 2.0 5.8 607 County 2010 19.1 8.6 17.5 45.8 21.9 26.7 16.6 18.3 29.5 2.6 2.3 5.1 607 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 31.5 13.9 21.3 19.4 14.8 17.6 3.7 1.9 2.3 216 County 2010 Grade 8 24.4 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 119 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 144 3,000 215 3,911 141 3,747 500 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 10.4 8.5 12.1 10.9 20.6 14.9 14.0 11.6 Friends 70.8 72.7 80.0 80.8 72.3 80.9 75.2 78.6 Family/Relatives 19.4 17.4 18.1 14.7 12.1 12.7 16.8 14.8 Parties 29.2 25.9 31.2 28.9 27.7 30.4 29.6 28.6 Home 6.9 6.1 11.6 6.3 5.0 6.0 8.4 6.1 School 8.3 15.8 9.8 14.9 6.4 10.1 8.4 13.4 Other 25.0 28.8 27.0 22.3 18.4 21.0 24.0 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 134 68 1,637 144 142 2,321 99 130 2,478 377 340 6,436 Friends 61.9 58.8 48.7 66.0 69.7 59.8 72.7 68.5 62.8 66.3 67.1 58.2 Family/Relatives 23.1 20.6 16.8 28.5 22.5 16.6 21.2 15.4 16.3 24.7 19.4 16.5 Parties 36.6 22.1 21.4 38.2 23.9 19.6 36.4 26.2 19.5 37.1 24.4 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 29.9 26.5 28.2 36.8 23.2 31.3 25.3 26.9 24.7 31.3 25.3 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 13.4 11.8 13.5 21.5 11.3 14.3 28.3 17.7 19.5 20.4 13.8 16.1 School 25.4 13.2 12.9 25.0 14.1 15.6 27.3 14.6 12.7 25.7 14.1 13.8 Other 21.6 22.1 17.8 20.1 11.3 13.2 19.2 10.8 12.3 20.4 13.2 14.0 Over the Internet 3.7 7.4 2.4 2.8 0.7 1.4 7.1 1.5 0.9 4.2 2.4 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 5.2 5.9 5.1 5.6 2.1 4.2 7.1 1.5 3.6 5.8 2.6 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 13.4 9.1 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.6 50.5 12.1 12.6 5.4 2.6 2.2 0.8 13.7 84.5 8.1 4.5 1.4 1.5 93.8 2.4 1.9 0.1 1.8 12.2 8.1 1.9 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.6 55.1 13.6 12.0 4.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 12.9 90.8 5.1 2.8 0.4 0.9 96.0 2.3 1.1 0.2 0.4 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.4 2.2 95.0 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 4.2 1.9 92.9 1.0 6.4 1.0 0.6 10.3 2.6 69.4 8.7 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 8.3 3.1 86.6 1.7 0.1 0.0 3.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 2.1 96.0 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.8 2.2 1.0 95.5 0.5 6.2 1.6 1.0 8.4 2.0 70.3 10.1 0.3 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.1 7.6 4.0 85.8 0.7 0.4 0.0 2.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 3.5 93.7 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.4 2.5 1.6 94.7 0.4 5.6 2.1 1.7 9.1 5.0 69.9 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.6 4.9 2.4 91.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 2.3 1.1 0.6 County 2012 90.9 3.4 Grade 10 County 2010 90.7 5.0 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.0 1.4 96.3 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.1 0.8 95.3 0.8 2.3 1.2 0.0 6.1 2.2 79.5 8.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 6.5 2.2 89.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.4 0.4 0.0 County 2008 92.7 4.1 0.5 1.9 94.5 1.2 1.9 0.0 1.2 1.7 1.4 95.7 0.2 3.4 1.9 0.2 4.8 1.7 82.7 5.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 4.6 2.2 92.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.7 92.9 1.9 0.8 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.5 96.6 0.2 5.1 1.5 0.7 6.9 3.0 77.2 5.4 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.2 3.9 1.0 93.2 1.5 0.3 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.2 County 2012 92.4 3.2 Grade 12 County 2010 94.5 2.9 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 95.7 1.9 0.8 0.3 0.7 4.2 1.9 92.9 0.8 7.2 1.1 0.4 9.6 2.9 68.0 10.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.3 0.9 84.2 8.9 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 5.1 3.3 County 2008 89.6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 88.3 5.7 n/a n/a 69.1 71.1 n/a n/a 68.5 73.8 n/a n/a 74.3 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 7.7 9.0 n/a n/a 8.5 7.1 n/a n/a 6.4 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 10.5 8.6 n/a n/a 10.2 8.4 n/a n/a 8.3 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 4.4 3.7 n/a n/a 4.1 3.2 n/a n/a 3.0 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.7 1.6 n/a n/a 1.2 1.6 n/a n/a 1.4 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.6 1.2 n/a n/a 1.8 1.1 n/a n/a 0.7 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.7 0.6 n/a n/a 1.0 0.5 n/a n/a 0.8 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 5.3 4.3 n/a n/a 4.6 4.3 n/a n/a 5.1 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.6 1.5 94.2 2.3 1.4 0.5 1.3 4.6 2.9 90.7 0.6 12.9 2.0 1.5 11.9 6.0 56.7 8.4 0.4 0.1 1.6 1.3 1.2 10.3 7.2 78.0 2.1 0.6 0.1 4.5 1.5 0.4 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.2 1.4 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 10-11 times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 1.1 73.7 0.4 75.8 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 3.4 0.9 0.1 4.1 1.3 0.6 County 2012 84.1 6.7 Grade 8 County 2010 87.1 7.0 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 88.2 5.4 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.2 1.9 94.7 1.8 1.4 0.8 1.2 4.8 2.7 90.5 0.6 9.1 2.1 1.4 9.6 3.5 63.7 10.0 0.3 0.2 0.9 1.4 0.1 9.7 6.0 81.5 0.9 0.2 0.0 2.6 0.7 0.2 County 2010 89.8 5.5 70.2 7.7 9.9 4.0 1.4 1.0 0.8 5.0 0.7 2.7 93.7 1.9 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.2 1.9 93.5 0.4 8.5 1.9 1.4 9.7 4.9 66.2 7.0 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 6.9 4.1 86.2 1.7 0.4 0.1 3.2 1.1 0.4 County 2012 88.4 4.7 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 25.2 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 77.8 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 11.6 Marijuana 27.2 11.1 years 23.6 12.1 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.3 years Average age: 52.5 Average age: 1,008 1,009 1,009 Sample 899 920 910 1,001 1,000 1,003 600 608 608 788 809 802 Sample Alcohol Percent 9.9 Cigarettes 85.4 73.5 93.3 97.0 88.8 64.1 79.7 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 53.9 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.3 years 45.1 12.5 years 41.0 819 821 821 Sample 793 800 796 815 819 821 702 704 707 752 771 767 Sample 12.7 years 71.1 Percent 22.2 15.1 35.9 63.4 79.5 63.0 86.9 91.2 81.0 52.0 84.0 55.4 Percent Grade 10 14.5 years 53.3 13.7 years 51.2 589 588 590 Sample 571 573 576 583 586 587 563 563 564 561 568 567 Sample 14.0 years 77.8 Percent 21.7 22.3 43.1 62.8 63.8 61.2 83.8 82.2 70.4 52.9 84.0 61.4 Percent Grade 12 13.4 years 38.1 12.5 years 37.7 2,416 2,418 2,420 Sample 2,263 2,293 2,282 2,399 2,405 2,411 1,865 1,875 1,879 2,101 2,148 2,136 Sample 12.6 years 65.0 Percent 17.9 14.8 33.4 69.3 78.1 66.9 88.0 90.4 80.4 56.8 82.4 56.4 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.2 years 37.9 12.3 years 35.2 1,135 1,135 1,137 Sample 1,049 1,066 1,058 1,129 1,123 1,129 855 854 860 960 978 970 Sample 12.4 years 62.1 Percent 17.2 14.2 32.7 68.7 79.3 66.8 87.7 90.4 79.0 51.7 81.5 53.0 Percent Male †† 13.6 years 37.9 12.7 years 39.7 1,222 1,223 1,224 Sample 1,163 1,175 1,174 1,211 1,222 1,223 969 979 977 1,092 1,121 1,118 Sample 12.8 years 67.6 Percent 18.0 15.1 33.8 70.3 77.1 67.9 88.8 90.7 82.2 62.3 83.4 59.9 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 61.7 63.8 72.9 51.4 45.9 53.1 40.6 38.4 41.6 54.0 51.2 59.4 Once 13.1 14.7 14.3 11.1 12.1 8.5 13.9 17.9 17.4 18.2 13.7 17.0 14.3 20.5 15.3 19.4 12.9 20.1 13.6 17.0 15.6 15.7 12.8 13.9 5.7 1.2 3.5 4.0 2.0 4.8 3.1 1.1 2.3 7.0 3.3 6.4 7.8 2.8 7.9 7.3 3.2 5.7 8.9 5.6 10.1 12.2 4.2 10.4 11.5 4.7 9.2 6.8 2.8 5.8 7.4 2.8 7.3 6.4 2.6 5.0 76.4 8.9 78.3 10.0 82.8 8.2 69.4 10.0 68.9 12.4 73.3 10.1 65.9 9.0 65.2 9.5 65.7 10.1 71.9 9.3 71.7 10.7 75.7 9.2 6.8 2.7 5.6 2.1 4.6 1.7 8.2 2.1 6.8 2.4 6.8 3.2 8.0 3.9 9.2 3.2 8.9 4.4 7.5 2.7 6.9 2.5 6.3 2.8 1.7 3.5 1.1 2.9 0.8 1.9 2.2 8.0 1.9 7.5 1.8 4.8 1.9 11.4 3.0 9.9 2.2 8.7 1.9 6.7 1.9 6.3 1.4 4.4 68.5 8.1 67.5 8.8 74.3 8.4 62.8 9.2 49.4 13.1 57.4 10.8 58.4 11.4 53.3 11.1 53.8 10.9 64.5 9.2 57.6 10.9 64.3 9.7 7.5 4.9 2.5 8.6 5.1 3.1 6.5 3.5 2.1 9.2 4.4 2.8 13.4 6.6 4.4 11.1 6.7 3.8 8.0 6.8 2.4 10.4 6.9 4.2 11.4 6.8 3.8 8.2 5.1 2.6 10.7 6.1 3.9 9.1 5.3 3.0 8.4 85.6 6.8 86.5 5.2 88.4 11.6 82.9 13.1 79.7 10.4 82.9 12.9 81.8 14.1 79.9 13.3 82.1 10.4 83.9 10.8 82.5 8.7 85.2 6.3 2.6 6.5 2.6 5.3 2.6 6.0 3.7 8.0 4.7 7.3 4.2 8.5 2.4 6.2 4.6 6.6 4.8 6.6 3.0 6.9 3.8 6.2 3.6 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.6 1.2 0.7 2.4 1.1 2.4 1.0 1.9 1.0 2.2 1.7 3.2 1.9 2.2 1.1 2.0 1.1 2.3 1.1 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 3.0 2.2 1.7 3.9 4.2 2.8 3.4 4.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 2.4 Never 65.4 59.7 57.4 65.5 58.4 59.0 66.7 57.0 61.4 65.7 58.6 58.9 Once 11.5 11.9 15.1 10.7 15.1 12.5 10.9 11.5 14.6 13.7 13.7 13.2 8.4 12.3 9.3 14.8 12.1 12.7 10.7 11.9 13.4 12.8 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 2.8 1.8 3.8 1.5 4.8 2.1 5.8 1.2 4.0 2.2 5.1 2.2 5.4 1.7 6.8 2.1 5.4 2.3 4.4 1.6 4.6 1.9 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 6.5 9.2 8.1 5.1 7.2 6.8 5.4 10.0 6.2 5.8 8.7 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 32.1 15.7 33.3 13.4 28.2 12.4 35.1 14.7 35.5 16.1 32.1 15.2 36.7 15.2 32.1 18.8 34.1 15.5 34.1 15.2 33.8 15.8 30.8 14.0 6.0 3.1 5.7 5.3 2.6 6.2 4.6 2.6 5.5 8.8 2.8 9.3 7.2 3.5 9.4 7.1 3.7 8.1 9.0 6.4 11.5 9.3 4.3 10.7 8.9 4.4 9.1 7.6 3.6 8.2 7.0 3.4 8.5 6.4 3.4 7.2 37.4 35.4 39.3 37.5 46.8 31.7 29.2 37.3 28.3 34.9 33.8 34.9 21.3 45.5 24.8 36.4 28.0 37.2 31.3 38.1 31.6 36.3 38.2 34.0 10.6 7.3 11.5 5.6 9.7 4.7 15.0 8.0 15.1 9.1 13.2 7.5 11.3 7.6 14.7 9.3 14.5 8.6 12.3 7.6 13.6 7.8 12.0 6.5 4.3 5.5 2.6 4.0 2.6 4.4 3.8 6.5 4.1 8.8 4.3 6.5 5.7 8.1 6.6 9.3 4.8 7.1 4.4 6.4 4.2 7.1 3.7 5.7 36.9 38.3 38.9 39.5 47.0 34.0 29.5 43.3 28.1 44.3 33.6 43.7 21.9 50.6 23.7 44.8 27.8 50.0 31.3 42.5 31.0 42.6 38.1 40.9 10.8 4.4 3.5 9.6 5.0 2.4 8.8 3.1 2.2 13.2 4.1 2.6 11.8 4.9 3.2 10.2 4.0 2.5 11.5 4.2 4.9 13.5 5.2 3.1 10.1 4.3 2.3 11.8 4.2 3.5 11.4 5.0 2.8 9.5 3.7 2.3 4.9 38.1 4.2 39.5 4.5 47.5 6.2 30.7 6.6 29.3 5.1 34.6 6.4 22.5 8.3 25.1 4.8 28.6 5.7 32.3 6.1 32.1 4.8 38.9 44.2 8.0 43.9 7.5 36.8 7.1 51.0 7.9 48.7 9.4 47.6 8.0 58.3 9.3 54.2 8.9 53.8 7.6 49.5 8.2 48.3 8.5 44.3 7.5 3.5 2.2 3.4 2.1 2.7 1.8 4.1 2.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.3 3.7 2.4 4.7 2.4 3.7 2.1 3.7 2.3 3.7 2.6 3.1 2.0 3.8 38.2 2.7 40.3 3.7 47.9 4.5 30.1 5.4 29.8 4.1 34.8 4.1 22.2 3.8 26.0 3.9 29.0 4.1 32.1 4.0 32.8 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? All Students Surveyed* County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 76.8 80.3 85.4 80.6 81.7 86.9 79.0 83.2 87.7 78.6 81.5 86.4 9.9 7.5 7.2 6.5 7.9 5.9 9.8 6.8 5.3 8.7 7.5 6.3 3 to 5 times 4.3 4.9 3.2 5.6 4.4 2.8 4.1 3.9 2.7 4.7 4.5 2.9 6 to 9 times 2.1 2.7 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.8 2.1 1.4 10 to 19 times 3.3 1.3 0.9 1.9 1.7 0.8 1.4 1.9 0.8 2.5 1.6 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 40+ times 2.6 2.9 1.3 2.5 2.1 1.5 2.6 1.4 1.5 2.6 2.3 1.4 Never 18.6 33.2 39.2 28.3 40.4 43.7 36.6 49.9 55.3 25.3 39.8 44.4 1 or 2 times 23.5 26.1 27.7 27.8 24.4 24.2 22.7 21.2 21.5 24.9 24.3 25.2 3 to 5 times 23.7 19.0 16.3 18.8 16.8 17.1 21.5 13.8 12.8 21.6 17.0 15.6 6 to 9 times 12.4 8.4 7.7 12.2 8.8 7.2 9.1 7.5 5.1 11.7 8.3 6.9 10 to 19 times 8.7 4.8 3.8 5.3 4.7 3.5 5.3 2.9 2.5 6.9 4.3 3.4 20 to 29 times 3.9 1.8 1.7 3.1 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.1 3.2 1.8 1.5 30 to 39 times 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.5 40+ times 7.4 5.8 3.0 3.6 2.7 2.3 3.1 2.6 1.5 5.3 3.9 2.4 Never 79.6 85.0 87.6 82.9 87.2 90.2 87.9 91.8 91.9 82.3 87.4 89.4 1 or 2 times 10.0 9.2 7.1 9.3 6.5 5.5 6.7 5.0 4.6 9.1 7.2 6.0 3 to 5 times 2.8 2.9 2.3 3.7 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.0 1.6 2.9 2.4 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.8 1.4 0.9 1.9 0.7 0.7 1.9 1.1 0.9 10 to 19 times 3.7 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.4 2.3 0.5 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 40+ times 1.3 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 86.8 90.7 90.4 93.8 93.4 92.1 91.4 93.8 93.5 90.1 92.4 91.7 1 or 2 times 8.3 5.3 6.0 3.4 3.8 4.8 6.5 3.4 3.8 6.2 4.3 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.3 2.4 1.5 1.0 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 10 to 19 times 1.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.5 1.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 82.5 82.6 87.6 81.4 77.5 83.7 76.0 75.7 80.3 80.8 79.0 84.6 9.0 4.6 3.0 12.7 12.5 7.8 17.5 15.5 10.8 12.0 10.2 6.4 3.4 1.6 1.0 5.5 4.0 2.2 5.1 3.5 2.8 4.5 3.0 1.8 5.3 1.7 1.3 7.4 4.3 2.6 8.7 5.9 3.4 6.7 3.7 2.2 4.3 2.1 1.8 7.1 4.2 4.1 6.1 6.1 4.2 5.7 3.9 3.1 2.0 0.9 0.8 4.1 2.0 1.9 6.8 4.0 3.3 3.7 2.1 1.8 3.7 1.0 0.8 4.8 2.5 2.0 6.6 3.3 2.2 4.7 2.2 1.5 3.1 1.7 1.1 3.9 2.0 1.7 4.6 2.4 2.1 3.7 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Navajo County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Navajo County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 489 28.7 586 38.1 772 56.6 28,932 46.1 10 682 40.0 494 32.1 313 23.0 18,766 29.9 12 535 31.4 459 29.8 278 20.4 15,119 24.1 1,706 100.0 1,539 100.0 1,363 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 800 47.4 764 50.6 705 52.9 30,383 49.5 Female 886 52.6 746 49.4 628 47.1 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 38 15.1 24 8.7 22 8.2 1,121 4.9 African American 11 4.4 5 1.8 8 3.0 658 2.9 Asian 2 0.8 1 0.4 1 0.4 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 2 0.8 3 1.1 5 1.9 225 1.0 84 33.3 117 42.5 117 43.5 6,774 29.7 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 10 4.0 16 5.8 19 7.1 1,099 4.8 105 41.7 109 39.6 97 36.1 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 589 44.1 270 22.7 214 21.3 1,909 5.2 10 0.7 10 0.8 17 1.7 1,979 5.4 11 0.8 8 0.7 6 0.6 1,641 4.5 2 0.1 7 0.6 9 0.9 324 0.9 651 48.8 784 65.8 688 68.4 26,247 72.1 61 4.6 70 5.9 61 6.1 2,561 7.0 11 0.8 43 3.6 11 1.1 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 252 14.8 275 17.9 269 19.7 22,831 1,335 78.3 1,192 77.5 1,006 73.8 36,420 36.3 58.0 1,706 100.0 1,539 100.0 1,363 100.0 62,817 100.0 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 101 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 70 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 96 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 61 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 116 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 184 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 67 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 131 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 179 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 229 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 317 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 459 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 113 Students Sample size (Rx): 70 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 50 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 74 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 49 Students Sample size (Rx): 37 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 78 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 45 Students Sample size (Rx): 45 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 207 Students Sample size (Rx): 152 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 202 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Navajo County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Navajo County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Navajo County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Navajo County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 17.3 26.7 1.5 n/a 1.0 13.4 18.4 7.7 n/a used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 8.0 13.4 7.2 2.1 10.3 1.7 n/a 1.9 0.3 0.3 10.8 1.6 1.4 8.2 8.4 11.5 4.9 2.6 9.5 1.7 1.8 2.7 0.3 0.4 12.4 1.0 1.5 24.1 13.3 28.9 35.0 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 12.8 26.3 10.6 5.8 22.3 2.3 n/a 4.0 1.7 6.3 13.3 9.2 4.1 42.5 19.5 49.1 61.2 n/a 11.3 21.4 9.8 4.7 17.3 1.7 n/a 5.3 3.2 1.5 10.5 5.7 4.9 33.3 20.0 39.7 55.9 10.7 10.7 16.6 6.9 3.9 14.1 1.3 2.3 3.9 1.6 0.3 6.2 2.0 3.3 26.5 19.2 29.6 45.6 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 15.0 32.1 10.0 5.6 29.4 2.7 n/a 3.8 1.9 7.7 7.9 12.7 5.6 55.7 26.5 57.1 72.9 n/a 12.1 24.7 10.9 3.8 21.8 1.8 n/a 6.5 2.9 3.3 11.6 8.9 5.3 40.4 28.6 49.3 64.2 11.6 12.3 25.0 9.0 6.7 23.1 3.0 2.2 6.7 1.9 0.7 8.5 5.9 7.7 36.2 22.1 38.7 54.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 9.0 4.6 0.6 1.3 13.2 2.5 2.3 13.6 12.1 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 24.4 33.5 smoked cigarettes? 36.4 Cigarettes 45.9 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 12.0 25.8 9.9 5.4 21.9 2.1 n/a 3.2 1.5 5.3 11.5 8.3 4.1 42.1 19.5 47.1 60.5 n/a 10.2 19.3 9.1 3.4 16.0 1.7 n/a 4.4 2.0 1.6 10.9 5.1 3.7 29.2 20.1 36.7 50.9 9.5 9.8 15.5 6.2 3.8 13.5 1.9 2.0 3.8 0.9 0.5 10.1 2.2 3.3 27.2 16.6 31.2 41.6 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 0.8 4.6 0.6 n/a 0.4 6.5 2.1 4.0 9.6 4.2 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 3.0 6.6 1.9 0.7 5.2 0.7 n/a 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.5 9.9 4.2 10.5 17.0 4.7 4.4 6.1 2.3 1.1 5.3 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.1 0.1 4.2 0.3 1.0 12.7 6.6 12.8 17.6 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 6.0 12.5 4.0 1.8 10.7 1.2 n/a 1.5 0.8 1.2 2.7 3.4 2.0 20.5 7.3 18.9 32.3 n/a 5.1 9.3 4.0 1.3 7.8 1.1 n/a 1.7 1.1 1.1 2.8 2.6 1.3 15.4 7.8 18.0 30.4 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 6.6 16.1 4.6 2.3 13.5 1.3 n/a 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.5 3.3 1.5 23.0 10.5 23.9 39.3 n/a 5.4 12.2 4.2 1.1 10.5 0.4 n/a 1.1 1.8 0.4 2.2 2.2 0.7 17.9 15.6 24.3 34.9 5.2 6.0 11.2 2.6 3.4 9.4 0.4 0.0 1.9 0.7 0.4 2.2 1.1 3.0 16.7 10.7 18.1 30.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 4.6 5.5 8.2 4.0 2.3 6.6 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.3 1.0 13.1 8.2 11.2 23.0 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.0 0.4 0.4 13.5 3.7 13.3 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 24.0 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 5.6 12.8 4.2 2.1 10.4 1.0 n/a 1.0 0.5 0.8 2.9 2.6 1.4 19.3 7.3 18.9 32.1 n/a 4.4 9.2 3.3 1.0 7.6 0.7 n/a 1.0 0.9 0.5 2.7 1.7 0.8 14.0 8.8 17.0 26.6 4.8 5.0 7.7 2.8 1.9 6.5 0.4 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.2 3.2 0.5 1.4 13.6 7.9 13.6 21.6 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 30.5 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 15.8 9.5 6.9 7.5 Been Arrested 3.6 1.7 10.7 8.7 0.4 Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 10.9 2.2 8.1 11.7 7.6 3.1 5.7 15.0 15.8 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 26.7 11.4 Grade 10 20.2 5.9 22.7 20.3 Grade 10 14.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 27.3 9.6 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.4 8.6 15.6 11.0 5.5 10.9 19.8 29.9 1.4 7.4 11.9 12.9 5.7 7.4 16.0 23.3 0.7 6.5 6.2 5.6 1.6 5.2 10.1 17.8 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 24.5 10.9 Grade 12 20.5 10.0 25.9 22.4 Grade 12 17.6 County County County 2008 2010 2012 31.9 14.8 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 0.6 8.7 15.2 11.8 3.4 12.3 13.4 29.5 2.0 9.5 13.5 11.7 3.5 10.0 17.0 24.7 1.5 6.5 7.6 7.2 2.2 8.1 6.9 20.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 20.5 6.8 21.7 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 0.8 8.6 15.5 10.3 3.8 9.7 16.9 26.9 24.7 6.7 13.1 15.7 1.6 9.3 14.5 10.3 4.3 6.6 15.5 19.7 1.7 7.4 9.6 7.0 2.6 6.1 12.2 17.2 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 16.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 24.4 8.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 29.7 10.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 1.4 17.5 15.6 3.3 5.4 14.0 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 16.9 Been Suspended from School 12.6 Sold Illegal Drugs 20.1 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 20.6 6.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 22.4 5.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 8.3 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 34.2 44.0 30.8 31.6 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 25.3 4.8 4.3 25.7 5.7 24.6 15.7 28.6 20.9 16.7 3.1 55.7 24.1 28.0 4.7 23.3 11.1 35.4 23.8 15.4 2.2 60.6 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 3.5 25.4 26.1 4.1 22.9 24.9 39.3 29.1 15.9 4.2 64.8 4.4 26.2 21.1 4.4 18.8 19.1 32.7 27.1 13.9 1.2 57.5 3.9 22.4 20.8 3.9 19.9 16.3 29.4 21.0 16.5 2.6 51.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 3.6 29.2 25.2 4.4 21.9 26.8 40.9 34.4 17.8 4.0 64.4 4.0 24.3 17.4 4.4 12.2 13.5 31.5 21.4 12.8 4.2 50.2 5.1 18.5 17.2 3.3 14.8 12.0 28.1 19.6 15.3 5.5 44.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 4.3 28.4 27.4 4.7 25.1 27.2 41.2 32.2 17.9 4.1 67.3 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 6.2 31.5 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 31.7 Played a dice game? 5.9 20.6 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 74.1 4.0 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 4.2 24.8 22.6 4.5 18.5 14.3 33.4 24.1 14.2 2.5 56.5 County 2010 4.7 23.2 22.8 4.8 21.5 15.1 28.7 20.7 16.3 3.5 52.3 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 37.7 35.5 38.5 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 53.3 48.3 47.3 27.6 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 38.8 Low Commitment to School 37.1 41.3 32.2 47.1 54.4 44.1 41.0 22.0 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 33.3 16.0 38.6 34.2 50.3 39.6 21.8 31.7 26.6 34.6 39.1 38.9 47.5 18.3 42.8 37.0 54.0 38.5 41.3 33.8 32.1 35.5 County 2010 30.5 18.5 38.6 38.9 50.2 45.9 27.3 32.4 30.2 36.0 32.6 36.4 44.3 18.3 40.1 40.5 45.0 38.1 34.7 30.9 31.9 35.8 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 39.3 26.6 39.8 46.2 63.6 34.6 33.1 46.9 41.2 45.6 45.6 40.1 56.6 34.9 50.2 52.9 39.8 40.5 28.7 43.7 41.5 48.6 BH Norm County 2012 2008 32.5 20.4 37.9 42.6 62.7 39.1 29.8 43.9 30.7 41.5 45.9 41.3 52.6 28.3 45.0 41.7 39.6 35.2 33.5 38.4 41.5 46.3 County 2010 29.4 14.0 47.0 34.0 43.4 39.5 29.0 38.9 25.3 34.1 37.7 43.2 46.6 28.3 40.4 37.8 37.3 29.2 39.4 36.1 36.9 39.9 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 39.0 17.7 51.2 41.0 61.0 37.4 28.4 47.2 41.2 46.7 47.4 36.3 48.9 34.5 50.1 49.7 35.0 39.0 36.0 47.9 38.3 55.5 BH Norm County 2012 2008 35.2 21.7 47.6 33.7 57.0 45.6 31.8 42.6 32.2 45.1 49.3 38.5 46.1 33.5 46.9 42.5 35.7 36.3 38.4 39.7 34.5 52.8 County 2010 27.8 8.1 48.4 29.5 43.9 39.9 24.4 35.3 21.7 33.1 34.9 44.0 38.1 33.1 47.2 35.3 40.0 32.0 42.4 31.1 32.7 52.0 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 39.2 22.4 43.8 44.0 60.2 39.1 31.4 45.4 40.0 42.9 44.1 38.6 51.6 32.7 49.4 50.5 42.1 41.5 33.8 42.7 39.4 48.4 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 39.3 34.9 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 38.4 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 47.6 Academic Failure School Domain 45.8 Poor Family Management Family Domain 40.3 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 33.6 19.1 41.1 36.8 56.3 41.3 27.3 38.9 29.6 39.9 44.3 39.6 48.7 26.0 44.7 40.2 43.9 36.8 37.9 37.1 35.8 44.1 County 2010 29.7 15.2 42.6 35.8 47.3 43.1 27.1 34.5 27.3 35.0 34.3 39.6 43.5 24.0 41.7 38.7 42.0 34.5 37.5 32.2 33.3 40.3 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 61.8 67.1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 60.3 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 52.5 66.4 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 69.1 68.2 46.5 64.2 68.6 64.1 70.3 65.0 67.6 55.8 41.5 County 2010 57.8 72.3 47.8 53.3 69.6 58.4 66.5 60.9 64.4 54.7 46.4 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 61.0 64.4 40.6 61.1 71.8 58.7 61.6 57.5 55.1 47.2 48.8 BH Norm County 2012 2008 62.8 61.9 45.2 62.6 71.5 60.2 61.4 58.8 56.9 50.1 52.4 County 2010 72.5 65.1 55.6 66.8 77.6 76.4 71.8 61.1 64.1 52.1 51.5 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 61.8 56.1 34.3 60.6 53.4 52.7 65.9 61.2 57.6 57.1 45.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 60.9 58.5 41.4 61.2 62.6 52.5 68.6 58.5 57.2 60.6 48.0 County 2010 67.3 59.6 51.6 61.3 68.4 53.8 69.1 63.4 63.2 65.4 49.6 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 62.3 62.3 42.0 60.3 65.1 57.3 64.5 61.4 57.8 52.4 46.3 BH Norm County 2012 2008 64.6 63.3 44.5 62.8 67.7 59.4 67.0 61.1 61.1 55.5 46.9 County 2010 63.1 68.0 50.4 58.1 71.2 61.6 68.3 61.5 64.1 56.4 48.4 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 64.6 58.8 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 68.6 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 67.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 54.1 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 44.0 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 4.2 1.0 5.2 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 18.6 24.0 32.3 29.2 28.1 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party 40.6 34.3 8.6 17.1 22.9 27.7 8.9 15.8 29.7 16.8 17.8 17.8 13.9 29.7 3.0 2.0 5.9 101 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 38.6 9.2 12.0 41.3 23.4 36.4 25.0 5.4 49.5 2.7 2.7 11.4 184 County 2008 32.8 8.6 16.4 42.2 26.7 29.3 20.7 10.3 37.9 2.6 3.4 5.2 116 County 2010 16.4 9.8 11.5 42.6 32.8 34.4 16.4 16.4 42.6 4.9 1.6 4.9 61 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 33.5 6.7 8.9 44.7 17.9 40.8 22.9 8.4 48.6 2.8 1.1 5.6 179 County 2008 19.8 4.6 5.3 38.9 19.1 24.4 11.5 11.5 52.7 2.3 1.5 9.9 131 County 2010 11.9 4.5 11.9 41.8 22.4 31.3 14.9 11.9 47.8 0.0 0.0 3.0 67 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 37.0 8.1 14.2 40.1 23.1 35.5 23.5 9.2 44.4 3.3 1.7 7.6 459 County 2008 27.8 6.9 12.3 39.4 21.5 25.9 16.4 9.1 43.5 3.2 2.2 7.3 317 County 2010 20.1 7.9 13.5 36.7 22.7 26.2 16.6 14.0 38.4 2.6 1.3 4.8 229 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. I got it some other way I took it from a store or someone else's home 8.3 35.7 21.9 I took it from home 2.9 17.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me 18.6 35.7 5.7 1.4 5.7 70 County 2010 Grade 8 27.1 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 96 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Sample size** Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 113 3,000 49 3,911 45 3,747 207 10,658 4.4 8.5 16.3 10.9 6.7 14.9 7.7 11.6 Friends 69.0 72.7 81.6 80.8 86.7 80.9 75.8 78.6 Family/Relatives 17.7 17.4 22.4 14.7 22.2 12.7 19.8 14.8 Parties 18.6 25.9 49.0 28.9 40.0 30.4 30.4 28.6 Home 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.3 8.9 6.0 6.8 6.1 School 11.5 15.8 14.3 14.9 13.3 10.1 12.6 13.4 Other 31.0 28.8 24.5 22.3 28.9 21.0 29.0 23.7 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 50 70 1,637 74 37 2,321 78 45 2,478 202 152 6,436 Friends 50.0 51.4 48.7 62.2 70.3 59.8 64.1 57.8 62.8 59.9 57.9 58.2 Family/Relatives 16.0 14.3 16.8 23.0 21.6 16.6 21.8 15.6 16.3 20.8 16.4 16.5 Parties 18.0 28.6 21.4 25.7 18.9 19.6 21.8 24.4 19.5 22.3 25.0 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 26.0 25.7 28.2 20.3 24.3 31.3 20.5 17.8 24.7 21.8 23.0 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 24.0 5.7 13.5 16.2 13.5 14.3 21.8 31.1 19.5 20.3 15.1 16.1 School 22.0 10.0 12.9 16.2 5.4 15.6 21.8 17.8 12.7 19.8 11.2 13.8 Other 16.0 21.4 17.8 17.6 13.5 13.2 12.8 8.9 12.3 15.3 15.8 14.0 4.0 0.0 2.4 4.1 0.0 1.4 1.3 2.2 0.9 3.0 0.7 1.5 12.0 5.7 5.1 10.8 5.4 4.2 6.4 4.4 3.6 9.4 5.3 4.2 Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 11.2 6.2 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 59.7 13.0 10.6 4.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 8.3 92.9 3.7 2.3 0.7 0.5 94.1 3.3 1.2 0.0 1.4 15.2 8.1 1.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.6 56.3 14.8 13.9 5.4 2.1 2.5 0.4 4.6 89.8 5.4 2.7 0.8 1.2 93.9 2.7 1.5 0.2 1.7 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.5 3.0 91.8 2.1 2.6 0.9 2.3 4.8 2.6 89.4 0.2 5.8 0.6 1.4 12.6 5.2 62.4 11.9 0.0 0.2 1.4 0.5 0.6 8.5 4.4 84.6 1.5 0.3 0.3 3.9 1.2 0.2 0.6 3.8 89.9 3.4 2.3 0.4 1.1 4.4 2.9 91.2 0.6 5.9 1.5 1.3 9.8 4.4 67.8 8.8 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.3 0.4 8.8 4.6 82.7 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.3 4.6 90.8 2.3 2.0 0.3 1.0 2.6 0.3 95.7 0.0 4.6 1.3 1.3 8.9 3.6 70.8 9.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.7 6.2 2.0 89.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 County 2012 92.9 2.6 Grade 10 County 2010 91.6 4.6 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.4 4.2 91.4 2.1 1.9 0.8 1.3 1.9 3.2 92.7 0.4 2.3 0.6 0.8 5.2 1.5 82.6 6.7 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.6 4.6 2.1 90.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.8 0.4 County 2008 92.6 4.2 0.2 2.4 95.6 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.1 4.0 2.0 91.8 0.7 3.1 0.7 0.9 6.7 1.3 79.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.8 91.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 6.5 91.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.8 96.0 0.0 3.6 2.9 0.7 4.7 3.6 78.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 5.8 2.2 91.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.7 0.4 County 2012 93.1 3.6 Grade 12 County 2010 94.9 2.4 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 92.3 2.3 2.0 0.8 1.7 4.1 2.8 90.6 0.3 4.3 1.0 1.5 10.7 4.1 67.0 11.1 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 4.7 1.1 83.1 9.2 0.2 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 4.9 3.4 County 2008 89.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 87.4 5.2 n/a n/a 69.6 71.1 n/a n/a 74.8 73.8 n/a n/a 76.0 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 8.3 9.0 n/a n/a 8.2 7.1 n/a n/a 9.1 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 8.7 8.6 n/a n/a 6.9 8.4 n/a n/a 4.7 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 3.6 3.7 n/a n/a 2.6 3.2 n/a n/a 3.6 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.0 1.6 n/a n/a 2.0 1.6 n/a n/a 1.1 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 n/a n/a 1.6 1.1 n/a n/a 0.4 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.8 0.6 n/a n/a 0.3 0.5 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 5.8 4.3 n/a n/a 3.6 4.3 n/a n/a 5.1 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 1.1 3.4 91.7 2.0 1.9 1.6 2.4 4.6 2.9 88.5 0.5 11.9 2.3 0.8 12.5 5.3 55.5 11.2 0.7 0.1 1.2 1.6 0.7 11.2 5.5 79.0 1.7 0.4 0.3 3.1 1.3 1.3 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.4 3.0 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.7 79.4 1.2 73.4 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 1.2 0.5 0.2 4.4 0.8 0.2 County 2012 86.8 5.1 Grade 8 County 2010 92.9 4.5 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 88.0 5.2 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.3 2.5 93.2 2.7 1.4 0.7 0.9 4.0 2.4 92.0 0.9 6.0 1.3 1.2 9.2 3.3 68.2 9.9 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.1 8.9 4.4 84.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.2 County 2010 93.1 3.9 72.1 8.4 7.5 3.4 1.8 1.1 0.5 5.1 0.8 4.3 91.4 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.7 3.5 2.1 91.7 0.3 8.5 2.2 0.9 10.1 4.6 63.7 9.8 0.4 0.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 8.9 4.0 84.0 1.6 0.2 0.2 2.3 1.2 0.8 County 2012 89.5 4.2 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 17.6 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 82.9 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 12.7 Marijuana 27.2 11.2 years 25.4 11.7 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.5 years Average age: 39.2 Average age: 747 745 750 Sample 709 710 715 742 745 746 618 621 623 667 685 685 Sample Alcohol Percent 12.8 Cigarettes 87.9 84.9 96.3 96.3 94.2 70.9 79.3 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 69.5 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.7 years 29.9 12.9 years 33.1 308 308 308 Sample 306 303 304 304 306 307 289 292 292 299 303 301 Sample 13.2 years 50.3 Percent 13.1 11.2 23.0 79.3 83.3 75.2 93.1 96.9 88.4 74.2 86.1 69.8 Percent Grade 10 14.5 years 36.7 14.0 years 38.8 275 276 275 Sample 269 271 269 274 274 275 245 245 248 260 264 262 Sample 14.2 years 55.6 Percent 16.7 18.1 30.5 70.1 74.5 72.0 89.0 86.5 78.2 68.8 89.0 73.3 Percent Grade 12 12.9 years 28.8 12.3 years 31.0 1,330 1,329 1,333 Sample 1,284 1,284 1,288 1,320 1,325 1,328 1,152 1,158 1,163 1,226 1,252 1,248 Sample 12.6 years 45.2 Percent 13.6 13.6 21.6 79.4 84.1 80.0 93.9 94.4 89.3 71.3 83.0 70.4 Percent All Students Surveyed† 12.7 years 30.5 12.2 years 32.7 685 685 684 Sample 659 659 665 679 683 684 582 582 587 625 640 638 Sample 12.3 years 45.2 Percent 15.5 14.7 21.7 76.9 83.0 78.9 93.5 94.2 89.6 65.6 81.6 67.6 Percent Male †† 13.0 years 26.5 12.3 years 28.4 618 617 620 Sample 601 602 601 613 615 616 544 550 550 577 586 585 Sample 12.9 years 44.7 Percent 11.5 11.8 21.3 82.4 85.5 81.5 94.3 94.7 89.3 77.8 84.5 73.2 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 75.1 71.7 72.9 54.0 60.1 53.1 48.9 58.1 41.6 60.6 66.1 59.4 Once 12.5 6.6 10.9 10.2 12.1 8.5 11.5 17.4 13.2 13.9 13.7 17.0 11.1 17.8 10.5 17.6 12.9 20.1 11.8 13.4 11.4 12.6 12.8 13.9 2.3 1.9 1.6 3.1 1.1 2.8 3.1 1.1 2.3 7.7 3.0 6.4 5.9 2.0 5.0 7.3 3.2 5.7 10.2 5.3 6.7 6.0 2.2 5.6 11.5 4.7 9.2 6.4 3.3 4.6 4.4 1.6 3.9 6.4 2.6 5.0 83.0 6.3 78.9 9.1 82.8 8.2 68.3 10.6 76.7 8.2 73.3 10.1 62.4 9.1 73.2 8.2 65.7 10.1 72.1 8.5 77.2 8.7 75.7 9.2 4.0 2.5 5.6 2.4 4.6 1.7 6.8 4.7 7.5 3.0 6.8 3.2 11.1 5.1 7.8 1.1 8.9 4.4 7.0 4.0 6.5 2.3 6.3 2.8 1.4 2.8 1.4 2.6 0.8 1.9 2.6 7.0 0.7 3.9 1.8 4.8 3.1 9.1 1.5 8.2 2.2 8.7 2.3 6.0 1.3 4.1 1.4 4.4 79.9 7.2 70.4 7.5 74.3 8.4 63.7 10.5 70.3 6.3 57.4 10.8 62.7 8.0 67.3 6.8 53.8 10.9 69.7 8.5 69.7 7.1 64.3 9.7 4.9 3.5 1.9 7.5 4.7 2.2 6.5 3.5 2.1 8.8 4.5 2.8 8.0 6.0 2.3 11.1 6.7 3.8 8.7 6.5 2.0 9.8 3.8 2.3 11.4 6.8 3.8 7.3 4.7 2.2 8.1 4.8 2.2 9.1 5.3 3.0 2.6 90.5 7.8 87.2 5.2 88.4 9.7 87.1 7.0 84.8 10.4 82.9 12.1 82.9 10.2 83.5 13.3 82.1 7.7 87.1 8.1 85.8 8.7 85.2 5.7 1.6 5.2 3.6 5.3 2.6 6.0 2.1 7.4 4.4 7.3 4.2 7.9 2.5 6.0 4.9 6.6 4.8 6.4 2.0 5.9 4.1 6.2 3.6 0.4 0.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.6 0.7 0.3 1.9 1.0 2.9 1.1 1.9 1.1 2.2 1.1 1.6 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.6 3.2 2.0 2.0 2.4 Never 61.0 52.7 57.4 61.9 53.9 59.0 60.6 63.1 61.4 61.2 55.2 58.9 Once 15.2 11.4 13.9 14.1 15.1 12.5 11.0 12.6 14.9 11.5 13.7 13.2 11.9 10.8 8.6 11.6 12.1 12.7 12.9 11.6 13.0 13.0 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.1 1.1 5.4 2.6 4.8 2.1 4.8 2.0 7.1 3.4 5.1 2.2 5.9 3.2 4.9 4.5 5.4 2.3 4.9 2.0 5.7 3.2 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 7.2 11.3 8.1 7.7 9.2 6.8 7.7 7.5 6.2 7.5 10.0 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 32.9 12.2 33.0 11.6 28.2 12.4 37.0 16.2 28.9 11.6 32.1 15.2 31.5 15.8 33.2 11.5 34.1 15.5 33.8 14.5 32.1 11.6 30.8 14.0 3.9 3.4 4.8 6.0 2.7 5.6 4.6 2.6 5.5 7.9 3.4 6.8 6.8 4.1 6.8 7.1 3.7 8.1 8.1 5.4 10.8 7.6 3.1 10.3 8.9 4.4 9.1 6.4 4.0 7.2 6.6 3.1 6.9 6.4 3.4 7.2 42.9 36.4 41.1 33.4 46.8 31.7 28.6 36.5 41.8 36.3 33.8 34.9 28.4 38.7 34.4 33.0 28.0 37.2 34.0 37.1 39.8 34.0 38.2 34.0 8.4 4.3 10.3 6.3 9.7 4.7 15.2 9.0 8.3 6.3 13.2 7.5 14.0 7.7 11.1 6.5 14.5 8.6 12.2 6.8 10.0 6.4 12.0 6.5 3.4 3.4 3.1 5.2 2.6 4.4 5.2 5.6 2.7 4.7 4.3 6.5 5.0 7.4 5.7 8.0 4.8 7.1 4.4 5.3 3.5 5.6 3.7 5.7 44.1 37.4 41.7 37.1 47.0 34.0 28.5 43.1 41.7 41.0 33.6 43.7 27.3 41.8 35.6 44.6 27.8 50.0 34.1 40.5 40.4 39.6 38.1 40.9 8.6 1.8 3.4 8.3 4.7 2.2 8.8 3.1 2.2 11.0 7.1 3.4 6.4 3.1 1.7 10.2 4.0 2.5 10.3 5.4 4.7 6.5 5.0 0.8 10.1 4.3 2.3 9.9 4.6 3.8 7.5 4.4 1.8 9.5 3.7 2.3 4.3 44.5 4.7 42.9 4.5 47.5 5.8 29.5 5.4 42.4 5.1 34.6 9.2 28.5 7.7 35.4 4.8 28.6 6.3 34.9 5.5 41.2 4.8 38.9 39.7 6.3 38.9 8.2 36.8 7.1 45.3 11.4 42.6 5.1 47.6 8.0 47.3 7.0 44.8 5.4 53.8 7.6 43.8 8.1 41.0 6.9 44.3 7.5 4.5 1.4 3.1 1.8 2.7 1.8 5.6 2.4 2.4 2.7 3.3 2.3 4.7 3.6 2.7 2.3 3.7 2.1 4.9 2.4 2.9 2.1 3.1 2.0 4.3 43.8 4.9 43.1 3.7 47.9 5.6 29.7 4.1 43.2 4.1 34.8 7.2 30.2 7.3 37.5 3.9 29.0 5.6 35.2 5.2 41.9 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 82.8 85.4 81.0 87.6 86.9 78.0 86.9 87.7 80.3 84.8 86.4 7.9 7.9 7.2 7.8 4.9 5.9 10.1 4.7 5.3 8.5 6.5 6.3 3 to 5 times 4.6 3.9 3.2 2.9 1.6 2.8 5.5 2.9 2.7 4.3 3.2 2.9 6 to 9 times 2.2 1.4 1.5 2.5 1.3 1.3 2.2 1.5 1.3 2.3 1.4 1.4 10 to 19 times 1.7 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.3 0.8 20 to 29 times 1.2 0.4 0.4 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.9 1.1 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 40+ times 0.7 1.8 1.3 2.5 2.9 1.5 2.2 2.2 1.5 1.7 2.1 1.4 Never 35.7 39.5 39.2 36.4 55.9 43.7 40.6 57.3 55.3 37.4 47.0 44.4 1 or 2 times 26.5 24.1 27.7 25.4 25.5 24.2 26.9 20.4 21.5 26.3 23.7 25.2 3 to 5 times 14.9 17.5 16.3 19.0 10.1 17.1 16.8 13.1 12.8 16.8 14.9 15.6 6 to 9 times 9.3 8.2 7.7 7.0 3.3 7.2 7.3 4.0 5.1 8.0 6.2 6.9 10 to 19 times 5.3 3.2 3.8 6.4 1.6 3.5 3.3 2.2 2.5 5.1 2.6 3.4 20 to 29 times 2.7 2.0 1.7 2.9 1.6 1.4 2.2 0.0 1.1 2.6 1.5 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.3 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5 40+ times 5.2 4.3 3.0 2.3 1.6 2.3 2.4 2.6 1.5 3.4 3.3 2.4 83.6 88.4 87.6 85.0 93.7 90.2 85.4 90.5 91.9 84.6 90.1 89.4 1 or 2 times 8.3 6.9 7.1 6.6 2.6 5.5 7.1 5.8 4.6 7.4 5.7 6.0 3 to 5 times 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.0 1.9 4.2 1.8 1.6 3.2 2.0 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.7 0.9 1.1 2.7 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.8 0.7 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.6 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 40+ times 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 88.3 92.4 90.4 91.6 96.0 92.1 92.7 94.9 93.5 90.7 93.8 91.7 1 or 2 times 8.2 4.6 6.0 4.1 2.3 4.8 4.6 4.0 3.8 5.8 4.0 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.9 0.5 1.5 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.8 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.5 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 40+ times 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? All Students Surveyed* 81.5 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 89.8 84.9 87.6 85.0 84.7 83.7 82.3 80.5 80.3 86.0 84.0 84.6 4.4 5.1 3.0 9.7 8.4 7.8 11.2 9.7 10.8 8.1 6.8 6.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 3.6 2.6 2.2 3.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.8 1.6 2.8 1.3 4.0 2.3 2.6 3.8 4.1 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 1.8 3.2 2.9 4.1 3.6 3.0 4.2 3.0 2.7 3.1 2.1 0.6 0.8 2.5 1.6 1.9 3.8 5.2 3.3 2.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.0 0.8 2.5 0.6 2.0 3.8 3.0 2.2 2.7 1.3 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.1 2.7 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.5 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.6 0.3 1.7 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Pima County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Pima County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 1,515 30.5 845 23.6 2,017 40.3 28,932 46.1 10 1,828 36.8 1,487 41.6 1,584 31.7 18,766 29.9 12 1,618 32.6 1,242 34.8 1,398 28.0 15,119 24.1 4,961 100.0 3,574 100.0 4,999 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 2,388 49.1 1,666 47.6 2,415 49.5 30,383 49.5 Female 2,472 50.9 1,834 52.4 2,460 50.5 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 111 4.5 117 5.4 124 5.8 1,121 4.9 African American 83 3.4 67 3.1 71 3.3 658 2.9 Asian 19 0.8 19 0.9 21 1.0 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 20 0.8 24 1.1 28 1.3 225 1.0 507 20.6 420 19.4 641 30.2 6,774 29.7 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 98 4.0 83 3.8 107 5.0 1,099 4.8 1,624 66.0 1,430 66.2 1,129 53.2 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 122 5.3 74 5.5 66 2.5 1,909 5.2 149 6.5 89 6.6 110 4.2 1,979 5.4 82 3.6 45 3.4 130 5.0 1,641 4.5 23 1.0 9 0.7 30 1.1 324 0.9 1,694 73.9 986 73.6 1,940 74.1 26,247 72.1 207 9.0 101 7.5 219 8.4 2,561 7.0 15 0.7 36 2.7 124 4.7 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 2,462 49.6 2,160 60.4 2,121 42.4 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 2,292 46.2 1,340 37.5 2,619 52.4 36,420 58.0 4,961 100.0 3,574 100.0 4,999 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 231 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 144 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 220 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 466 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 414 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 557 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 539 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 471 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 641 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 1,236 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 1,029 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 1,418 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 117 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 231 Students Sample size (Rx): 123 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 241 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 334 Students Sample size (Rx): 182 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 256 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 346 Students Sample size (Rx): 228 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 911 Students Sample size (Rx): 533 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 614 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pima County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pima County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pima County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pima County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 3.2 n/a 0.8 10.6 15.6 9.1 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 10.2 18.4 10.1 3.9 14.3 1.5 n/a 6.5 1.1 1.1 17.9 3.6 3.6 27.7 6.2 32.0 52.8 10.5 7.6 12.0 4.0 2.0 9.8 1.2 2.5 3.6 0.9 0.8 14.1 1.4 2.2 19.6 3.8 20.8 38.8 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 13.7 25.2 10.7 8.4 20.9 1.9 n/a 7.0 2.7 2.1 12.5 9.0 6.6 34.4 10.5 40.5 66.9 n/a 12.9 26.2 12.8 6.6 21.5 1.3 n/a 12.7 3.7 1.2 11.6 8.2 7.8 41.4 8.9 41.0 67.4 13.8 10.6 17.7 6.8 6.6 14.5 1.5 3.3 7.0 1.1 1.1 10.5 4.5 4.9 35.5 9.7 33.3 62.1 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 13.5 27.9 11.6 7.8 23.4 2.1 n/a 7.7 2.9 2.7 8.9 12.3 7.9 42.3 15.1 51.5 76.3 n/a 14.7 29.8 13.4 8.4 25.8 1.5 n/a 15.0 4.2 2.3 11.0 13.9 9.6 48.8 17.4 53.7 78.8 19.4 11.1 23.9 9.2 9.8 20.7 1.2 3.8 12.1 2.0 2.0 7.1 10.1 9.8 45.4 12.9 43.0 70.8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 7.0 3.2 1.1 1.1 13.5 2.8 2.3 17.4 6.7 24.1 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 43.6 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 12.3 23.3 9.9 6.7 18.7 1.7 n/a 6.1 2.3 2.0 11.6 8.2 5.7 32.0 10.9 39.3 63.1 n/a 12.9 25.7 12.4 6.6 21.4 1.4 n/a 12.1 3.3 1.6 12.9 9.1 7.4 40.9 11.3 43.5 68.1 14.1 9.6 17.3 6.5 5.8 14.5 1.3 3.1 7.2 1.3 1.2 10.9 4.9 5.3 32.2 8.3 31.3 55.6 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 2.3 1.0 5.4 1.3 n/a 0.4 5.2 1.6 3.0 7.6 5.9 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 6.5 9.2 4.8 1.8 7.2 0.8 n/a 2.5 0.5 0.3 8.1 0.8 1.5 13.4 2.7 12.0 29.0 6.6 5.0 5.8 1.8 0.8 4.6 0.2 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.3 5.1 0.4 0.9 9.3 1.9 7.6 16.7 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 7.0 11.8 4.4 3.0 9.5 0.8 n/a 2.1 1.0 0.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 15.7 3.2 16.3 38.7 n/a 6.6 12.9 5.3 2.5 9.5 0.6 n/a 3.3 1.5 0.2 2.4 1.9 2.6 18.8 4.2 17.2 37.2 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 5.5 11.1 4.4 1.8 8.6 1.0 n/a 2.1 1.0 0.3 2.0 3.5 2.6 17.6 5.1 23.2 47.4 n/a 5.8 12.8 4.0 2.3 10.4 0.5 n/a 3.5 1.5 0.6 1.9 4.8 2.8 22.4 8.0 28.6 48.2 8.4 4.6 10.4 3.0 2.6 7.8 0.4 0.7 2.2 0.4 0.4 1.5 3.4 2.7 23.2 6.7 21.6 44.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 6.4 4.6 8.6 2.9 2.7 7.1 1.0 1.0 1.7 0.4 0.3 1.9 1.4 1.5 18.6 4.8 14.7 35.0 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.4 0.3 0.9 7.2 8.0 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 20.2 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 6.2 10.3 4.0 2.2 7.9 0.7 n/a 1.9 0.8 0.4 3.3 2.5 2.0 13.8 3.6 16.2 36.1 n/a 6.3 12.0 4.7 2.3 9.3 0.6 n/a 3.2 1.2 0.4 3.5 2.7 2.4 18.8 5.2 20.1 39.3 7.1 4.8 8.1 2.5 2.0 6.3 0.5 0.8 1.7 0.4 0.3 3.0 1.6 1.6 16.3 4.2 14.0 30.7 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 27.6 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 10.7 17.5 Grade 8 24.5 4.1 Grade 8 8.4 2.2 2.2 9.6 1.2 7.1 13.7 7.2 2.9 6.2 17.1 12.4 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 34.5 10.0 Grade 10 24.0 6.2 22.1 24.8 Grade 10 18.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 31.3 8.9 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.6 8.7 18.9 12.0 4.0 11.4 15.7 20.8 2.7 9.3 18.5 14.9 7.0 13.7 18.6 26.1 1.2 5.9 11.3 10.0 3.3 10.1 13.2 21.8 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 37.1 16.8 Grade 12 27.5 13.2 29.2 33.2 Grade 12 28.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 31.3 15.6 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 1.0 7.9 13.1 10.6 1.8 10.4 10.2 19.0 2.2 9.7 15.8 12.9 5.3 12.3 13.9 25.1 0.9 6.0 7.6 10.1 1.5 10.3 10.0 22.5 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 25.2 7.4 21.1 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.6 8.1 17.3 11.0 3.2 9.1 14.4 17.4 24.7 6.7 17.3 15.7 2.4 9.5 18.1 13.9 6.0 12.1 18.8 24.7 1.1 6.4 11.2 8.9 2.6 8.6 13.9 18.3 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 26.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 36.0 11.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 30.2 10.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 7.6 Carried a Handgun to School 19.8 Carried a Handgun 10.1 Been Arrested Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them 20.9 13.6 3.8 9.0 5.3 4.9 26.2 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 17.5 Been Suspended from School 21.8 Sold Illegal Drugs 11.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 36.9 8.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.5 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 27.6 42.2 19.4 26.3 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 27.0 6.0 10.6 23.6 4.9 20.7 17.6 33.1 26.3 21.5 4.8 59.7 31.5 23.1 5.2 27.2 14.8 34.7 30.1 16.8 4.6 59.6 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 7.6 30.2 20.8 5.0 20.1 18.7 40.0 28.2 20.6 5.0 63.1 7.8 28.1 20.2 4.6 21.0 16.8 34.9 27.0 22.7 5.0 59.9 5.0 24.0 19.7 3.5 17.0 16.4 31.8 24.1 20.2 4.0 57.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 5.9 24.8 17.5 4.3 11.6 19.2 38.4 23.4 17.5 5.0 58.4 6.9 24.4 14.7 4.9 13.0 15.5 29.9 25.4 17.1 5.9 55.3 4.3 21.0 16.9 2.7 11.5 15.9 29.1 20.9 19.7 4.0 53.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 7.4 28.9 20.9 5.0 19.1 19.1 40.1 26.4 20.3 5.1 62.2 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 8.9 31.8 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 24.9 Played a dice game? 5.8 23.0 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 65.3 5.3 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 8.1 27.6 18.9 4.8 19.7 15.9 33.1 27.2 19.3 5.2 58.2 County 2010 5.2 24.3 20.4 3.8 16.9 16.7 31.5 24.1 20.6 4.3 57.3 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 37.7 36.0 39.8 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 51.7 39.2 44.6 24.9 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 42.4 Low Commitment to School 29.7 43.9 30.2 48.3 58.6 40.7 45.6 26.5 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 44.1 33.2 55.4 51.9 68.8 59.6 39.1 47.7 42.5 47.2 50.3 42.4 53.2 27.3 46.5 50.3 53.8 54.6 35.9 39.8 50.5 45.4 County 2010 31.9 14.7 54.9 40.5 53.9 56.2 30.8 40.8 25.8 37.2 38.4 44.7 45.8 25.3 46.7 40.3 50.9 45.1 36.0 40.2 38.4 39.5 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 40.2 25.1 42.9 42.1 58.6 46.3 38.3 52.4 34.1 46.4 46.8 42.9 53.1 41.4 54.5 44.5 39.9 45.5 25.6 49.0 44.2 49.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 33.0 22.1 47.5 48.6 60.6 51.0 37.9 44.0 33.2 43.0 48.1 37.7 51.4 39.2 49.5 47.0 39.9 45.2 20.2 43.1 45.3 46.6 County 2010 30.2 12.2 49.1 39.0 47.8 53.9 35.9 41.5 28.9 38.7 37.1 44.5 48.3 43.5 50.5 39.0 41.0 37.4 24.0 37.1 41.1 43.5 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 35.3 17.4 53.9 37.1 53.3 47.5 33.5 45.6 32.8 44.0 44.7 43.2 46.8 40.3 52.4 39.3 38.3 44.5 31.2 52.1 37.2 53.6 BH Norm County 2012 2008 33.4 21.6 56.9 42.1 58.0 51.6 35.8 39.5 33.2 47.2 47.5 37.6 44.9 40.0 49.7 42.6 39.5 45.9 29.6 45.6 38.6 53.9 County 2010 30.2 12.8 56.5 33.6 47.1 55.1 36.1 37.1 26.9 37.1 32.6 39.1 40.0 44.8 46.9 38.6 35.1 38.2 25.1 41.3 38.3 47.6 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 37.6 22.9 47.4 40.0 56.9 47.3 34.3 47.6 32.4 43.0 45.2 42.8 50.0 36.4 51.0 41.2 42.6 45.5 31.5 46.3 40.0 47.6 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 36.9 37.9 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 43.6 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 49.7 Academic Failure School Domain 46.9 Poor Family Management Family Domain 38.5 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 35.7 24.4 52.7 47.1 61.7 53.2 37.4 43.3 35.4 45.5 48.4 38.8 49.5 36.8 48.9 46.1 42.8 47.5 27.2 43.3 44.0 49.0 County 2010 30.9 13.3 53.5 38.0 50.0 55.1 33.9 40.0 27.1 37.6 36.3 43.0 44.9 37.7 48.1 39.3 42.4 40.2 28.7 39.5 39.3 43.3 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 61.4 62.8 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 51.9 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 40.2 58.3 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 43.2 57.3 36.9 47.5 53.8 50.0 56.6 55.8 54.9 44.5 29.8 County 2010 43.1 53.7 43.6 47.2 62.7 50.4 61.2 56.3 59.7 50.4 25.7 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 55.9 60.3 37.0 53.1 67.8 64.6 62.8 53.8 52.6 44.0 30.6 BH Norm County 2012 2008 55.9 64.6 46.2 57.0 72.4 67.8 67.5 58.5 55.5 45.1 35.8 County 2010 60.2 66.3 51.5 53.7 72.6 70.2 68.9 53.6 58.2 49.1 35.9 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 54.6 53.5 36.2 53.9 54.9 49.9 64.4 55.3 57.9 56.6 29.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 52.3 59.4 38.5 56.3 56.9 54.8 66.6 53.6 53.1 53.3 32.3 County 2010 61.9 60.1 45.9 59.5 61.5 61.2 70.5 54.6 59.2 56.8 37.2 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 53.8 57.4 37.7 52.5 61.6 55.9 62.0 56.8 56.8 50.9 29.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 51.6 61.0 41.3 54.5 62.5 59.1 64.6 56.0 54.5 48.1 33.2 County 2010 53.8 59.5 46.8 52.8 65.6 59.8 66.3 54.8 59.0 52.0 32.7 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 50.2 50.1 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 61.4 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 58.4 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 53.5 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29.8 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 7.3 2.3 1.4 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 26.4 18.6 20.5 42.7 28.6 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party 26.8 23.6 6.9 15.3 16.0 26.8 13.9 26.0 32.0 22.1 15.2 16.0 16.9 16.9 2.6 4.3 5.2 231 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 18.7 7.4 20.3 54.0 21.4 28.0 23.9 14.7 32.1 2.7 2.3 6.8 557 County 2008 19.8 10.1 18.4 51.7 21.5 24.9 15.7 12.1 34.8 3.1 1.7 7.5 414 County 2010 18.2 8.8 19.3 50.0 23.8 21.2 17.6 17.6 22.3 4.1 3.9 7.3 466 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 16.2 6.6 13.1 56.9 19.8 38.1 18.9 10.6 41.7 3.3 6.7 12.9 641 County 2008 15.9 5.7 12.7 55.0 19.7 30.8 17.6 11.0 41.4 4.0 5.5 18.5 471 County 2010 13.7 5.9 13.0 54.0 23.2 29.5 17.8 13.7 36.4 2.2 5.2 11.7 539 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 18.8 7.2 18.3 53.6 20.5 31.1 20.7 13.5 34.2 2.8 4.3 9.7 1,418 County 2008 18.6 7.7 16.9 50.8 19.8 26.3 17.7 12.2 36.1 3.7 3.9 12.8 1,029 County 2010 17.9 8.5 17.8 48.4 23.2 23.7 17.4 15.8 27.4 3.0 4.5 8.8 1,236 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. I got it some other way I took it from a store or someone else's home 8.6 34.7 18.2 I took it from home 16.7 18.6 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me 23.6 22.2 4.2 4.9 9.7 144 County 2010 Grade 8 17.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 220 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Sample size** Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 231 3,000 334 3,911 346 3,747 911 10,658 6.9 8.5 9.9 10.9 10.4 14.9 9.3 11.6 Friends 75.3 72.7 82.9 80.8 83.8 80.9 81.3 78.6 Family/Relatives 16.5 17.4 18.0 14.7 10.4 12.7 14.7 14.8 Parties 23.8 25.9 31.7 28.9 30.1 30.4 29.1 28.6 Home 6.9 6.1 7.8 6.3 6.4 6.0 7.0 6.1 School 20.3 15.8 15.9 14.9 9.2 10.1 14.5 13.4 Other 29.0 28.8 20.4 22.3 24.3 21.0 24.0 23.7 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 117 123 1,637 241 182 2,321 256 228 2,478 614 533 6,436 Friends 60.7 49.6 48.7 68.0 59.3 59.8 73.0 64.0 62.8 68.7 59.1 58.2 Family/Relatives 23.1 10.6 16.8 27.0 13.7 16.6 22.3 16.2 16.3 24.3 14.1 16.5 Parties 22.2 13.8 21.4 25.3 22.5 19.6 27.0 23.7 19.5 25.4 21.0 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 23.9 25.2 28.2 24.5 31.9 31.3 22.7 23.7 24.7 23.6 26.8 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 11.1 15.4 13.5 14.5 12.6 14.3 19.9 18.9 19.5 16.1 15.9 16.1 School 18.8 13.0 12.9 17.0 19.8 15.6 24.2 17.1 12.7 20.4 17.1 13.8 Other 17.9 12.2 17.8 22.0 18.1 13.2 13.7 15.8 12.3 17.8 15.8 14.0 Over the Internet 4.3 3.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.9 2.3 1.7 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 8.5 8.1 5.1 5.8 6.0 4.2 7.8 4.8 3.6 7.2 6.0 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 13.5 6.7 2.7 0.8 0.8 0.1 1.0 65.9 11.5 8.0 4.6 0.5 1.2 1.2 7.1 84.2 8.2 4.7 1.2 1.8 93.2 3.7 1.4 0.4 1.3 10.3 6.2 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 60.5 13.3 11.6 2.6 1.3 1.2 0.8 8.9 88.8 5.7 3.1 0.7 1.7 93.8 2.7 1.2 0.6 1.7 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.5 2.3 93.1 2.3 1.8 0.9 0.9 5.1 2.3 90.8 1.0 4.0 1.4 1.2 9.7 3.0 70.2 9.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.5 9.0 5.2 84.3 1.0 0.2 0.1 3.4 0.9 0.6 0.3 2.0 94.9 1.5 1.3 0.4 0.7 4.3 2.2 92.4 0.4 4.0 1.2 0.6 8.5 2.6 73.9 8.8 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.2 7.9 3.6 85.9 0.7 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 2.5 94.0 1.6 1.5 0.5 0.7 1.7 1.4 95.8 0.3 5.0 2.2 0.8 7.9 3.8 73.3 6.8 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 6.3 2.6 89.2 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.4 County 2012 92.3 3.2 Grade 10 County 2010 92.4 3.9 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.2 2.4 94.6 1.9 0.9 0.2 0.7 3.4 1.7 94.1 0.3 3.4 1.2 0.3 5.5 1.7 80.6 7.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 4.6 2.3 92.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 1.9 0.8 0.3 County 2008 92.6 3.4 0.7 2.3 94.0 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.3 2.9 1.9 94.3 0.3 3.1 0.2 0.4 5.3 1.9 83.6 5.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.1 5.6 2.2 90.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.3 0.7 0.1 0.7 1.7 96.1 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.0 97.5 0.3 1.7 1.0 0.4 5.0 1.2 84.5 5.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 3.4 1.4 93.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.2 County 2012 94.9 2.3 Grade 12 County 2010 94.4 2.7 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 93.8 2.3 1.3 0.6 1.1 4.7 2.3 91.3 0.7 5.3 1.3 0.9 8.9 2.4 70.7 9.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 4.6 0.9 85.4 7.9 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.2 5.3 3.0 County 2008 89.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 87.9 5.8 n/a n/a 68.6 71.1 n/a n/a 74.1 73.8 n/a n/a 79.8 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 10.1 9.0 n/a n/a 6.9 7.1 n/a n/a 6.5 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 9.1 8.6 n/a n/a 8.6 8.4 n/a n/a 6.6 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 3.6 3.7 n/a n/a 3.1 3.2 n/a n/a 1.8 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.4 1.6 n/a n/a 1.6 1.6 n/a n/a 1.0 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 n/a n/a 1.1 1.1 n/a n/a 0.6 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.9 0.6 n/a n/a 0.3 0.5 n/a n/a 0.3 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 5.1 4.3 n/a n/a 4.4 4.3 n/a n/a 3.4 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.3 2.0 93.5 2.8 1.4 1.3 0.8 6.0 3.0 88.8 0.6 10.7 2.6 2.0 10.9 6.5 55.3 11.5 0.1 0.4 1.2 1.6 0.6 9.8 6.1 80.1 1.3 0.8 0.2 3.4 0.9 0.4 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.4 2.2 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.8 74.4 0.8 79.3 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 2.7 0.5 0.1 3.8 0.9 0.4 County 2012 86.0 7.2 Grade 8 County 2010 91.3 4.5 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 87.2 6.8 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 1.9 94.2 2.2 1.2 0.7 0.8 4.7 2.7 91.2 0.5 4.4 0.7 0.7 7.2 2.8 75.5 8.2 0.5 0.1 0.6 1.4 0.3 8.4 3.8 84.9 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.7 0.2 County 2010 92.9 3.6 73.5 8.1 8.2 2.9 1.4 1.0 0.5 4.4 0.4 2.1 94.4 1.8 1.2 0.7 0.6 3.3 1.9 93.5 0.4 6.3 2.0 1.2 8.3 4.1 69.3 8.4 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.5 6.9 3.6 86.9 1.1 0.4 0.1 2.3 0.6 0.3 County 2012 90.6 4.5 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 16.7 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 79.9 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 9.3 Marijuana 21.1 11.3 years 21.2 12.2 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.3 years Average age: 45.8 Average age: 1,943 1,936 1,932 Sample 1,790 1,797 1,806 1,924 1,936 1,941 1,348 1,354 1,361 1,624 1,670 1,651 Sample Alcohol Percent 7.6 Cigarettes 89.5 82.4 95.9 97.5 93.9 70.6 81.4 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 62.6 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.2 years 36.8 12.6 years 33.7 1,555 1,549 1,559 Sample 1,507 1,526 1,518 1,553 1,555 1,555 1,344 1,361 1,361 1,438 1,471 1,459 Sample 13.0 years 63.5 Percent 18.6 14.7 35.0 68.7 80.0 68.0 90.8 94.1 84.8 60.8 88.3 64.3 Percent Grade 10 14.6 years 46.6 14.2 years 45.6 1,377 1,371 1,367 Sample 1,336 1,349 1,351 1,371 1,377 1,377 1,256 1,269 1,267 1,308 1,328 1,327 Sample 14.2 years 71.4 Percent 23.2 21.6 44.4 61.3 68.7 62.2 86.0 86.8 75.9 57.4 88.0 63.4 Percent Grade 12 13.5 years 33.4 12.9 years 32.0 4,875 4,856 4,858 Sample 4,633 4,672 4,675 4,848 4,868 4,873 3,948 3,984 3,989 4,370 4,469 4,437 Sample 12.9 years 58.7 Percent 16.3 14.0 30.7 71.1 80.6 72.1 91.0 92.9 85.1 63.4 85.7 63.4 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.2 years 35.9 12.7 years 34.4 2,342 2,337 2,337 Sample 2,202 2,217 2,229 2,325 2,335 2,339 1,860 1,875 1,871 2,072 2,114 2,097 Sample 12.7 years 58.8 Percent 17.8 15.6 30.5 67.3 79.1 70.2 90.3 92.3 84.9 57.9 84.7 59.8 Percent Male †† 13.7 years 30.9 13.1 years 29.6 2,417 2,405 2,406 Sample 2,321 2,344 2,333 2,406 2,416 2,415 1,996 2,019 2,026 2,199 2,252 2,235 Sample 13.1 years 58.5 Percent 15.2 12.4 30.6 74.7 82.3 74.0 91.7 93.5 85.5 68.7 86.9 67.0 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 65.0 73.0 72.9 48.2 53.2 53.1 37.8 40.9 41.6 48.4 57.3 59.4 Once 15.0 12.3 12.2 8.1 12.1 8.5 17.0 18.2 13.6 17.3 13.7 17.0 14.2 22.0 13.7 19.8 12.9 20.1 15.5 18.2 13.1 14.5 12.8 13.9 3.9 0.7 3.1 2.9 1.4 2.4 3.1 1.1 2.3 8.2 2.5 6.0 7.7 2.6 5.6 7.3 3.2 5.7 10.9 6.4 8.7 12.5 4.5 8.7 11.5 4.7 9.2 8.2 3.4 6.3 7.2 2.7 5.2 6.4 2.6 5.0 79.1 10.1 81.8 8.3 82.8 8.2 67.3 10.2 75.0 8.6 73.3 10.1 58.5 11.0 64.9 10.2 65.7 10.1 66.9 10.4 74.7 8.9 75.7 9.2 5.2 2.7 5.1 1.8 4.6 1.7 9.9 3.8 6.1 3.2 6.8 3.2 10.8 4.9 8.8 4.4 8.9 4.4 9.1 4.0 6.5 3.0 6.3 2.8 0.4 2.5 1.0 2.1 0.8 1.9 1.6 7.2 2.3 4.8 1.8 4.8 3.7 11.1 2.2 9.5 2.2 8.7 2.1 7.5 1.8 5.1 1.4 4.4 62.2 12.6 68.8 9.5 74.3 8.4 52.5 13.6 58.3 9.8 57.4 10.8 57.3 10.5 55.8 10.3 53.8 10.9 56.5 12.3 61.6 9.8 64.3 9.7 9.5 3.9 3.3 8.1 3.9 2.6 6.5 3.5 2.1 12.3 6.4 3.8 11.1 6.4 3.8 11.1 6.7 3.8 10.5 5.7 3.3 9.2 6.7 3.5 11.4 6.8 3.8 11.0 5.6 3.5 9.4 5.6 3.3 9.1 5.3 3.0 8.5 86.3 7.1 88.0 5.2 88.4 11.5 78.8 10.6 82.4 10.4 82.9 12.7 81.3 14.4 82.0 13.3 82.1 11.2 81.4 10.4 84.4 8.7 85.2 6.0 2.5 5.3 2.9 5.3 2.6 8.4 5.6 7.9 4.1 7.3 4.2 6.9 4.8 6.2 5.3 6.6 4.8 7.3 4.6 6.4 4.0 6.2 3.6 1.7 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.7 2.8 1.1 2.2 1.0 1.9 1.0 2.4 1.0 2.2 0.5 2.2 1.1 2.4 1.1 1.8 0.8 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 2.2 1.8 1.7 3.3 2.5 2.8 3.6 3.8 3.2 3.2 2.6 2.4 Never 62.2 55.7 57.4 60.8 59.4 59.0 66.7 60.8 61.4 63.3 58.4 58.9 Once 13.8 9.8 16.4 11.7 15.1 12.5 13.2 12.9 14.0 13.4 13.7 13.2 12.3 10.0 13.8 12.8 12.1 12.7 13.0 11.1 14.8 12.6 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 3.5 2.9 5.2 2.5 4.8 2.1 5.2 2.0 5.7 1.6 5.1 2.2 4.4 1.9 4.9 2.1 5.4 2.3 4.5 2.2 5.3 2.1 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 7.7 8.5 8.1 5.8 5.9 6.8 4.7 5.5 6.2 5.9 6.8 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 33.1 17.0 25.7 14.7 28.2 12.4 33.4 21.1 30.9 16.5 32.1 15.2 35.0 18.1 33.1 15.9 34.1 15.5 33.9 19.1 29.6 15.7 30.8 14.0 8.0 4.1 9.3 4.6 2.6 7.2 4.6 2.6 5.5 9.2 4.5 9.9 7.1 3.6 6.8 7.1 3.7 8.1 10.2 6.6 12.0 9.1 4.3 8.7 8.9 4.4 9.1 9.3 5.2 10.5 6.8 3.4 7.5 6.4 3.4 7.2 28.5 39.4 45.2 31.2 46.8 31.7 21.8 39.7 35.1 33.1 33.8 34.9 18.1 43.1 28.9 34.8 28.0 37.2 22.0 40.8 37.1 32.9 38.2 34.0 14.0 7.0 10.2 5.1 9.7 4.7 16.4 9.7 15.1 7.5 13.2 7.5 15.6 10.1 15.2 9.9 14.5 8.6 15.6 9.2 13.3 7.3 12.0 6.5 3.6 8.0 4.0 5.0 2.6 4.4 4.6 7.8 3.3 6.6 4.3 6.5 5.7 7.3 4.4 6.8 4.8 7.1 4.8 7.6 3.9 6.1 3.7 5.7 28.1 42.5 44.5 33.9 47.0 34.0 21.8 48.9 34.4 44.6 33.6 43.7 18.3 53.6 28.9 50.2 27.8 50.0 22.0 49.1 36.6 42.2 38.1 40.9 12.1 4.5 3.3 9.8 3.0 2.2 8.8 3.1 2.2 13.5 4.8 3.4 9.9 3.6 2.1 10.2 4.0 2.5 12.2 5.3 3.8 10.5 3.8 2.0 10.1 4.3 2.3 12.7 4.9 3.5 10.0 3.4 2.1 9.5 3.7 2.3 8.9 28.6 5.0 46.2 4.5 47.5 6.6 22.8 4.5 35.3 5.1 34.6 6.4 18.7 3.9 29.6 4.8 28.6 7.0 22.7 4.5 37.7 4.8 38.9 46.7 9.5 36.5 9.2 36.8 7.1 51.0 11.8 46.7 8.7 47.6 8.0 54.7 11.1 52.2 8.9 53.8 7.6 51.4 11.0 44.4 9.0 44.3 7.5 5.0 3.2 2.5 1.6 2.7 1.8 5.2 3.2 3.4 1.9 3.3 2.3 5.9 3.3 3.5 2.1 3.7 2.1 5.4 3.2 3.1 1.8 3.1 2.0 6.3 29.2 4.2 45.9 3.7 47.9 5.9 22.9 3.6 35.6 4.1 34.8 5.8 19.3 3.2 30.2 3.9 29.0 6.0 23.0 3.7 37.9 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 All Students Surveyed* County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 81.8 84.0 85.4 79.9 86.5 86.9 81.2 87.7 87.7 80.8 85.8 86.4 1 or 2 times 9.3 7.5 7.2 8.3 6.5 5.9 8.7 5.9 5.3 8.7 6.7 6.3 3 to 5 times 2.9 3.5 3.2 3.6 2.6 2.8 3.5 2.6 2.7 3.4 3.0 2.9 6 to 9 times 1.2 1.8 1.5 2.4 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.4 10 to 19 times 2.1 0.7 0.9 3.5 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.8 2.5 0.7 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 40+ times 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.3 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.4 Never 27.9 37.6 39.2 32.9 50.0 43.7 41.3 57.8 55.3 34.7 47.3 44.4 1 or 2 times 24.7 26.3 27.7 25.8 24.1 24.2 26.4 22.1 21.5 25.8 24.4 25.2 3 to 5 times 19.6 15.8 16.3 18.6 14.2 17.1 15.1 10.5 12.8 17.6 13.8 15.6 6 to 9 times 10.2 8.7 7.7 9.5 6.4 7.2 6.4 4.4 5.1 8.5 6.7 6.9 10 to 19 times 7.1 4.1 3.8 7.4 2.1 3.5 5.2 2.3 2.5 6.5 2.9 3.4 20 to 29 times 3.3 2.9 1.7 1.9 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.1 2.2 1.9 1.5 30 to 39 times 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.5 40+ times 5.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 1.6 2.3 3.1 1.2 1.5 3.7 2.4 2.4 Never 75.6 86.3 87.6 78.2 90.9 90.2 79.6 91.6 91.9 78.1 89.3 89.4 1 or 2 times 12.6 6.9 7.1 9.9 5.0 5.5 12.1 4.7 4.6 11.3 5.7 6.0 3 to 5 times 4.9 2.2 2.3 4.1 1.9 1.9 3.2 1.7 1.6 4.0 1.9 2.0 6 to 9 times 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.9 0.8 0.7 2.0 1.1 0.9 10 to 19 times 2.3 1.0 0.6 3.9 0.5 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.4 2.8 0.7 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 40+ times 1.5 1.2 0.7 1.3 0.6 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.6 Never 79.3 88.0 90.4 82.7 91.5 92.1 84.1 92.7 93.5 82.4 90.5 91.7 1 or 2 times 11.8 6.9 6.0 10.5 5.4 4.8 9.6 4.6 3.8 10.5 5.8 5.1 3 to 5 times 3.2 1.8 1.5 2.8 1.4 1.2 3.1 0.9 1.1 3.0 1.4 1.3 6 to 9 times 1.8 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.6 10 to 19 times 1.2 0.7 0.4 1.8 0.3 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 40+ times 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 80.2 84.7 87.6 78.3 83.8 83.7 75.9 80.8 80.3 77.9 83.3 84.6 9.8 3.5 3.0 12.7 7.2 7.8 16.5 10.9 10.8 13.4 6.9 6.4 3.7 0.7 1.0 5.0 1.7 2.2 5.0 2.8 2.8 4.7 1.6 1.8 3.6 1.0 1.3 4.7 2.7 2.6 6.1 4.0 3.4 5.0 2.4 2.2 3.8 1.8 1.8 4.6 3.9 4.1 5.1 4.0 4.2 4.6 3.1 3.1 1.8 1.1 0.8 2.7 1.5 1.9 4.5 3.2 3.3 3.1 1.9 1.8 3.0 0.9 0.8 3.2 2.4 2.0 5.5 2.9 2.2 4.0 2.0 1.5 2.9 0.9 1.1 4.1 2.2 1.7 3.1 2.7 2.1 3.5 1.8 1.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.4 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.5 1.8 0.8 0.6 1.4 0.7 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Pinal County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Pinal County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 1,609 55.6 1,633 45.9 1,675 41.4 28,932 46.1 10 936 32.3 1,170 32.9 1,462 36.2 18,766 29.9 12 351 12.1 757 21.3 906 22.4 15,119 24.1 2,896 100.0 3,560 100.0 4,043 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 1,426 50.0 1,756 50.1 1,946 49.0 30,383 49.5 Female 1,425 50.0 1,749 49.9 2,023 51.0 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 105 6.6 102 5.6 125 6.5 1,121 4.9 African American 45 2.8 44 2.4 48 2.5 658 2.9 8 0.5 10 0.6 13 0.7 222 1.0 11 0.7 21 1.2 21 1.1 225 1.0 316 19.8 404 22.3 558 29.0 6,774 29.7 68 4.3 92 5.1 123 6.4 1,099 4.8 1,047 65.4 1,140 62.9 1,036 53.8 12,732 55.8 Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 85 7.4 132 8.2 106 5.5 1,909 5.2 136 11.9 180 11.2 202 10.5 1,979 5.4 35 3.1 44 2.7 49 2.6 1,641 4.5 13 1.1 24 1.5 13 0.7 324 0.9 734 64.1 1,060 65.8 1,265 65.9 26,247 72.1 136 11.9 144 8.9 209 10.9 2,561 7.0 6 0.5 27 1.7 77 4.0 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Hispanic Students 1,600 55.2 1,813 50.9 1,924 47.6 22,831 Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** 1,145 39.5 1,611 45.3 1,921 47.5 36,420 58.0 2,896 100.0 3,560 100.0 4,043 100.0 62,817 100.0 36.3 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 230 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 308 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 331 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 303 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 309 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 308 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 267 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 309 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 153 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 800 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 926 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 792 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 163 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 200 Students Sample size (Rx): 117 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 174 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 228 Students Sample size (Rx): 154 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 153 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 187 Students Sample size (Rx): 140 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 615 Students Sample size (Rx): 411 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 490 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pinal County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pinal County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pinal County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Pinal County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 2.6 n/a 2.0 14.1 20.1 12.9 used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 11.1 17.3 8.2 3.5 12.3 1.2 n/a 4.3 1.0 1.0 19.3 3.0 2.3 21.9 9.2 31.6 53.4 6.7 7.9 11.5 4.5 1.8 9.6 1.8 2.3 2.9 0.8 0.5 12.3 1.6 1.9 19.9 7.2 26.0 42.3 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 15.3 29.3 11.8 6.8 24.9 3.5 n/a 6.8 2.4 2.4 14.3 8.8 6.2 40.9 14.8 44.1 71.8 n/a 16.7 24.2 9.6 5.7 20.8 1.8 n/a 7.3 2.4 2.3 14.9 7.4 4.9 37.7 13.8 44.7 70.4 11.4 10.3 18.6 7.5 6.2 15.4 2.7 1.3 6.2 1.3 1.1 10.7 4.2 4.3 32.9 10.5 37.2 57.2 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 15.6 28.8 13.2 9.3 25.6 3.3 n/a 9.4 3.3 7.6 14.8 13.8 9.6 47.3 20.6 56.0 77.6 n/a 16.5 30.1 14.2 7.2 26.9 2.6 n/a 10.5 2.8 4.9 14.4 13.2 8.1 51.0 23.2 55.6 77.8 13.0 12.8 22.2 8.4 7.2 20.3 2.5 2.6 9.8 1.4 2.4 9.1 8.5 5.5 41.4 15.3 46.4 67.6 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). n/a 9.9 5.3 1.0 1.4 17.7 3.1 2.0 23.2 8.1 34.1 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 56.9 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 14.0 24.1 10.9 6.3 18.9 2.6 n/a 4.8 1.7 2.5 16.2 6.2 4.3 31.8 11.8 40.0 64.2 n/a 14.0 22.3 10.0 5.0 18.2 1.7 n/a 6.6 1.8 2.3 16.9 6.6 4.4 33.2 13.7 41.0 64.0 9.7 9.9 16.4 6.4 4.6 14.1 2.2 2.0 5.6 1.1 1.1 11.1 4.1 3.5 29.2 10.2 34.5 53.2 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 0.9 6.6 1.0 n/a 1.0 8.1 2.5 10.9 6.2 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 5.6 8.4 3.3 1.2 5.6 0.3 n/a 1.6 0.3 0.3 6.4 1.2 1.1 10.2 3.8 12.2 25.9 3.2 4.1 6.4 2.2 1.1 4.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.3 4.7 0.7 0.8 7.7 3.3 11.0 19.3 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 9.9 14.3 4.1 2.9 12.4 1.2 n/a 1.9 1.2 0.5 3.6 4.1 2.7 15.9 5.6 17.5 41.6 n/a 9.0 11.0 2.8 2.0 9.7 1.1 n/a 2.0 0.7 0.7 3.5 2.3 1.4 17.5 5.6 16.4 38.1 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 9.3 13.8 6.0 2.4 13.0 0.6 n/a 3.0 1.5 1.8 4.5 4.5 2.7 20.5 7.5 24.5 52.8 n/a 8.4 15.4 5.5 2.0 13.5 0.7 n/a 3.6 0.5 0.5 1.6 3.6 1.4 22.3 9.9 27.7 47.4 5.5 4.5 9.1 2.1 2.7 8.2 1.0 0.7 2.0 0.1 0.5 1.3 3.0 1.3 19.1 6.7 22.8 37.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 4.8 5.8 9.8 3.4 2.8 7.9 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.5 0.2 2.0 1.6 1.9 14.1 4.3 15.3 27.7 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 4.5 0.6 0.3 0.8 11.3 2.8 11.4 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 29.5 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 7.8 12.3 4.6 2.6 10.1 1.0 n/a 1.5 0.9 0.6 5.4 2.3 1.6 13.9 4.2 15.0 36.2 n/a 7.2 10.8 3.7 1.6 8.6 0.6 n/a 2.2 0.5 0.5 4.5 2.1 1.2 15.1 5.7 17.0 34.4 4.3 4.8 8.2 2.6 2.0 6.6 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.3 3.0 1.5 1.3 12.5 4.4 15.1 26.3 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 32.6 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 16.8 14.6 Grade 8 27.6 5.1 Grade 8 11.1 18.9 7.3 20.6 8.6 1.6 Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School 1.2 6.2 13.1 6.6 2.6 5.0 20.1 11.7 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 32.3 8.7 Grade 10 22.8 4.7 25.9 24.1 Grade 10 14.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 36.9 9.7 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.7 9.9 21.0 12.9 5.1 11.7 21.4 29.3 3.2 10.4 18.8 14.5 6.7 11.8 18.4 27.0 1.2 6.2 10.2 7.5 3.3 8.7 15.9 16.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 34.9 17.7 Grade 12 27.3 11.9 34.5 31.5 Grade 12 22.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 41.4 20.3 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 3.2 12.3 19.1 13.2 6.2 13.0 14.3 30.0 1.5 10.4 16.2 11.3 2.9 10.9 11.7 26.0 1.5 7.9 8.9 9.5 2.9 10.6 12.5 21.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 25.8 6.5 21.8 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.8 9.5 20.5 11.9 4.8 8.6 22.6 22.5 24.7 6.7 15.0 15.7 1.8 8.9 18.2 10.3 4.6 8.3 19.0 20.8 1.3 6.6 11.2 7.6 2.9 7.5 16.9 15.6 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 21.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 31.9 9.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 35.1 9.4 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 1.1 7.2 11.1 Been Arrested Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them 4.9 4.0 5.9 4.2 22.8 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 25.2 Been Suspended from School 14.3 Sold Illegal Drugs 17.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 30.2 5.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 6.9 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 30.9 45.1 19.2 33.5 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 25.0 3.9 4.6 21.7 4.3 23.6 13.8 29.5 25.2 20.1 4.6 55.4 29.9 27.1 5.7 27.2 15.7 35.5 30.8 20.7 5.3 62.2 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 5.4 33.7 28.3 4.7 24.5 19.8 42.9 31.0 21.4 5.4 67.3 4.6 27.9 21.3 5.1 19.6 16.0 33.9 23.8 21.4 5.1 59.3 4.4 25.0 20.7 3.9 20.5 14.2 29.1 23.2 21.3 4.3 54.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 4.8 31.0 25.7 6.6 17.8 23.2 43.8 28.4 26.6 7.2 67.6 3.8 31.1 22.6 5.2 17.9 19.6 37.3 27.5 23.9 6.3 62.0 4.6 22.5 15.9 4.0 13.0 15.6 28.5 22.2 21.7 3.9 53.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 5.4 33.7 31.1 6.3 28.8 19.9 44.2 30.6 25.8 5.8 69.9 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 5.5 34.3 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 33.9 Played a dice game? 7.2 28.1 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 71.9 5.8 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 4.4 29.6 24.4 5.4 22.8 16.7 35.4 28.0 21.6 5.5 61.3 County 2010 4.2 24.4 20.0 4.1 20.1 14.4 29.1 23.8 20.9 4.3 54.4 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 41.1 44.5 41.9 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 58.0 52.9 52.5 30.0 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 43.0 Low Commitment to School 38.6 48.3 35.7 51.2 67.1 48.6 52.8 33.1 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 45.7 26.7 51.3 48.4 65.2 54.0 33.9 46.6 36.6 46.9 47.5 43.5 52.8 28.4 54.2 50.3 59.0 48.7 38.9 44.3 42.2 42.1 County 2010 38.9 20.6 43.5 39.5 56.1 52.7 26.8 37.9 29.2 42.1 40.6 39.2 49.0 25.2 49.3 46.8 55.3 46.2 41.1 38.6 38.0 41.7 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 45.5 35.7 44.8 50.2 70.9 49.1 39.8 56.4 40.9 54.6 54.4 43.6 57.9 40.5 53.3 50.3 43.9 47.5 35.0 56.8 52.2 53.8 BH Norm County 2012 2008 37.6 29.2 47.6 45.9 66.1 49.5 37.5 46.0 37.8 48.5 47.5 43.3 57.4 39.7 51.8 53.5 43.6 47.8 28.1 46.8 51.2 47.3 County 2010 31.5 15.1 45.4 38.9 56.0 49.9 34.1 40.8 30.1 41.9 44.0 44.5 51.9 38.0 49.9 45.5 41.3 36.8 25.8 45.4 42.5 49.2 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 44.4 23.3 56.0 43.0 69.3 50.6 35.5 50.6 40.2 54.7 54.6 50.6 49.5 42.7 55.0 49.5 42.1 43.4 37.8 56.5 47.8 57.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 42.6 22.1 58.8 41.3 65.3 53.4 37.2 44.3 38.3 50.3 50.0 45.4 43.0 41.9 51.2 47.7 41.1 46.2 32.6 50.3 44.8 55.5 County 2010 34.2 18.3 55.0 33.8 54.3 54.5 30.6 35.0 31.5 48.8 41.3 46.9 47.0 40.0 46.6 43.6 43.1 38.6 33.1 41.3 38.5 55.8 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 46.5 32.7 50.6 48.5 68.6 50.5 37.0 51.2 39.6 49.9 50.6 44.1 53.1 35.0 53.1 51.6 51.3 46.6 39.2 49.9 45.5 49.2 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 47.5 46.1 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 47.6 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 51.0 Academic Failure School Domain 46.8 Poor Family Management Family Domain 44.6 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 42.5 26.4 51.9 46.1 65.5 52.5 35.7 45.9 37.4 48.2 48.0 43.8 52.0 35.1 52.7 50.6 50.1 47.9 34.2 46.5 45.4 46.8 County 2010 35.2 18.2 46.7 38.0 55.7 52.2 30.2 38.3 30.0 43.5 41.9 42.8 49.6 33.1 48.9 45.6 47.6 41.2 33.9 41.6 39.6 47.5 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 56.8 58.3 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 48.2 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 37.2 58.4 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 47.3 60.9 35.7 51.6 54.6 43.5 62.4 55.5 55.1 42.5 24.2 County 2010 51.6 59.3 38.5 49.0 60.5 54.1 64.3 54.5 57.1 47.6 28.6 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 46.3 58.2 30.9 49.4 63.7 53.1 50.8 49.5 51.7 42.1 32.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 47.6 59.8 38.3 53.4 68.2 53.3 59.2 50.1 50.5 40.5 35.5 County 2010 52.2 58.7 46.7 53.3 70.4 59.3 62.4 50.0 53.0 41.2 35.9 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 47.1 52.0 28.4 45.2 48.5 42.4 49.4 51.0 55.9 52.2 38.3 BH Norm County 2012 2008 46.4 51.9 30.1 50.2 50.3 38.1 54.6 51.4 50.1 50.0 35.0 County 2010 49.9 54.8 34.5 51.2 56.9 48.1 58.8 49.7 52.9 51.5 37.9 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 48.1 57.6 34.1 49.8 56.9 49.0 55.6 54.5 55.0 46.6 31.3 BH Norm County 2012 2008 47.2 58.5 35.2 51.8 57.6 45.4 59.7 52.9 52.5 43.7 30.1 County 2010 51.4 58.1 40.5 51.0 63.2 54.6 62.4 51.8 54.7 46.3 33.3 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 49.3 50.9 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 54.9 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 59.6 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 47.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29.2 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 4.2 1.5 2.1 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 15.6 35.7 35.4 15.1 22.1 22.1 25.7 37.5 30.8 15.4 32.3 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 27.8 8.7 23.9 37.4 23.5 18.3 20.9 14.8 25.2 3.9 3.0 7.8 230 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 23.7 8.1 19.5 52.9 22.1 28.2 27.3 14.0 35.1 4.9 5.5 7.1 308 County 2008 21.0 9.1 22.0 46.0 22.7 26.9 17.2 11.7 28.8 4.2 3.2 8.7 309 County 2010 18.2 5.9 19.8 44.9 27.1 30.4 23.8 16.8 26.1 3.3 1.7 5.3 303 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 19.0 2.6 9.8 49.0 19.6 37.9 24.2 10.5 47.1 2.6 3.9 11.1 153 County 2008 15.9 4.5 10.4 46.9 17.2 30.7 18.4 10.4 50.5 3.2 3.2 13.6 309 County 2010 15.0 3.7 10.1 48.3 21.3 31.1 21.0 14.2 39.3 1.9 1.9 10.9 267 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 26.4 10.1 22.3 45.7 23.1 27.5 24.5 13.8 33.1 3.3 3.5 6.7 792 County 2008 21.2 8.1 22.6 42.9 21.0 25.2 17.2 12.5 32.8 3.6 2.8 9.2 926 County 2010 19.9 6.0 17.8 43.9 24.1 27.1 22.0 15.4 30.2 3.0 2.1 7.9 800 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 26.6 10.7 23.1 17.9 15.9 19.2 3.2 1.9 5.2 308 County 2010 Grade 8 24.8 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 331 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 200 3,000 228 3,911 187 3,747 615 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 11.5 8.5 7.9 10.9 9.1 14.9 9.4 11.6 Friends 75.0 72.7 81.6 80.8 75.4 80.9 77.6 78.6 Family/Relatives 20.0 17.4 11.8 14.7 17.1 12.7 16.1 14.8 Parties 23.5 25.9 28.9 28.9 27.3 30.4 26.7 28.6 Home 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.0 6.0 6.1 School 14.0 15.8 15.8 14.9 11.8 10.1 14.0 13.4 Other 31.0 28.8 30.3 22.3 28.3 21.0 29.9 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 163 117 1,637 174 154 2,321 153 140 2,478 490 411 6,436 Friends 50.9 56.4 48.7 67.8 58.4 59.8 66.7 60.7 62.8 61.8 58.6 58.2 Family/Relatives 24.5 17.1 16.8 23.6 14.9 16.6 22.2 20.0 16.3 23.5 17.3 16.5 Parties 28.2 19.7 21.4 27.0 24.0 19.6 28.8 17.9 19.5 28.0 20.7 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 33.1 23.1 28.2 31.6 28.6 31.3 25.5 18.6 24.7 30.2 23.6 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 16.0 13.7 13.5 15.5 11.7 14.3 23.5 17.9 19.5 18.2 14.4 16.1 School 15.3 11.1 12.9 19.0 15.6 15.6 22.9 14.3 12.7 19.0 13.9 13.8 Other 22.7 17.1 17.8 21.3 18.8 13.2 22.2 20.7 12.3 22.0 19.0 14.0 Over the Internet 2.5 1.7 2.4 4.0 1.9 1.4 2.0 1.4 0.9 2.9 1.7 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 6.1 3.4 5.1 7.5 3.9 4.2 2.0 3.6 3.6 5.3 3.6 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 12.3 7.0 2.3 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.8 57.7 11.6 12.3 5.7 1.7 1.1 0.7 9.2 87.6 7.1 3.7 0.5 1.1 94.6 2.8 1.3 0.4 0.9 14.5 8.5 2.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.0 58.9 13.2 11.2 3.9 2.8 0.6 0.6 8.7 85.2 8.5 4.1 0.8 1.4 92.7 3.8 1.3 0.6 1.5 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.8 3.5 91.2 3.4 1.0 0.7 2.5 7.8 3.2 85.8 0.5 4.8 1.4 1.4 7.1 4.0 73.4 7.6 0.1 0.3 1.4 1.5 1.2 11.1 5.8 78.6 1.7 0.3 0.3 4.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.5 94.1 2.7 1.1 0.5 1.3 3.5 1.9 92.8 0.5 3.4 0.8 0.8 7.4 2.7 74.8 9.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.3 0.5 7.4 4.1 85.7 0.7 0.1 0.3 2.6 0.6 0.2 0.8 1.9 94.6 1.6 1.1 0.2 0.7 1.4 1.7 95.9 0.3 5.6 1.9 1.6 7.5 3.7 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 5.7 2.2 90.1 1.3 0.1 0.1 2.5 0.6 0.6 County 2012 91.3 3.6 Grade 10 County 2010 91.3 4.1 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.6 3.6 92.8 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.5 3.6 2.7 91.5 0.3 3.0 1.5 0.0 5.7 2.1 83.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.0 4.8 3.9 89.2 0.9 0.3 0.6 3.3 0.0 0.3 County 2008 90.4 4.2 0.3 2.5 93.6 2.0 1.6 0.3 0.7 2.3 1.5 95.3 0.5 2.4 0.7 0.3 3.9 1.9 85.4 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 5.9 2.0 90.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 3.0 93.8 1.2 1.4 0.9 1.3 2.7 1.5 93.6 0.6 4.1 0.9 1.0 5.3 1.5 82.6 4.0 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.7 0.5 4.0 1.3 91.1 1.0 0.5 0.6 2.6 0.7 0.7 County 2012 91.7 2.3 Grade 12 County 2010 94.4 2.7 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 92.3 3.4 1.2 0.8 1.7 7.7 3.6 86.2 0.5 6.8 2.2 0.8 9.3 3.7 66.5 10.3 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 7.1 2.2 76.2 12.2 0.2 1.7 1.0 0.5 0.3 5.6 3.9 County 2008 86.8 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 86.1 6.2 n/a n/a 71.5 71.1 n/a n/a 74.4 73.8 n/a n/a 78.2 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 10.1 9.0 n/a n/a 7.1 7.1 n/a n/a 5.5 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 7.9 8.6 n/a n/a 7.8 8.4 n/a n/a 7.3 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 3.5 3.7 n/a n/a 3.5 3.2 n/a n/a 1.6 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.6 1.6 n/a n/a 1.7 1.6 n/a n/a 2.3 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 n/a n/a 0.8 1.1 n/a n/a 0.8 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.6 0.6 n/a n/a 0.6 0.5 n/a n/a 0.5 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 3.7 4.3 n/a n/a 4.2 4.3 n/a n/a 3.8 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.9 1.7 93.4 3.3 0.7 0.6 1.1 3.9 2.7 91.7 0.6 8.1 1.6 2.2 11.5 5.2 61.7 9.1 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.7 0.7 10.0 5.1 80.9 1.7 0.2 0.0 3.1 1.1 0.7 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.7 2.4 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.7 76.4 1.9 72.0 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 3.1 0.8 0.3 4.1 1.3 0.5 County 2012 88.4 4.8 Grade 8 County 2010 90.4 4.3 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 86.4 5.6 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.5 94.2 2.6 1.3 0.5 1.1 4.9 2.7 90.9 0.6 5.9 1.2 0.8 8.9 3.9 69.1 9.5 0.2 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.5 9.4 5.0 82.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 2.7 0.6 0.2 County 2010 91.6 3.9 74.0 8.0 7.7 3.1 1.8 0.9 0.6 3.9 0.8 2.0 93.9 2.2 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.8 2.1 93.6 0.5 6.3 1.6 1.7 8.7 3.8 70.3 7.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.1 0.6 7.1 3.2 86.4 1.4 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.8 0.7 County 2012 90.1 3.8 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 19.3 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 85.1 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 7.7 Marijuana 26.3 11.1 years 19.4 11.9 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.2 years Average age: 48.6 Average age: 1,640 1,636 1,628 Sample 1,590 1,602 1,600 1,632 1,634 1,639 1,403 1,414 1,421 1,507 1,534 1,522 Sample Alcohol Percent 11.0 Cigarettes 90.4 83.6 96.1 97.4 92.0 74.6 79.3 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 58.6 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.5 years 34.4 12.7 years 39.2 1,381 1,384 1,386 Sample 1,319 1,336 1,330 1,376 1,379 1,383 1,152 1,161 1,162 1,247 1,266 1,259 Sample 13.0 years 61.3 Percent 14.1 15.3 27.7 72.6 80.5 70.5 93.1 95.1 84.6 65.1 84.4 63.3 Percent Grade 10 14.1 years 44.7 13.4 years 47.2 868 866 865 Sample 833 834 837 866 867 866 769 774 772 793 807 801 Sample 13.7 years 71.2 Percent 19.1 22.8 37.4 69.7 73.4 70.3 89.9 85.3 77.3 58.9 83.5 60.3 Percent Grade 12 13.3 years 30.4 12.4 years 35.6 3,889 3,886 3,879 Sample 3,742 3,772 3,767 3,874 3,880 3,888 3,324 3,349 3,355 3,547 3,607 3,582 Sample 12.6 years 58.2 Percent 12.5 15.1 26.3 77.2 83.1 76.0 93.6 93.8 86.1 67.7 82.1 60.6 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.0 years 31.1 12.2 years 36.0 1,870 1,870 1,866 Sample 1,782 1,789 1,797 1,865 1,866 1,870 1,568 1,583 1,587 1,686 1,718 1,710 Sample 12.3 years 55.6 Percent 12.8 15.6 24.3 76.1 82.2 75.3 92.8 93.5 86.1 63.3 80.8 56.6 Percent Male †† 13.6 years 29.3 12.6 years 34.8 1,949 1,949 1,945 Sample 1,893 1,914 1,903 1,942 1,947 1,950 1,696 1,706 1,708 1,799 1,825 1,809 Sample 12.8 years 60.2 Percent 12.2 14.5 27.8 78.9 84.4 76.8 94.2 94.1 86.1 72.2 83.4 64.8 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 65.7 70.4 72.9 47.1 56.1 53.1 35.7 46.0 41.6 53.3 59.9 59.4 Once 13.2 12.2 12.6 10.0 12.1 8.5 15.1 20.4 14.4 15.9 13.7 17.0 14.9 20.5 14.3 20.0 12.9 20.1 14.1 16.5 13.6 14.3 12.8 13.9 4.6 1.4 3.0 3.9 1.0 2.0 3.1 1.1 2.3 7.9 2.4 7.1 5.8 3.4 4.4 7.3 3.2 5.7 13.0 5.9 10.1 9.3 3.6 6.8 11.5 4.7 9.2 7.5 2.7 5.8 5.8 2.4 3.9 6.4 2.6 5.0 75.0 11.3 79.4 8.8 82.8 8.2 67.3 11.6 71.4 11.5 73.3 10.1 55.8 12.5 62.1 11.2 65.7 10.1 68.3 11.7 72.7 10.3 75.7 9.2 7.1 2.5 5.9 2.4 4.6 1.7 8.8 3.7 7.7 3.2 6.8 3.2 11.0 5.4 11.3 5.4 8.9 4.4 8.5 3.5 7.7 3.3 6.3 2.8 0.9 3.2 0.8 2.8 0.8 1.9 2.0 6.6 2.9 3.3 1.8 4.8 3.6 11.7 2.7 7.3 2.2 8.7 1.8 6.1 2.0 4.0 1.4 4.4 72.0 8.6 73.6 8.9 74.3 8.4 56.5 10.1 60.3 11.7 57.4 10.8 53.7 9.8 60.1 9.3 53.8 10.9 63.2 9.3 65.9 10.0 64.3 9.7 8.6 4.0 2.1 6.4 3.3 2.2 6.5 3.5 2.1 10.8 7.2 4.3 9.9 6.1 3.8 11.1 6.7 3.8 11.9 6.6 3.9 10.4 6.7 3.1 11.4 6.8 3.8 10.0 5.5 3.2 8.5 5.1 2.9 9.1 5.3 3.0 4.8 87.4 5.7 89.2 5.2 88.4 11.0 83.4 8.1 82.5 10.4 82.9 14.1 78.6 10.3 81.3 13.3 82.1 8.8 84.2 7.6 85.1 8.7 85.2 6.1 3.3 4.6 2.6 5.3 2.6 6.3 4.8 7.8 4.6 7.3 4.2 8.2 5.4 7.6 5.5 6.6 4.8 6.6 4.2 6.4 3.9 6.2 3.6 1.2 0.6 1.2 0.5 1.2 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.9 1.0 1.9 1.0 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.2 2.2 1.1 1.5 1.0 1.5 0.9 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 1.4 1.9 1.7 3.5 2.2 2.8 3.4 2.7 3.2 2.5 2.2 2.4 Never 63.9 57.7 57.4 62.6 58.6 59.0 66.4 57.6 61.4 64.1 58.0 58.9 Once 11.9 11.1 14.7 12.4 15.1 12.5 12.2 10.5 14.3 12.8 13.7 13.2 11.6 8.8 14.1 13.5 12.1 12.7 11.9 10.4 14.4 12.8 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.5 2.2 5.0 1.8 4.8 2.1 5.7 2.4 4.9 1.7 5.1 2.2 5.0 2.0 7.0 3.1 5.4 2.3 5.0 2.2 5.4 2.1 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 6.4 8.4 8.1 6.7 7.6 6.8 6.2 4.7 6.2 6.4 7.3 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 33.0 16.5 31.6 12.7 28.2 12.4 34.4 16.4 33.0 14.7 32.1 15.2 29.5 18.7 33.5 13.6 34.1 15.5 32.6 17.0 32.5 13.6 30.8 14.0 7.6 3.7 6.3 5.0 3.0 6.5 4.6 2.6 5.5 9.4 4.1 12.1 7.0 3.4 9.7 7.1 3.7 8.1 11.9 4.9 14.3 8.8 4.0 10.8 8.9 4.4 9.1 9.1 4.1 9.9 6.6 3.3 8.6 6.4 3.4 7.2 32.9 38.8 41.2 35.2 46.8 31.7 23.7 41.1 32.2 40.0 33.8 34.9 20.6 40.9 29.4 39.0 28.0 37.2 27.3 40.0 35.4 37.7 38.2 34.0 13.4 7.7 11.3 4.8 9.7 4.7 13.3 10.0 10.2 7.4 13.2 7.5 13.1 12.0 13.1 8.1 14.5 8.6 13.3 9.4 11.3 6.4 12.0 6.5 2.9 4.5 2.4 4.5 2.6 4.4 4.4 7.8 4.1 6.2 4.3 6.5 5.6 8.2 3.5 6.3 4.8 7.1 4.0 6.3 3.3 5.5 3.7 5.7 32.7 40.2 41.9 37.8 47.0 34.0 23.4 44.4 32.1 44.3 33.6 43.7 20.2 50.0 30.1 46.1 27.8 50.0 27.0 43.7 35.8 41.9 38.1 40.9 13.5 4.4 3.0 8.9 3.4 3.2 8.8 3.1 2.2 13.5 7.0 3.4 10.2 4.0 2.3 10.2 4.0 2.5 13.8 5.8 3.7 10.2 4.9 2.7 10.1 4.3 2.3 13.6 5.5 3.3 9.7 3.9 2.8 9.5 3.7 2.3 5.2 33.7 5.0 41.7 4.5 47.5 7.8 23.9 6.0 33.2 5.1 34.6 6.2 20.5 4.8 31.3 4.8 28.6 6.2 27.7 5.3 36.4 4.8 38.9 43.8 10.4 41.4 7.6 36.8 7.1 49.8 11.4 47.9 9.2 47.6 8.0 55.1 11.4 48.7 7.2 53.8 7.6 48.2 10.9 45.3 8.1 44.3 7.5 4.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.7 1.8 4.8 3.0 2.6 2.0 3.3 2.3 3.8 3.0 5.2 2.7 3.7 2.1 4.6 2.8 3.1 2.2 3.1 2.0 4.6 33.8 4.6 41.8 3.7 47.9 6.7 24.2 5.2 33.1 4.1 34.8 5.5 21.2 4.7 31.6 3.9 29.0 5.4 28.0 4.8 36.4 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 All Students Surveyed* County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 79.1 82.3 85.4 77.9 85.8 86.9 81.4 86.1 87.7 79.2 84.4 86.4 1 or 2 times 10.3 9.8 7.2 10.4 5.8 5.9 8.5 5.3 5.3 9.9 7.4 6.3 3 to 5 times 3.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.0 2.8 3.9 3.0 2.7 3.5 3.0 2.9 6 to 9 times 2.0 1.5 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.4 10 to 19 times 1.6 1.2 0.9 3.7 1.4 0.8 1.7 1.2 0.8 2.2 1.2 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 40+ times 2.3 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.0 1.5 2.1 1.6 1.4 Never 23.5 38.9 39.2 26.1 36.3 43.7 30.0 47.7 55.3 25.7 39.9 44.4 1 or 2 times 27.3 26.9 27.7 24.7 22.9 24.2 24.7 21.6 21.5 26.0 24.3 25.2 3 to 5 times 21.2 16.7 16.3 20.4 19.4 17.1 19.0 16.2 12.8 20.5 17.6 15.6 6 to 9 times 12.0 8.1 7.7 11.2 10.4 7.2 11.8 6.4 5.1 11.7 8.5 6.9 10 to 19 times 6.1 4.0 3.8 9.4 4.9 3.5 7.7 3.6 2.5 7.4 4.2 3.4 20 to 29 times 3.1 1.7 1.7 3.2 2.7 1.4 2.8 1.4 1.1 3.1 2.0 1.5 30 to 39 times 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 40+ times 5.5 2.9 3.0 4.7 2.7 2.3 3.1 2.7 1.5 4.7 2.8 2.4 Never 78.5 85.6 87.6 78.5 89.1 90.2 80.1 89.9 91.9 78.8 87.8 89.4 1 or 2 times 12.4 9.0 7.1 10.6 6.0 5.5 10.6 5.4 4.6 11.4 7.1 6.0 3 to 5 times 4.5 2.6 2.3 4.1 2.1 1.9 5.5 1.4 1.6 4.6 2.1 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.5 1.1 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.3 0.4 0.6 3.1 0.8 0.5 1.6 0.2 0.4 1.9 0.5 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 40+ times 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 86.8 87.7 90.4 84.5 91.6 92.1 86.0 92.8 93.5 85.9 90.2 91.7 1 or 2 times 7.8 7.9 6.0 9.0 5.5 4.8 8.5 4.3 3.8 8.3 6.2 5.1 3 to 5 times 2.7 1.8 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 1.2 1.1 2.4 1.5 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.7 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 40+ times 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 87.2 87.3 87.6 79.5 82.6 83.7 77.7 79.7 80.3 82.7 84.0 84.6 5.5 4.2 3.0 12.6 6.9 7.8 13.9 10.3 10.8 9.5 6.5 6.4 2.6 1.3 1.0 4.4 1.8 2.2 4.6 3.4 2.8 3.6 1.9 1.8 3.0 1.5 1.3 5.0 2.9 2.6 6.0 3.0 3.4 4.3 2.3 2.2 3.6 1.7 1.8 5.9 3.4 4.1 5.3 3.2 4.2 4.6 2.6 3.1 1.7 1.0 0.8 2.9 1.4 1.9 4.9 3.0 3.3 2.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 0.8 0.8 3.5 1.8 2.0 4.8 2.4 2.2 2.9 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.3 1.1 3.9 2.2 1.7 4.6 3.5 2.1 3.4 2.1 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Santa Cruz County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Santa Cruz County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 221 18.8 221 22.2 493 81.1 28,932 10 538 45.8 371 37.3 49 8.1 18,766 29.9 12 416 35.4 402 40.4 66 10.9 15,119 24.1 1,175 100.0 994 100.0 608 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 564 48.7 449 45.7 313 53.0 30,383 49.5 Female 594 51.3 533 54.3 278 47.0 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* 46.1 Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 47 4.2 15 1.6 22 3.9 1,121 4.9 African American 25 2.2 25 2.6 22 3.9 658 2.9 Asian 6 0.5 5 0.5 3 0.5 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 9 0.8 11 1.2 4 0.7 225 1.0 242 21.7 254 26.8 226 40.1 6,774 29.7 16 1.4 15 1.6 11 2.0 1,099 4.8 771 69.1 623 65.7 276 48.9 12,732 55.8 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent 4.2 State 2012 Number Percent 2 4.2 2 5.4 1 1,909 5.2 1 2.1 0 0.0 2 8.3 1,979 5.4 2 4.2 1 2.7 3 12.5 1,641 4.5 2 4.2 1 2.7 0 0.0 324 0.9 33 68.8 27 73.0 15 62.5 26,247 72.1 4 8.3 1 2.7 1 4.2 2,561 7.0 4 8.3 5 13.5 2 8.3 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 1,116 95.0 948 95.4 564 92.8 22,831 48 4.1 37 3.7 24 3.9 36,420 36.3 58.0 1,175 100.0 994 100.0 608 100.0 62,817 100.0 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 60 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 38 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 42 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 9 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 130 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 196 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home Someone not related, 21+ 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 24 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 189 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 192 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 93 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 357 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 430 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 10 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 37 Students Sample size (Rx): 14 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 43 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10 Students Sample size (Rx): 5 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 52 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 19 Students Sample size (Rx): 13 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 105 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 66 Students Sample size (Rx): 32 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Santa Cruz County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 0.9 n/a 0.5 9.0 2.4 13.7 8.5 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 3.3 12.2 7.1 1.4 8.0 0.5 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.5 0.0 7.5 3.7 24.8 52.6 3.8 5.4 8.8 1.8 0.2 7.7 0.2 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.7 0.7 13.8 4.5 18.6 38.5 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 11.4 21.6 11.4 4.0 13.3 1.2 n/a 3.6 0.4 0.8 11.6 5.0 3.4 23.6 8.2 41.6 73.1 n/a 13.0 22.5 11.3 5.1 17.1 2.0 n/a 7.6 1.1 0.3 12.3 7.8 3.9 33.1 8.6 47.0 74.7 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 6.4 16.5 6.1 2.5 13.5 2.5 n/a 3.6 1.0 1.5 5.8 13.6 3.2 36.5 20.1 63.8 80.6 n/a 12.3 20.5 9.4 3.2 13.7 1.0 n/a 7.1 1.6 1.6 11.2 9.2 6.0 35.7 14.4 60.1 84.2 18.6 20.3 20.3 5.1 8.5 15.3 5.0 6.7 10.0 0.0 3.3 11.7 15.0 5.0 48.3 8.3 61.7 80.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 8.7 10.9 15.2 8.7 2.2 13.3 0.0 6.7 15.6 0.0 2.2 8.7 2.2 4.3 37.0 8.5 48.9 47.8 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 5.2 0.5 0.0 11.8 1.9 0.9 16.1 4.8 26.0 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 56.4 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 9.1 18.3 8.4 3.2 12.5 1.5 n/a 3.1 0.6 0.9 9.6 7.5 2.9 26.8 11.9 46.7 72.7 n/a 10.5 19.4 9.6 3.5 13.7 1.3 n/a 5.7 1.0 0.7 11.0 6.7 3.9 28.4 9.9 47.4 73.6 5.8 7.5 10.6 2.7 1.3 9.0 0.7 2.7 3.3 0.0 0.5 8.6 2.3 1.4 19.4 5.3 25.7 43.7 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 1.4 0.5 6.6 0.0 n/a 0.5 5.7 0.9 1.4 6.2 6.2 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 0.9 3.8 1.9 0.5 2.9 0.0 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.8 1.9 6.3 25.6 2.6 2.9 5.4 1.4 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.4 0.2 5.1 2.0 8.1 19.3 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 7.0 10.2 3.4 1.6 6.9 0.4 n/a 1.6 0.2 0.2 4.2 1.8 1.4 6.8 2.2 18.2 46.6 n/a 5.4 12.4 2.8 1.4 10.5 0.3 n/a 2.8 0.6 0.0 3.4 3.4 1.1 18.3 3.6 20.4 42.1 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 3.6 6.9 2.6 1.5 5.1 2.3 n/a 1.5 0.5 0.8 1.3 4.8 1.8 15.6 6.8 36.5 57.1 n/a 6.6 7.9 2.4 0.5 5.8 0.5 n/a 2.4 0.5 0.8 3.1 3.9 2.1 12.8 7.2 33.4 58.9 11.9 3.4 10.2 1.8 6.8 5.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 1.7 3.3 6.7 0.0 26.7 3.3 30.0 53.3 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 6.8 6.5 8.7 4.3 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 17.4 4.3 21.3 26.1 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 6.9 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 22.4 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 5.6 8.2 2.7 1.5 6.0 1.1 n/a 1.3 0.3 0.4 3.6 2.6 1.3 10.3 3.7 22.7 45.8 n/a 4.9 8.7 2.4 0.8 6.9 0.3 n/a 2.0 0.4 0.3 3.0 2.8 1.3 12.6 4.7 22.6 45.1 4.0 3.3 6.2 1.7 0.7 4.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.2 1.3 0.4 8.4 2.3 11.5 23.4 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 33.8 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 12.6 14.1 3.2 5.2 Been Arrested 4.6 3.3 6.5 4.7 0.0 Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 11.0 1.0 4.8 9.7 2.7 2.3 2.1 17.1 6.6 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 37.6 11.8 Grade 10 30.4 4.3 29.2 27.9 Grade 10 12.8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 36.5 10.1 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.2 7.1 10.8 7.3 3.1 7.1 13.6 12.9 1.1 7.8 13.2 8.7 3.5 9.2 12.2 17.1 0.0 8.5 6.2 18.8 6.5 6.2 25.0 19.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 48.4 25.2 Grade 12 32.2 6.9 41.7 40.8 Grade 12 35.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 42.6 26.3 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 1.5 6.2 12.9 7.5 2.2 7.8 15.6 21.3 2.6 7.0 10.5 7.2 4.2 8.6 12.0 17.3 4.8 11.3 16.1 17.7 4.8 8.1 19.4 27.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 26.9 5.1 30.6 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.1 6.3 12.4 7.0 2.8 6.9 15.6 15.0 24.7 6.7 13.7 15.7 1.8 7.2 12.0 6.9 4.0 7.5 12.6 14.1 1.4 5.7 10.1 5.6 2.9 3.0 18.0 9.8 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 30.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 40.5 15.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 38.1 15.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 1.9 12.4 15.6 2.7 4.7 14.6 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 20.6 Been Suspended from School 3.2 Sold Illegal Drugs 8.1 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 25.8 5.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 31.2 6.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.7 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 38.0 42.7 25.5 32.9 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 34.7 9.3 7.0 24.9 6.8 31.6 18.0 34.4 40.8 22.4 5.0 65.5 32.9 20.1 6.0 30.8 20.1 46.5 44.9 19.4 8.3 73.5 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 9.9 40.4 26.9 8.6 24.7 24.9 46.9 38.5 25.1 7.2 72.8 8.8 38.3 27.4 6.1 21.9 25.0 46.0 40.6 26.0 11.0 71.0 14.9 21.7 17.0 8.9 19.6 10.6 34.1 25.5 19.1 8.7 55.3 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 9.5 31.6 20.3 9.1 16.1 21.5 41.9 32.4 17.9 6.5 62.8 9.0 30.6 19.5 7.9 19.9 26.7 39.6 37.9 25.9 9.5 63.5 15.0 31.7 20.0 6.7 11.9 13.3 33.3 30.0 23.3 8.3 65.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 9.8 36.3 26.1 8.6 23.2 23.8 44.3 36.3 22.9 7.3 69.0 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 9.9 35.2 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 34.9 Played a dice game? 7.6 27.1 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 71.5 8.9 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 8.5 34.0 22.6 6.8 23.1 24.6 43.6 40.5 24.5 9.8 68.5 County 2010 10.3 33.3 23.8 6.9 28.6 16.9 34.3 38.5 22.2 5.6 64.6 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 41.1 30.2 28.7 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 51.0 31.8 49.5 30.3 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 39.3 Low Commitment to School 31.3 40.1 33.2 47.5 58.1 46.0 41.6 27.0 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 25.8 14.4 39.7 37.0 60.8 50.2 18.6 35.5 25.1 26.9 41.9 37.3 45.6 19.2 38.5 40.1 39.5 38.5 24.0 28.1 33.7 37.7 County 2010 20.6 8.6 39.3 37.3 48.4 42.2 22.7 32.2 20.7 31.7 38.6 31.7 50.9 20.8 41.7 38.5 45.8 36.0 28.3 32.2 26.3 30.2 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 30.0 27.5 45.1 37.5 57.2 34.8 36.9 47.7 29.0 38.9 48.2 28.7 48.8 41.1 52.7 35.7 35.4 42.7 20.2 39.3 41.0 43.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 32.3 25.8 54.1 55.2 59.3 37.6 39.1 42.0 29.9 37.0 48.5 31.4 45.8 36.8 46.6 42.2 39.4 32.3 16.5 42.4 43.9 33.1 County 2010 36.7 21.4 25.5 45.7 66.0 63.6 33.3 26.5 32.7 51.0 46.8 35.4 73.9 39.0 43.9 52.5 47.5 47.5 21.1 48.7 52.5 45.2 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 35.7 23.1 58.8 41.9 60.2 37.6 35.7 45.7 32.5 39.8 50.6 32.6 45.3 43.5 47.3 35.0 34.2 40.7 25.3 51.4 36.3 49.5 BH Norm County 2012 2008 27.1 14.9 60.1 42.2 51.4 46.1 37.9 39.8 26.2 34.4 52.4 30.1 40.8 36.2 46.3 32.8 34.6 39.2 22.8 40.7 37.1 46.9 County 2010 27.0 33.9 46.8 35.6 65.0 52.6 37.1 32.3 32.3 58.1 33.3 48.4 66.1 41.1 45.6 32.8 26.8 38.2 29.8 36.8 29.8 57.6 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 33.6 25.8 49.3 40.6 58.4 38.2 35.8 45.6 30.7 38.7 48.4 32.1 48.6 39.9 50.1 34.7 38.0 43.9 23.7 42.0 39.3 43.4 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 38.4 36.2 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 44.5 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 54.6 Academic Failure School Domain 52.8 Poor Family Management Family Domain 32.8 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 28.8 18.9 53.3 45.9 56.5 43.9 34.1 39.7 27.3 33.7 48.6 32.2 43.7 32.6 44.6 37.9 37.4 36.5 20.7 38.5 38.9 39.7 County 2010 22.6 13.2 39.0 37.8 51.6 45.3 25.0 31.8 22.9 36.0 38.7 33.7 54.4 25.6 42.5 39.1 43.1 37.6 27.8 34.3 29.2 35.4 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 62.1 64.2 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 48.4 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 36.5 57.6 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54.8 63.5 33.0 53.5 66.0 49.1 57.3 69.4 66.9 59.3 29.5 County 2010 52.0 66.7 44.8 56.8 70.0 62.9 65.4 66.7 73.4 58.8 37.8 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 58.5 64.2 33.2 62.4 67.0 62.6 60.4 62.0 61.4 50.4 41.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 60.9 60.3 42.4 69.4 71.2 56.1 65.9 67.9 59.6 51.1 41.1 County 2010 51.0 57.4 22.9 34.0 76.1 83.7 20.4 51.3 55.3 41.0 50.0 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 51.1 50.5 30.0 59.0 49.1 46.6 59.5 55.9 52.2 56.7 27.8 BH Norm County 2012 2008 55.2 57.0 38.2 66.1 54.3 42.6 64.6 60.2 55.5 55.5 32.8 County 2010 39.7 38.7 14.5 33.9 67.8 65.1 25.8 50.9 47.3 45.5 42.4 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 54.8 58.1 32.7 59.1 57.6 54.3 59.4 60.2 58.1 53.3 36.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 57.2 59.7 38.7 64.5 63.2 49.1 63.5 65.0 59.4 54.7 35.2 County 2010 50.7 63.0 39.9 52.6 70.3 64.8 57.7 62.3 67.3 54.7 39.6 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 53.0 51.0 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 51.2 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 56.8 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 53.6 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 39.4 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 5.3 13.2 44.7 13.2 2.4 9.5 9.5 21.4 26.2 11.9 19.0 54.8 11.9 16.7 31.0 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event I gave someone else money to buy it for me My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party I took it from home I took it from a store or someone else's home I got it some other way 13.3 1.7 13.3 61.7 15.0 15.0 13.3 10.0 18.3 3.3 1.7 5.0 60 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 19.9 6.1 20.9 60.7 21.4 27.0 17.3 11.7 32.7 5.6 7.1 9.7 196 County 2008 22.3 3.8 13.8 67.7 25.4 30.0 16.9 7.7 43.1 1.5 1.5 4.6 130 County 2010 22.2 0.0 33.3 77.8 0.0 33.3 22.2 11.1 44.4 11.1 11.1 33.3 9 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 24.0 8.9 17.7 68.2 22.9 30.7 14.6 8.9 39.6 6.2 35.4 30.2 192 County 2008 10.6 4.2 12.2 63.0 12.7 22.2 12.2 5.3 35.4 2.1 6.3 14.8 189 County 2010 12.5 4.2 16.7 50.0 8.3 16.7 16.7 20.8 25.0 4.2 25.0 37.5 24 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 22.8 8.4 18.6 63.5 21.9 27.2 17.0 11.4 33.5 6.3 19.3 18.8 430 County 2008 16.0 4.5 12.9 62.7 17.1 24.9 14.8 7.0 35.0 2.0 4.5 10.1 357 County 2010 14.0 2.2 16.1 60.2 11.8 17.2 15.1 12.9 22.6 4.3 8.6 16.1 93 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 21.1 7.9 10.5 21.1 21.1 2.6 5.3 5.3 9.5 38 42 County 2010 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Grade 8 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 37 3,000 10 3,911 19 3,747 66 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 2.7 8.5 20.0 10.9 5.3 14.9 6.1 11.6 64.9 72.7 50.0 80.8 68.4 80.9 63.6 78.6 Friends Family/Relatives 5.4 17.4 10.0 14.7 15.8 12.7 9.1 14.8 Parties 35.1 25.9 10.0 28.9 15.8 30.4 25.8 28.6 Home 5.4 6.1 0.0 6.3 5.3 6.0 4.5 6.1 School 5.4 15.8 10.0 14.9 5.3 10.1 6.1 13.4 Other 32.4 28.8 40.0 22.3 47.4 21.0 37.9 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 10 14 1,637 43 5 2,321 52 13 2,478 105 32 6,436 Friends 10.0 42.9 48.7 74.4 60.0 59.8 44.2 76.9 62.8 53.3 59.4 58.2 Family/Relatives 50.0 0.0 16.8 23.3 40.0 16.6 25.0 30.8 16.3 26.7 18.8 16.5 Parties 30.0 28.6 21.4 41.9 20.0 19.6 30.8 7.7 19.5 35.2 18.8 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 30.0 0.0 28.2 25.6 40.0 31.3 36.5 23.1 24.7 31.4 15.6 28.0 0.0 7.1 13.5 16.3 0.0 14.3 19.2 15.4 19.5 16.2 9.4 16.1 School 10.0 0.0 12.9 27.9 0.0 15.6 25.0 7.7 12.7 24.8 3.1 13.8 Other 30.0 14.3 17.8 23.3 0.0 13.2 28.8 7.7 12.3 26.7 9.4 14.0 Over the Internet 10.0 0.0 2.4 2.3 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.0 0.9 2.9 0.0 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 20.0 7.1 5.1 18.6 0.0 4.2 21.2 15.4 3.6 20.0 9.4 4.2 Doctor/Pharmacy * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 12.1 6.5 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.9 72.4 11.7 6.5 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.0 6.1 85.4 6.1 4.7 2.3 1.4 96.3 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.9 11.8 9.5 2.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.9 63.0 12.8 11.4 2.8 4.3 0.9 0.5 4.3 90.4 5.3 3.3 0.5 0.5 96.6 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.2 1.6 94.9 2.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 4.9 2.7 90.8 0.6 3.3 1.2 0.8 9.0 2.2 71.1 11.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.0 10.6 3.7 83.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 96.7 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.3 4.4 1.4 93.9 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.6 9.4 3.6 72.2 10.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 9.1 4.1 84.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.6 2.0 2.0 95.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 95.9 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.1 85.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 6.1 0.0 89.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 County 2012 89.8 6.1 Grade 10 County 2010 95.3 1.4 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.3 1.3 95.0 2.3 1.3 0.5 0.3 3.3 2.3 93.7 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.2 7.5 1.5 80.8 8.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.2 5.7 3.2 89.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.2 County 2008 93.0 4.0 0.3 0.5 96.6 2.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 3.1 2.1 93.3 0.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 5.1 1.5 81.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.8 4.4 2.8 91.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.6 1.6 95.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 3.2 91.9 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 8.1 4.8 83.9 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 4.9 1.6 County 2012 90.2 0.0 Grade 12 County 2010 94.6 3.6 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 95.2 2.2 0.9 0.6 0.5 4.4 2.7 91.8 0.4 2.9 1.3 0.6 8.9 2.1 73.1 10.7 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 4.6 1.2 83.5 9.1 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.5 1.5 County 2008 92.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 93.5 2.9 n/a n/a 77.2 71.1 n/a n/a 83.7 73.8 n/a n/a 79.0 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 8.6 9.0 n/a n/a 8.2 7.1 n/a n/a 6.5 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 8.6 8.6 n/a n/a 4.1 8.4 n/a n/a 6.5 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 1.5 3.7 n/a n/a 0.0 3.2 n/a n/a 3.2 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 0.6 1.6 n/a n/a 2.0 1.6 n/a n/a 1.6 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.8 1.2 n/a n/a 0.0 1.1 n/a n/a 0.0 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.6 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 n/a n/a 1.6 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 2.7 4.3 n/a n/a 2.0 4.3 n/a n/a 1.6 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.0 1.0 98.1 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.7 3.3 2.3 91.3 1.0 4.8 1.7 1.5 11.0 3.7 66.4 10.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 1.9 0.8 11.7 5.2 79.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.2 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.4 1.4 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.5 78.1 0.9 73.9 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 0.9 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.9 County 2012 94.2 2.9 Grade 8 County 2010 94.9 3.2 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 90.1 3.8 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 0.7 96.6 1.7 0.5 0.8 0.7 4.3 2.4 91.8 0.1 3.5 0.6 0.8 7.0 2.3 76.1 9.5 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.3 7.9 4.1 85.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.5 County 2010 94.9 2.7 78.0 8.3 8.0 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.2 2.5 0.3 1.2 97.6 0.5 0.3 1.2 1.5 3.4 2.2 91.7 0.8 4.2 1.9 1.2 9.1 3.4 70.4 9.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 2.0 0.8 10.8 4.7 80.4 0.5 0.2 0.2 1.5 1.0 0.3 County 2012 93.4 2.9 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 19.3 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 88.1 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 5.1 Marijuana 17.8 12.1 years 11.8 13.1 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 12.1 years Average age: 46.0 Average age: 483 483 480 Sample 452 459 457 481 483 486 286 288 287 390 404 401 Sample Alcohol Percent 8.1 Cigarettes 92.3 82.3 99.0 98.6 94.1 77.4 82.2 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 65.8 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.9 years 39.6 13.0 years 52.1 48 48 49 Sample 46 47 46 48 48 48 41 41 40 43 44 44 Sample 13.4 years 71.4 Percent 17.4 21.3 26.1 68.8 77.1 68.8 92.7 87.8 80.0 39.5 70.5 54.5 Percent Grade 10 14.1 years 48.4 14.6 years 69.4 62 62 62 Sample 60 60 60 62 61 62 54 56 56 57 57 57 Sample 15.1 years 83.9 Percent 26.7 30.0 53.3 59.7 63.9 66.1 88.9 87.5 75.0 52.6 73.7 54.4 Percent Grade 12 13.5 years 17.9 13.0 years 26.0 593 593 591 Sample 558 566 563 591 592 596 381 385 383 490 505 502 Sample 12.8 years 52.1 Percent 8.4 11.5 23.4 83.6 88.2 79.5 96.9 95.8 89.8 71.2 80.2 63.5 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.4 years 21.6 12.9 years 27.5 305 305 306 Sample 287 287 288 305 304 307 188 191 190 257 259 259 Sample 12.8 years 52.0 Percent 12.5 12.5 26.0 79.3 86.8 76.2 94.1 94.8 88.4 66.9 83.4 62.9 Percent Male †† 13.9 years 13.2 13.1 years 23.5 273 272 270 Sample 256 264 260 270 272 273 185 186 185 222 233 230 Sample 12.7 years 51.9 Percent 3.5 9.1 19.2 88.9 90.4 84.2 99.5 97.3 91.4 76.1 76.4 64.3 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 62.4 65.6 72.9 42.6 51.1 53.1 24.4 45.0 41.6 39.6 62.2 59.4 Once 18.3 9.4 11.8 12.5 12.1 8.5 16.7 16.4 10.6 17.0 13.7 17.0 12.6 30.1 20.0 20.0 12.9 20.1 15.4 20.4 12.6 13.7 12.8 13.9 6.1 0.9 2.8 5.5 1.3 3.3 3.1 1.1 2.3 12.3 4.5 7.5 10.6 6.4 4.3 7.3 3.2 5.7 14.9 6.4 11.6 8.3 1.7 5.0 11.5 4.7 9.2 12.0 4.5 8.1 6.2 1.8 3.5 6.4 2.6 5.0 80.2 10.8 77.1 11.2 82.8 8.2 53.1 15.6 65.2 19.6 73.3 10.1 41.6 17.6 58.3 16.7 65.7 10.1 54.4 15.4 74.1 12.5 75.7 9.2 5.2 2.8 6.2 2.4 4.6 1.7 15.1 7.8 10.9 2.2 6.8 3.2 15.2 10.1 10.0 8.3 8.9 4.4 13.0 7.6 7.0 3.0 6.3 2.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 2.4 0.8 1.9 3.4 5.0 0.0 2.2 1.8 4.8 3.4 12.1 1.7 5.0 2.2 8.7 2.7 6.9 0.7 2.7 1.4 4.4 87.7 8.5 71.1 12.1 74.3 8.4 56.3 13.8 61.7 10.6 57.4 10.8 58.4 14.7 63.3 5.0 53.8 10.9 64.2 13.0 69.5 11.2 64.3 9.7 1.4 0.5 0.9 6.8 4.0 1.3 6.5 3.5 2.1 8.7 7.3 3.7 4.3 10.6 4.3 11.1 6.7 3.8 12.1 4.7 2.1 6.7 5.0 3.3 11.4 6.8 3.8 8.5 4.7 2.4 6.6 4.6 1.8 9.1 5.3 3.0 0.9 92.9 4.6 87.7 5.2 88.4 10.1 79.7 8.5 80.9 10.4 82.9 8.0 85.2 16.7 88.1 13.3 82.1 7.2 84.9 6.2 87.2 8.7 85.2 2.8 2.4 5.7 3.5 5.3 2.6 9.3 4.8 12.8 2.1 7.3 4.2 4.7 4.1 3.4 1.7 6.6 4.8 6.0 4.0 6.1 3.2 6.2 3.6 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.2 1.2 0.7 2.8 0.8 2.1 0.0 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.7 0.0 2.2 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.2 0.2 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 1.4 1.8 1.7 2.5 2.1 2.8 3.4 5.1 3.2 2.6 2.1 2.4 Never 62.1 42.3 57.4 56.6 70.2 59.0 61.6 66.7 61.4 59.9 47.3 58.9 Once 13.3 14.2 21.4 16.7 15.1 12.5 16.6 13.8 6.4 12.8 13.7 13.2 13.3 13.3 10.0 8.3 12.1 12.7 14.5 13.7 18.9 15.5 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 2.4 0.9 6.2 3.6 4.8 2.1 3.7 1.7 0.0 2.1 5.1 2.2 5.0 2.1 6.7 5.0 5.4 2.3 3.9 1.7 5.8 3.6 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 7.1 9.8 8.1 7.6 8.5 6.8 4.7 3.3 6.2 6.3 9.0 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 34.7 14.4 27.2 12.4 28.2 12.4 28.8 21.9 40.0 15.6 32.1 15.2 26.5 19.6 36.2 15.5 34.1 15.5 29.2 19.3 29.3 13.0 30.8 14.0 5.0 5.0 6.4 6.1 2.7 8.3 4.6 2.6 5.5 11.0 3.7 13.5 6.7 8.9 13.3 7.1 3.7 8.1 14.5 8.0 13.7 8.6 6.9 10.3 8.9 4.4 9.1 11.1 5.7 12.0 6.4 3.7 8.9 6.4 3.4 7.2 34.7 41.8 43.4 30.9 46.8 31.7 21.0 39.0 15.6 52.3 33.8 34.9 17.7 39.5 22.4 43.1 28.0 37.2 22.7 39.8 38.6 34.1 38.2 34.0 13.9 3.5 10.2 6.1 9.7 4.7 14.7 11.8 15.9 6.8 13.2 7.5 18.8 10.5 19.0 6.9 14.5 8.6 16.2 9.5 11.7 6.2 12.0 6.5 4.0 4.5 2.7 7.5 2.6 4.4 3.5 10.1 0.0 9.1 4.3 6.5 4.3 10.2 3.4 6.9 4.8 7.1 3.9 8.9 2.5 7.6 3.7 5.7 32.3 37.8 42.6 29.6 47.0 34.0 20.8 40.2 15.9 48.8 33.6 43.7 16.7 46.8 20.7 47.4 27.8 50.0 21.7 42.3 37.8 33.2 38.1 40.9 14.4 6.0 3.0 12.7 2.2 3.9 8.8 3.1 2.2 15.0 9.5 2.9 16.3 4.7 0.0 10.2 4.0 2.5 14.3 6.8 3.8 17.5 3.5 1.8 10.1 4.3 2.3 14.6 7.6 3.3 13.6 2.6 3.3 9.5 3.7 2.3 7.0 31.8 7.3 44.3 4.5 47.5 8.7 23.7 14.0 16.3 5.1 34.6 11.1 17.3 5.3 24.6 4.8 28.6 9.3 22.9 7.7 39.7 4.8 38.9 46.3 11.8 32.3 9.3 36.8 7.1 48.3 10.8 48.9 13.3 47.6 8.0 49.3 14.8 50.0 10.3 53.8 7.6 48.3 12.6 35.7 9.8 44.3 7.5 3.4 1.0 4.2 2.9 2.7 1.8 7.6 3.8 6.7 2.2 3.3 2.3 6.5 3.0 6.9 6.9 3.7 2.1 6.2 2.8 4.7 3.3 3.1 2.0 4.9 32.5 7.1 44.3 3.7 47.9 7.8 21.8 11.1 17.8 4.1 34.8 9.4 17.0 3.4 22.4 3.9 29.0 7.8 22.2 7.0 39.5 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 89.8 85.4 82.4 91.7 86.9 83.8 77.0 87.7 83.4 88.6 86.4 7.8 5.2 7.2 8.6 4.2 5.9 7.7 13.1 5.3 8.1 5.9 6.3 3 to 5 times 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.2 2.1 2.8 2.5 3.3 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.9 6 to 9 times 0.9 0.8 1.5 2.4 0.0 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.6 0.8 1.4 10 to 19 times 2.7 0.2 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.8 3.0 1.6 0.8 2.3 0.3 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 40+ times 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 2.1 1.5 1.7 3.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 Never 34.1 43.5 39.2 31.2 68.8 43.7 43.8 54.8 55.3 37.0 46.7 44.4 1 or 2 times 36.9 26.7 27.7 31.2 25.0 24.2 25.2 19.4 21.5 30.1 25.8 25.2 3 to 5 times 14.3 14.9 16.3 17.7 6.2 17.1 14.5 14.5 12.8 15.6 14.2 15.6 6 to 9 times 6.5 6.0 7.7 8.7 0.0 7.2 7.0 4.8 5.1 7.5 5.4 6.9 10 to 19 times 3.7 3.1 3.8 5.7 0.0 3.5 6.0 4.8 2.5 5.4 3.0 3.4 20 to 29 times 1.8 1.4 1.7 2.4 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 40+ times 2.3 3.9 3.0 2.2 0.0 2.3 2.0 0.0 1.5 2.1 3.2 2.4 85.8 91.3 87.6 80.7 91.7 90.2 84.2 80.6 91.9 83.2 90.2 89.4 1 or 2 times 6.4 5.2 7.1 10.1 4.2 5.5 8.3 9.7 4.6 8.5 5.6 6.0 3 to 5 times 2.3 1.2 2.3 4.1 0.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.7 1.2 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.8 1.2 1.1 2.5 0.0 0.9 2.3 4.8 0.7 2.2 1.5 0.9 10 to 19 times 2.8 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.5 2.5 3.2 0.4 2.1 0.3 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.5 4.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 40+ times 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 89.4 92.3 90.4 88.0 93.8 92.1 91.4 82.3 93.5 89.7 91.4 91.7 1 or 2 times 6.0 4.8 6.0 7.1 2.1 4.8 4.6 12.9 3.8 5.8 5.4 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.9 0.6 1.5 1.9 0.0 1.2 0.5 1.6 1.1 1.3 0.7 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.6 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.8 2.1 0.4 1.5 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 40+ times 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? All Students Surveyed* 84.5 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 91.3 84.4 87.6 85.2 86.7 83.7 82.3 76.3 80.3 85.4 83.7 84.6 0.5 1.4 3.0 9.3 6.7 7.8 6.1 16.9 10.8 6.0 3.6 6.4 2.4 0.0 1.0 2.9 4.4 2.2 3.4 6.8 2.8 3.0 1.1 1.8 1.5 0.9 1.3 5.2 2.2 2.6 4.2 1.7 3.4 4.0 1.1 2.2 1.5 0.0 1.8 3.2 4.4 4.1 5.0 5.1 4.2 3.6 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.2 0.8 2.0 0.0 1.9 2.6 3.4 3.3 1.8 0.6 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.8 3.5 0.0 2.0 3.4 1.7 2.2 2.8 0.2 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.1 2.9 0.0 1.7 4.0 1.7 2.1 3.0 0.6 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.3 2.3 0.0 0.5 2.9 3.4 0.6 2.3 0.6 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Yavapai County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Yavapai County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 1,148 40.2 1,033 40.5 904 40.2 28,932 46.1 10 976 34.2 893 35.0 806 35.9 18,766 29.9 12 729 25.6 627 24.6 538 23.9 15,119 24.1 2,853 100.0 2,553 100.0 2,248 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 1,375 49.0 1,283 51.1 1,117 50.5 30,383 49.5 Female 1,431 51.0 1,228 48.9 1,097 49.5 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 30 4.5 26 4.0 29 4.4 1,121 4.9 African American 13 2.0 19 2.9 9 1.4 658 2.9 Asian 10 1.5 7 1.1 10 1.5 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 12 1.8 9 1.4 9 1.4 225 1.0 White 174 26.2 173 26.8 202 30.6 6,774 29.7 Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 46 6.9 40 6.2 37 5.6 1,099 4.8 380 57.1 371 57.5 364 55.2 12,732 55.8 Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 50 2.5 58 3.1 46 3.1 1,909 5.2 35 1.7 31 1.7 25 1.7 1,979 5.4 31 1.5 25 1.4 18 1.2 1,641 4.5 16 0.8 24 1.3 15 1.0 324 0.9 1,762 86.5 1,557 84.2 1,223 83.3 26,247 72.1 126 6.2 127 6.9 103 7.0 2,561 7.0 16 0.8 27 1.5 38 2.6 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 665 23.3 645 25.3 660 29.4 22,831 2,036 71.4 1,849 72.4 1,468 65.3 36,420 36.3 58.0 2,853 100.0 2,553 100.0 2,248 100.0 62,817 100.0 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 130 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 164 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 206 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 230 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 261 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 303 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 237 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 218 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 308 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 597 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 643 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 817 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 78 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 85 Students Sample size (Rx): 53 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 166 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 203 Students Sample size (Rx): 113 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 119 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 145 Students Sample size (Rx): 91 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other School Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 433 Students Sample size (Rx): 257 Students** Other County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 363 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yavapai County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yavapai County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 2.7 n/a 2.1 14.7 10.8 21.3 9.3 n/a used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 10.5 16.0 8.1 2.7 11.7 0.9 n/a 4.3 0.9 0.6 12.3 1.5 7.3 7.3 11.2 4.9 3.5 9.0 1.2 2.2 2.4 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.3 2.4 17.0 7.0 24.5 42.8 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 13.7 26.9 13.5 6.1 21.3 2.8 n/a 4.0 2.7 2.7 14.4 5.5 5.0 29.3 20.7 40.7 68.3 n/a 14.0 28.3 13.1 6.7 24.3 3.0 n/a 9.9 3.0 2.2 13.9 3.8 7.7 34.6 20.9 39.7 64.4 12.4 13.0 21.5 9.9 4.9 17.7 1.7 2.9 9.0 2.2 2.1 10.8 5.9 7.6 41.9 12.9 44.5 66.3 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 13.8 33.2 15.1 9.4 29.5 3.1 n/a 6.0 3.2 3.5 15.2 10.9 9.2 45.5 29.0 53.8 78.9 n/a 12.4 28.9 13.4 6.8 25.2 1.6 n/a 9.7 3.1 0.8 7.9 6.0 8.5 40.4 25.6 42.9 73.4 15.7 12.7 25.1 12.6 6.0 22.5 2.1 2.1 12.5 1.3 1.1 7.7 5.5 10.8 49.7 19.5 48.4 76.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 3.8 1.1 1.3 13.9 2.8 1.7 Cocaine 17.3 14.5 3.0 11.0 26.6 46.1 9.7 used LSD or other hallucinogens? Chewing Tobacco 27.2 used marijuana? used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? Marijuana smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 49.7 Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Hallucinogens had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 11.9 26.1 12.8 6.0 20.6 2.6 n/a 3.9 2.1 2.3 14.4 5.8 4.7 27.3 18.3 38.4 63.4 n/a 12.3 23.7 11.2 5.2 19.7 1.8 n/a 7.7 2.2 1.2 11.8 3.5 6.1 29.4 18.2 35.6 59.6 11.1 10.6 18.3 8.6 4.6 15.4 1.6 2.4 7.2 1.4 1.2 10.3 3.9 6.3 33.8 12.1 37.5 59.5 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 3.7 0.8 4.5 0.8 n/a 0.6 6.6 1.5 4.4 9.8 5.7 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 5.2 7.8 3.4 1.2 5.3 0.2 n/a 1.3 0.2 0.2 4.4 0.4 0.4 7.6 3.9 11.1 21.3 4.6 3.5 6.2 2.4 0.9 4.8 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 3.6 0.6 0.7 7.6 2.7 11.1 18.6 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 6.4 13.0 5.2 2.4 10.1 1.0 n/a 0.9 0.9 0.6 3.0 1.0 1.3 14.1 7.4 16.4 38.4 n/a 6.9 15.0 5.8 2.4 13.1 1.2 n/a 2.8 1.5 0.5 2.9 0.6 2.4 18.1 10.4 19.0 34.7 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 6.0 14.5 5.3 2.5 12.4 1.3 n/a 0.6 0.7 0.6 3.1 2.0 2.2 18.5 13.5 24.1 50.6 n/a 5.8 12.0 4.1 2.1 9.5 0.6 n/a 2.4 1.1 0.2 1.1 1.0 2.6 19.0 10.7 20.2 39.2 4.6 4.4 11.0 5.1 2.3 8.5 1.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 25.8 7.4 25.7 50.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 4.5 5.0 9.8 4.0 2.6 7.8 0.4 0.7 2.2 0.8 0.5 2.9 1.3 2.0 21.3 5.1 20.8 35.6 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.5 0.4 0.5 6.3 8.3 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 22.7 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 6.0 12.1 4.9 2.0 9.2 0.9 n/a 0.8 0.7 0.5 3.6 1.2 1.2 12.0 7.4 15.0 35.0 n/a 6.0 11.5 4.4 1.9 9.2 0.7 n/a 2.1 0.9 0.3 3.0 0.6 1.7 14.3 8.0 16.3 30.7 4.5 4.3 8.7 3.6 1.9 6.8 0.6 0.7 1.3 0.3 0.3 2.7 1.0 1.3 16.9 4.7 18.1 32.4 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 27.1 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 12.4 12.2 8.3 8.9 Been Arrested 6.8 7.7 0.5 Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 10.0 1.0 6.6 11.5 5.1 1.1 4.7 15.1 11.0 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 29.0 7.9 Grade 10 26.9 7.4 22.3 21.1 Grade 10 20.4 County County County 2008 2010 2012 28.1 8.3 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.9 9.4 17.0 9.8 5.0 8.6 15.1 18.8 1.7 8.5 16.3 9.9 4.3 11.1 13.4 22.3 1.1 5.8 13.2 6.9 3.8 11.6 14.9 24.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 26.0 12.6 Grade 12 29.0 13.2 33.1 25.0 Grade 12 30.5 County County County 2008 2010 2012 33.5 20.1 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 2.4 10.9 16.5 7.0 3.2 11.9 8.8 24.4 0.8 5.4 8.7 6.4 1.3 10.3 6.5 22.0 1.1 7.2 12.1 6.8 2.3 10.3 11.9 22.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 26.1 7.1 20.9 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.5 9.1 18.0 8.7 3.8 7.3 14.5 16.9 24.7 6.7 18.7 15.7 1.5 7.0 14.7 8.4 3.5 8.1 12.7 17.5 1.1 6.5 12.3 6.1 2.4 8.5 14.3 18.5 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 18.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 26.8 7.6 County County County 2008 2010 2012 29.0 9.7 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 1.7 17.0 19.9 4.2 4.1 3.3 3.1 16.0 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 17.6 Been Suspended from School 10.4 Sold Illegal Drugs 10.7 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 23.6 3.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 25.4 4.2 County County County 2008 2010 2012 4.4 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 30.7 45.2 24.0 28.9 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 23.9 3.3 4.2 23.6 3.6 23.1 20.7 30.8 24.3 21.1 2.1 57.9 29.3 25.3 5.3 22.1 18.4 39.5 27.2 19.8 4.9 61.1 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 6.0 35.0 29.9 5.2 21.7 23.0 48.7 29.9 22.3 6.3 69.0 4.9 28.5 23.0 4.9 19.2 21.5 40.5 26.7 19.4 3.3 62.4 3.1 28.9 22.8 4.0 17.1 15.6 37.7 27.7 23.6 4.1 59.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 6.9 29.4 18.8 5.7 14.4 18.8 44.3 27.6 17.9 5.7 61.5 2.9 21.8 14.4 2.9 15.3 17.6 35.7 19.1 14.4 4.0 55.3 3.6 26.3 19.3 3.8 14.8 17.8 34.7 24.1 21.3 5.3 58.4 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 6.3 32.7 28.4 5.7 22.7 22.3 46.2 29.6 21.6 5.8 66.8 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 6.1 32.7 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 33.2 Played a dice game? 6.1 23.2 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 68.3 5.5 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 4.1 27.1 21.7 4.6 19.4 19.3 38.9 25.0 18.3 4.1 60.1 County 2010 3.3 26.2 22.3 3.8 18.9 18.2 34.2 25.4 22.0 3.6 58.6 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 34.4 36.5 42.0 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 53.5 40.2 52.6 29.9 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 49.2 Low Commitment to School 31.3 44.7 25.7 41.4 51.4 35.0 41.7 18.5 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 34.3 17.7 44.0 36.6 51.4 49.0 28.8 41.0 32.0 33.9 41.8 39.8 44.0 29.6 51.5 40.0 51.0 43.8 38.3 35.4 36.1 40.9 County 2010 33.1 13.2 44.0 39.5 51.3 47.1 28.0 41.2 28.0 33.7 33.4 40.0 47.0 26.4 52.1 39.3 49.2 42.1 43.4 34.8 33.3 38.9 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 43.5 18.4 42.1 35.9 58.2 41.5 36.3 56.2 33.5 44.2 51.1 55.3 51.1 45.4 60.0 40.4 47.8 44.2 35.2 50.4 48.0 52.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 41.2 18.7 47.3 44.5 58.1 50.1 39.5 52.1 33.9 42.0 48.6 49.3 46.6 46.1 57.4 42.7 43.7 40.7 28.8 44.9 48.0 48.0 County 2010 38.3 13.5 55.2 48.9 56.0 59.0 43.9 48.2 34.6 38.9 44.4 53.8 50.8 46.3 58.2 51.4 39.6 40.1 26.5 46.7 47.3 50.4 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 42.5 16.2 57.3 39.6 60.9 52.4 40.8 58.5 38.7 42.1 46.1 57.9 45.2 45.9 57.1 41.5 37.3 44.9 37.7 50.6 40.7 57.1 BH Norm County 2012 2008 34.6 10.3 51.3 33.1 46.7 53.6 38.1 45.7 25.5 31.2 39.0 48.9 37.9 47.0 57.2 38.6 36.7 43.9 29.3 43.1 40.6 56.8 County 2010 39.9 12.1 66.6 38.8 54.2 62.7 44.1 42.9 34.3 43.1 41.9 50.8 41.6 50.3 60.2 44.1 38.3 42.0 39.8 41.2 48.2 58.8 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 42.2 17.9 45.8 36.5 56.2 44.1 33.2 52.1 33.9 41.5 46.0 53.5 49.2 39.1 56.3 40.6 47.7 42.6 38.6 44.8 40.7 50.8 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 40.8 38.9 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 41.5 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 50.2 Academic Failure School Domain 39.9 Poor Family Management Family Domain 45.2 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 36.8 16.1 47.0 38.5 52.6 50.6 34.9 46.1 31.1 36.1 43.5 45.4 43.3 40.3 55.2 40.6 44.3 42.7 32.4 40.9 41.7 47.7 County 2010 36.6 13.0 53.4 42.7 53.6 55.2 37.5 44.1 31.8 37.8 39.4 47.6 47.1 39.6 56.4 44.8 43.0 41.4 36.4 40.7 42.1 48.0 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 61.0 63.9 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 53.4 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 42.3 64.5 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54.2 64.3 44.6 57.6 64.7 56.6 67.3 60.3 60.0 52.5 34.4 County 2010 55.7 60.2 44.5 52.8 65.9 54.8 60.9 60.0 63.7 54.7 35.6 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 52.7 59.3 38.9 51.6 61.9 54.4 55.5 51.1 49.7 45.6 32.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 56.2 57.3 46.5 52.5 65.6 61.9 62.0 51.6 50.8 42.3 37.2 County 2010 51.4 57.7 47.1 46.8 67.9 60.0 55.9 53.0 51.9 46.5 36.2 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 45.0 46.8 36.2 47.2 47.2 37.1 52.6 56.1 53.9 60.5 30.2 BH Norm County 2012 2008 58.2 58.7 47.3 56.4 57.0 42.4 61.8 55.5 54.1 56.3 34.1 County 2010 53.9 47.8 44.4 51.6 52.3 51.8 64.0 49.6 55.4 52.4 35.0 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 54.3 58.2 39.6 52.4 58.7 49.6 56.8 57.6 55.4 52.7 31.1 BH Norm County 2012 2008 55.9 60.4 45.9 55.5 63.1 55.0 64.1 55.7 54.9 49.7 35.4 County 2010 53.8 56.3 45.4 50.4 63.3 55.9 59.9 54.8 57.4 51.2 35.7 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 61.5 56.2 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 63.1 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 60.6 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 54.1 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 30.8 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 3.4 3.9 2.4 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 39.0 19.4 17.0 41.7 29.1 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party 27.2 23.2 6.7 19.5 15.9 22.3 8.5 30.8 30.8 23.1 19.2 10.8 18.5 13.1 3.1 2.3 3.1 130 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 28.4 14.2 21.5 50.8 30.4 34.3 21.8 20.5 33.3 2.6 2.3 4.3 303 County 2008 16.9 11.1 25.3 51.0 24.9 24.9 17.6 17.2 39.8 2.3 1.5 5.4 261 County 2010 23.5 8.7 20.4 51.7 23.9 28.3 15.7 11.7 37.0 3.0 2.6 3.5 230 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 16.9 6.8 13.0 56.5 23.7 44.8 15.6 14.0 47.7 2.3 4.2 9.1 308 County 2008 11.0 3.2 13.3 46.8 14.7 32.6 17.0 16.5 49.1 1.4 4.1 5.5 218 County 2010 17.7 4.6 12.2 61.2 24.5 36.7 14.3 11.4 45.6 1.7 2.5 5.5 237 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 23.7 10.0 20.2 50.7 24.5 34.5 19.1 18.1 35.5 2.4 3.4 5.9 817 County 2008 16.5 7.3 24.7 44.3 20.1 25.2 15.1 17.6 37.9 1.7 2.5 4.8 643 County 2010 20.9 7.0 19.4 50.9 24.0 29.6 14.1 13.1 35.2 2.5 2.5 4.2 597 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. I got it some other way I took it from a store or someone else's home 8.7 30.5 20.4 I took it from home 19.5 20.9 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me 8.5 20.1 1.2 1.8 3.0 164 County 2010 Grade 8 20.4 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 206 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 Sample size** 85 3,000 203 3,911 145 3,747 433 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 1.2 8.5 9.9 10.9 15.2 14.9 9.9 11.6 Friends 69.4 72.7 72.9 80.8 81.4 80.9 75.1 78.6 Family/Relatives 12.9 17.4 11.8 14.7 19.3 12.7 14.5 14.8 Parties 18.8 25.9 23.2 28.9 41.4 30.4 28.4 28.6 Home 7.1 6.1 6.9 6.3 6.9 6.0 6.9 6.1 School 8.2 15.8 14.8 14.9 11.7 10.1 12.5 13.4 Other 32.9 28.8 36.0 22.3 25.5 21.0 31.9 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 78 53 1,637 166 113 2,321 119 91 2,478 363 257 6,436 Friends 59.0 47.2 48.7 69.9 51.3 59.8 72.3 58.2 62.8 68.3 52.9 58.2 Family/Relatives 15.4 13.2 16.8 23.5 11.5 16.6 25.2 25.3 16.3 22.3 16.7 16.5 Parties 17.9 17.0 21.4 28.3 15.0 19.6 31.9 24.2 19.5 27.3 18.7 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 37.2 34.0 28.2 30.1 34.5 31.3 19.3 18.7 24.7 28.1 28.8 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 12.8 9.4 13.5 23.5 19.5 14.3 16.0 20.9 19.5 18.7 17.9 16.1 School 11.5 15.1 12.9 22.9 17.7 15.6 26.1 14.3 12.7 21.5 16.0 13.8 Other 15.4 24.5 17.8 21.1 19.5 13.2 17.6 11.0 12.3 18.7 17.5 14.0 Over the Internet 0.0 3.8 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.8 2.2 0.9 1.1 2.3 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 3.8 5.7 5.1 6.6 5.3 4.2 4.2 4.4 3.6 5.2 5.1 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 14.4 6.7 2.3 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.6 58.0 14.0 11.7 4.7 1.7 2.0 0.4 7.4 92.1 4.5 1.7 0.8 0.8 94.7 2.2 1.7 0.2 1.2 15.8 8.0 2.1 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 53.0 14.0 12.4 4.5 2.1 2.0 1.2 10.6 91.5 5.2 2.3 0.1 0.9 93.3 4.3 1.2 0.2 1.1 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 12 or more times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 0.2 4.7 90.8 2.2 2.1 0.3 0.8 7.3 3.4 88.2 0.6 6.1 2.0 1.7 9.3 3.5 65.6 11.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.2 12.0 3.8 82.8 0.9 0.2 0.3 4.2 0.6 0.8 1.3 4.6 90.2 2.4 1.5 0.6 1.1 5.2 2.4 90.7 0.6 7.1 2.0 0.9 9.9 4.0 65.3 10.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.3 10.4 5.8 81.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 2.9 1.0 0.1 0.5 3.3 91.3 2.9 1.9 0.1 0.3 3.8 1.5 94.3 0.5 7.0 1.5 2.2 10.3 6.3 63.2 9.0 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.9 0.5 10.3 3.6 83.1 1.4 0.4 0.3 3.0 0.6 0.5 County 2012 88.8 4.9 Grade 10 County 2010 90.4 4.2 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 0.9 6.2 89.2 2.3 1.4 0.1 0.1 5.9 2.4 91.4 0.6 3.9 0.4 0.3 7.7 1.1 78.6 7.4 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 7.7 3.3 88.0 1.7 0.1 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.1 County 2008 88.9 6.5 0.3 5.5 92.1 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.3 1.8 96.4 0.5 2.9 0.3 0.2 5.3 2.1 84.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 4.7 1.9 92.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.2 0.4 3.4 92.4 2.5 1.3 0.4 0.8 2.8 1.7 94.4 0.6 4.7 1.1 1.7 8.7 2.6 74.9 5.7 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.6 4.3 1.9 92.3 0.9 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.6 0.2 County 2012 92.8 3.0 Grade 12 County 2010 94.8 2.1 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 91.4 3.1 1.6 0.2 0.7 6.1 2.7 90.3 0.9 7.4 1.7 1.5 10.2 3.3 63.8 11.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 5.3 1.1 80.0 12.5 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 6.7 3.2 County 2008 87.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 85.9 7.0 n/a n/a 70.9 71.1 n/a n/a 69.0 73.8 n/a n/a 74.4 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 9.9 9.0 n/a n/a 7.4 7.1 n/a n/a 5.6 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 7.8 8.6 n/a n/a 9.9 8.4 n/a n/a 8.9 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 3.4 3.7 n/a n/a 4.3 3.2 n/a n/a 2.8 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.0 1.6 n/a n/a 2.4 1.6 n/a n/a 1.5 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.0 1.2 n/a n/a 0.9 1.1 n/a n/a 0.8 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.8 0.6 n/a n/a 0.9 0.5 n/a n/a 0.8 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 4.3 4.3 n/a n/a 5.1 4.3 n/a n/a 5.3 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.6 2.0 92.7 3.1 1.6 0.3 0.7 2.8 1.6 94.6 0.6 8.8 2.7 2.6 13.9 4.9 56.5 10.0 0.2 0.1 0.8 1.5 0.7 10.5 6.5 79.7 0.8 0.4 0.0 3.6 0.8 0.4 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.4 3.6 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 10-11 times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.6 74.5 0.5 72.6 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 2.3 0.7 0.2 3.2 0.5 0.4 County 2012 89.5 4.5 Grade 8 County 2010 91.7 4.3 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 88.4 6.6 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.6 3.5 92.4 2.2 1.3 0.5 0.9 3.9 2.0 92.7 0.5 6.2 1.4 1.1 9.5 3.8 67.2 10.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.4 10.5 5.2 81.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.2 County 2010 92.0 3.7 71.1 8.0 8.8 3.6 2.0 0.9 0.8 4.8 0.5 2.8 92.1 2.9 1.7 0.3 0.6 3.2 1.6 94.4 0.5 7.2 1.9 2.2 11.4 4.9 63.3 8.6 0.2 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.6 9.0 4.3 83.9 1.0 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.7 0.4 County 2012 90.0 4.3 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 18.6 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 83.3 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 7.6 Marijuana 25.0 11.0 years 17.6 12.0 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.2 years Average age: 46.1 Average age: 894 893 892 Sample 864 857 860 891 895 894 730 742 747 812 837 824 Sample Alcohol Percent 11.1 Cigarettes 86.4 80.1 96.2 96.6 91.0 77.8 86.4 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 60.6 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 13.7 years 43.6 12.6 years 44.4 789 788 782 Sample 757 766 767 786 786 785 668 671 678 738 744 740 Sample 12.9 years 70.2 Percent 21.3 20.8 35.6 62.6 74.0 63.2 88.2 91.7 82.0 57.6 84.1 54.5 Percent Grade 10 14.7 years 52.2 13.7 years 50.7 529 531 526 Sample 527 526 528 530 532 531 492 491 492 509 517 516 Sample 14.0 years 79.3 Percent 25.8 25.7 50.4 58.1 59.6 50.7 81.9 85.5 71.3 51.3 87.6 57.2 Percent Grade 12 13.7 years 35.1 12.5 years 38.1 2,212 2,212 2,200 Sample 2,148 2,149 2,155 2,207 2,213 2,210 1,890 1,904 1,917 2,059 2,098 2,080 Sample 12.7 years 62.6 Percent 16.9 18.1 32.4 69.9 75.6 67.0 89.6 92.0 82.8 64.0 85.9 57.5 Percent All Students Surveyed† 13.5 years 35.6 12.3 years 38.8 1,097 1,100 1,092 Sample 1,057 1,057 1,062 1,092 1,096 1,094 905 915 919 1,005 1,032 1,024 Sample 12.5 years 61.8 Percent 16.9 18.5 31.2 68.7 75.3 66.6 89.6 90.8 81.9 59.4 84.3 52.8 Percent Male †† 14.0 years 34.4 12.8 years 37.2 1,081 1,078 1,075 Sample 1,060 1,062 1,064 1,081 1,083 1,082 957 960 968 1,027 1,038 1,028 Sample 13.0 years 63.2 Percent 16.9 17.7 33.6 71.0 75.8 67.3 89.4 93.1 83.4 69.2 87.7 62.2 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 71.9 70.7 72.9 48.7 45.5 53.1 47.2 32.5 41.6 57.4 52.2 59.4 Once 11.6 9.9 14.3 8.2 12.1 8.5 15.1 18.8 16.2 20.2 13.7 17.0 11.7 21.3 14.3 23.0 12.9 20.1 12.9 16.0 15.0 16.1 12.8 13.9 3.6 1.3 1.7 3.4 1.4 2.0 3.1 1.1 2.3 7.5 5.1 4.8 7.9 4.1 6.1 7.3 3.2 5.7 9.4 4.4 6.0 14.1 4.8 11.4 11.5 4.7 9.2 6.5 3.4 3.9 7.6 3.2 5.8 6.4 2.6 5.0 79.0 8.9 78.7 8.9 82.8 8.2 62.8 10.9 64.8 11.4 73.3 10.1 66.9 10.6 57.4 12.4 65.7 10.1 70.2 10.0 68.4 10.6 75.7 9.2 6.0 2.0 5.5 2.1 4.6 1.7 9.0 3.6 8.6 6.0 6.8 3.2 8.8 2.8 11.8 4.4 8.9 4.4 7.8 2.8 8.2 4.0 6.3 2.8 1.1 3.0 1.0 3.9 0.8 1.9 4.2 9.5 2.8 6.5 1.8 4.8 2.6 8.4 2.1 12.0 2.2 8.7 2.6 6.7 1.9 6.8 1.4 4.4 79.7 6.5 76.7 7.3 74.3 8.4 57.7 11.2 52.0 10.9 57.4 10.8 61.7 12.8 47.7 12.8 53.8 10.9 67.3 9.8 60.5 10.0 64.3 9.7 6.5 3.4 1.4 6.9 3.3 1.9 6.5 3.5 2.1 9.1 6.8 4.0 12.1 7.2 5.5 11.1 6.7 3.8 7.0 6.0 2.6 14.1 7.3 3.6 11.4 6.8 3.8 7.5 5.3 2.6 10.6 5.7 3.6 9.1 5.3 3.0 2.6 92.5 3.8 88.8 5.2 88.4 11.1 81.0 12.4 82.5 10.4 82.9 9.9 82.3 14.5 79.8 13.3 82.1 7.5 85.8 9.6 84.3 8.7 85.2 4.2 1.2 4.1 3.2 5.3 2.6 8.7 3.9 6.4 5.6 7.3 4.2 7.0 5.4 8.4 5.5 6.6 4.8 6.5 3.2 6.0 4.7 6.2 3.6 0.4 0.5 1.5 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.8 1.2 2.3 0.8 1.9 1.0 2.3 0.8 1.7 1.1 2.2 1.1 1.4 0.8 1.8 0.7 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 1.2 2.0 1.7 3.4 2.5 2.8 2.3 3.4 3.2 2.2 2.5 2.4 Never 62.8 54.7 57.4 64.1 57.0 59.0 67.7 56.0 61.4 64.6 55.9 58.9 Once 13.7 11.9 14.7 13.1 15.1 12.5 13.1 10.7 16.4 11.4 13.7 13.2 10.5 10.0 12.7 14.8 12.1 12.7 12.7 11.0 14.8 12.9 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 3.0 2.1 6.2 2.2 4.8 2.1 4.4 2.7 5.0 2.6 5.1 2.2 3.7 1.9 6.7 3.3 5.4 2.3 3.7 2.3 5.9 2.6 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 6.4 9.2 8.1 5.0 7.5 6.8 6.0 6.5 6.2 5.8 7.9 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 32.4 12.9 28.8 11.5 28.2 12.4 40.0 15.3 36.4 16.5 32.1 15.2 33.0 19.5 35.1 15.9 34.1 15.5 35.3 15.4 33.1 14.4 30.8 14.0 5.8 2.3 4.3 4.0 3.3 4.6 4.6 2.6 5.5 8.0 4.0 7.5 7.7 4.2 8.8 7.1 3.7 8.1 9.2 4.3 7.3 10.1 4.3 12.0 8.9 4.4 9.1 7.5 3.4 6.2 6.8 3.8 7.9 6.4 3.4 7.2 42.2 36.7 47.9 30.5 46.8 31.7 25.2 42.8 26.3 36.7 33.8 34.9 26.7 37.9 22.5 34.0 28.0 37.2 32.1 39.2 34.0 33.6 38.2 34.0 10.6 5.8 10.4 3.9 9.7 4.7 13.3 6.8 15.6 10.1 13.2 7.5 15.2 9.4 18.7 10.5 14.5 8.6 12.8 7.1 14.3 7.7 12.0 6.5 2.3 3.1 3.9 4.0 2.6 4.4 4.1 7.7 6.0 5.6 4.3 6.5 4.9 5.9 3.9 10.7 4.8 7.1 3.7 5.5 4.6 6.2 3.7 5.7 41.4 38.5 47.4 33.9 47.0 34.0 25.3 48.7 26.0 48.9 33.6 43.7 26.7 50.7 22.2 47.9 27.8 50.0 31.8 45.3 33.5 42.7 38.1 40.9 8.9 3.6 2.2 8.9 3.0 1.6 8.8 3.1 2.2 12.0 5.4 1.9 11.4 5.5 3.4 10.2 4.0 2.5 9.8 4.2 3.0 13.0 5.4 3.1 10.1 4.3 2.3 10.3 4.4 2.3 10.8 4.5 2.6 9.5 3.7 2.3 3.6 43.1 4.4 48.2 4.5 47.5 5.8 26.2 4.0 26.8 5.1 34.6 4.2 28.1 7.2 23.3 4.8 28.6 4.5 33.1 4.9 34.5 4.8 38.9 42.0 6.3 35.1 7.7 36.8 7.1 54.0 8.6 52.2 8.9 47.6 8.0 53.3 10.5 54.2 10.7 53.8 7.6 49.3 8.2 45.9 8.8 44.3 7.5 3.8 2.0 2.6 2.1 2.7 1.8 4.2 2.8 5.5 2.3 3.3 2.3 3.2 2.0 3.5 2.1 3.7 2.1 3.8 2.3 3.8 2.2 3.1 2.0 2.8 43.1 4.1 48.5 3.7 47.9 4.5 25.9 4.1 27.0 4.1 34.8 3.2 27.9 5.8 23.6 3.9 29.0 3.5 33.0 4.5 34.7 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? All Students Surveyed* County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 78.7 84.5 85.4 78.1 82.7 86.9 84.3 87.2 87.7 79.9 84.5 86.4 1 or 2 times 10.3 7.3 7.2 8.4 6.8 5.9 6.9 4.9 5.3 8.8 6.5 6.3 3 to 5 times 4.8 3.4 3.2 4.4 4.3 2.8 2.1 3.6 2.7 4.0 3.8 2.9 6 to 9 times 1.5 2.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.4 10 to 19 times 2.1 1.0 0.9 2.7 1.7 0.8 1.6 0.8 0.8 2.2 1.2 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 40+ times 1.5 0.9 1.3 3.4 1.7 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.5 2.4 1.3 1.4 Never 28.8 33.5 39.2 27.3 34.8 43.7 43.0 45.3 55.3 31.8 36.8 44.4 1 or 2 times 29.6 29.7 27.7 25.5 25.0 24.2 26.9 28.0 21.5 27.5 27.6 25.2 3 to 5 times 18.3 18.7 16.3 21.2 21.6 17.1 17.8 14.0 12.8 19.2 18.6 15.6 6 to 9 times 10.6 7.4 7.7 12.1 8.8 7.2 5.6 5.9 5.1 9.9 7.5 6.9 10 to 19 times 5.6 3.8 3.8 6.7 4.0 3.5 3.4 2.5 2.5 5.5 3.5 3.4 20 to 29 times 2.2 2.5 1.7 2.9 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.1 2.2 1.8 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.8 1.2 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.5 40+ times 4.0 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.8 2.3 1.6 2.7 1.5 3.1 3.3 2.4 84.0 87.7 87.6 78.7 88.5 90.2 90.6 90.5 91.9 83.7 88.7 89.4 1 or 2 times 9.6 6.4 7.1 14.9 5.9 5.5 4.8 5.7 4.6 10.3 6.0 6.0 3 to 5 times 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.6 2.5 2.3 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.4 1.5 0.9 1.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.1 0.9 10 to 19 times 1.3 1.0 0.6 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 40+ times 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 90.5 91.2 90.4 91.5 92.6 92.1 93.4 94.9 93.5 91.6 92.6 91.7 1 or 2 times 5.4 6.3 6.0 5.3 4.5 4.8 4.2 2.6 3.8 5.1 4.8 5.1 3 to 5 times 2.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.2 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 10 to 19 times 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 40+ times 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2010 Never seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 87.7 87.5 87.6 79.3 79.9 83.7 80.4 79.8 80.3 82.8 83.0 84.6 5.0 2.9 3.0 13.5 7.6 7.8 13.9 10.1 10.8 10.4 6.3 6.4 1.3 0.8 1.0 4.5 1.7 2.2 4.9 4.4 2.8 3.4 2.0 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.3 5.5 2.2 2.6 6.1 4.2 3.4 4.1 2.2 2.2 3.2 2.1 1.8 5.8 5.1 4.1 3.7 3.2 4.2 4.3 3.4 3.1 1.1 0.6 0.8 4.5 2.9 1.9 3.1 3.6 3.3 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 4.4 2.6 2.0 5.0 2.5 2.2 3.3 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.1 4.1 2.9 1.7 3.4 1.9 2.1 2.8 2.1 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Yuma County November 2012 Acknowledgements The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center thanks Bach Harrison, L.L.C. for their professionalism and contributions during the administration of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey. In addition we thank the Arizona Department of Gaming, Office of Problem Gambling for their continued financial support of the Arizona Youth Survey. We also benefited from the expertise, guidance, and assistance provided by our colleagues at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission and from input received from many individuals working for agencies throughout the state including: Leslie Bloom, The Partnership for Drug Free America, AZ Affiliate Jennifer Chambers, Arizona State University Katherine Grzybowski, Arizona State University Elise Mickkelsen, Office of Problem Gambling Richard Porter, Arizona Department of Health Services Rick Pyper, Office of Problem Gambling Mary Sands, Arizona State University Lisa Shumaker, Arizona Department of Health Services Additionally, the success of the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey could not have been achieved without the support and participation of school superintendents, principals, prevention coordinators, and teachers throughout the state. Finally, we extend our thanks to the students who responded to the survey. Their thoughtful participation resulted in a wealth of information that can be used to improve the circumstances in which they live and learn. Table of Contents Introduction The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention The Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Gambling Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana, and Prescription Drugs School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Appendix Contacts for Prevention 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 18 22 30 38 42 44 56 57 Introduction 2012 Arizona Youth Survey Yuma County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2012 Arizona Youth th th th Survey (AYS) administered to 8 , 10 , and 12 grade students during spring 2012. The results for your county are presented along with comparisons to the results for the state of Arizona. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Students by Grade 8 1,306 76.1 810 58.2 833 89.4 28,932 46.1 10 204 11.9 435 31.3 48 5.2 18,766 29.9 12 206 12.0 146 10.5 51 5.5 15,119 24.1 1,716 100.0 1,391 100.0 932 100.0 62,817 100.0 Male 838 49.5 684 50.1 459 50.5 30,383 49.5 Female 854 50.5 680 49.9 450 49.5 30,938 50.5 All Students Surveyed* Students by Gender Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent Native American 63 4.8 37 3.6 33 4.7 1,121 4.9 African American 28 2.1 17 1.7 22 3.2 658 2.9 Asian 6 0.5 8 0.8 6 0.9 222 1.0 Pacific Islander 7 0.5 10 1.0 1 0.1 225 1.0 153 11.7 211 20.6 245 35.2 6,774 29.7 41 3.1 42 4.1 13 1.9 1,099 4.8 1,014 77.3 699 68.3 376 54.0 12,732 55.8 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Non-Hispanic Student marked 'No' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: Native American African American Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked County 2008 Number Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 6 1.7 8 2.4 4 2.8 1,909 5.2 22 6.4 22 6.6 3 2.1 1,979 5.4 13 3.8 9 2.7 3 2.1 1,641 4.5 2 0.6 3 0.9 1 0.7 324 0.9 240 70.0 235 71.0 97 68.3 26,247 72.1 54 15.7 48 14.5 16 11.3 2,561 7.0 6 1.7 6 1.8 18 12.7 1,759 4.8 Totals County 2008 Number Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** Percent County 2010 Number Percent County 2012 Number Percent State 2012 Number Percent 1,312 76.5 1,024 73.6 696 74.7 22,831 36.3 343 20.0 331 23.8 142 15.2 36,420 58.0 1,716 100.0 1,391 100.0 932 100.0 62,817 100.0 * Grades with fewer than 20 students participating are not included in this report. However, students from grades not making the cutoff are included in All Students Surveyed. This means the number of students reported in All Students Surveyed may exceed the sum of individual grades. (All Students Surveyed will match the grade total in reports with data drawn from a single grade.) **As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,803 students, or 2.8% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students . 4 and recruitment efforts were successful in obtaining participation by schools in all of Arizona's 15 counties. Careful planning and uniform administration of the survey have resulted in survey data that are valid and representative of the students in 8th, 10th, and th 12 grades in Arizona. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students who completed the survey from your county and the state of Arizona. Because not every student answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity/race categories often will be less than the total number of students. To better understand the diversity of Arizona’s youth population, respondents were asked separate questions about their ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic) and their race (Caucasian, African-American, Native American, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial selfidentification, and a more nuanced understanding of Arizona’s diverse youth population. Whenever data are obtained from a sample of students instead of the entire population, it is important to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the data. One easy way to investigate the quality of the sample is to look at the basic demographic characteristics of the students who participated in the survey and compare them to what is known about the entire population of students. This will give the user of these data a basic understanding of the degree to which the sample data can be generalized to the entire population. It is important to note that even when the characteristics of the sample do not match well to the characteristics of the population this does not mean the data lose their usefulness. The data included in this report describes the level of risk and protective factors, substance use, antisocial behavior, and delinquency of those youth who participated in the survey, which can be used to inform the development of school and community-based prevention and intervention activities that may benefit both the youth who participate in the survey and those who did not. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model 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. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Research on risk and protective factors also has important implications for children’s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in families with high levels of conflict are more likely to become involved in delinquency and drug use than children who live in families characterized by low levels of family conflict. Many risk and protective factors can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your county make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. The chart below shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. School Drop-Out Violence ! ! ! ! ! Constitutional Factors ! Gang Involvement ! Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors ! Alienation & Rebelliousness ! Teen Pregnancy Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior ! Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors ! Lack of Commitment to School ! Academic Failure ! Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation ! Family Management Problems Community Disorganization ! Delinquency Peer / Individual Family Conflict Low Neighborhood Attachment Substance Abuse School Family History of the Problem Behavior Transitions & Mobility Family Availability of Drugs & Firearms Community Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Risk Factors ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Communities That Care (CTC) prevention model, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) 5 Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Lifetime and 30-day ATOD use 2. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 3. Gambling 4. Risk profiles 5. Protective profiles 6. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 7. School safety and cyber-bullying Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 4 through 14 that appear at the end of this report. The additional data found in Tables 15 through 17 are explained at the end of this section. Understanding the Format of the Charts There are several graphical elements common to all the charts. Understanding the format of the charts and what these elements represent is essential in interpreting the results of the 2012 AYS. • The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students who reported a given behavior. For the risk and protective charts, research has determined cutoff scores for each scale where the likelihood of youth problem behaviors were increased (youth at risk) or reduced (youth having protection). The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students scoring above the cutoff, reflecting elevated risk or protection in that category. zzz zzz zzzzzzzzz z Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2008, 2010, and 2012. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. • Dots and Diamonds. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Arizona who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 6 with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection, and antisocial measures with more national measures. Survey participants from eight statewide surveys and five large regional surveys across the nation were combined into a database of approximately 460,000 students. The results were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of the national population. Bach Harrison analysts then calculated rates for antisocial behavior and for students at risk and with protection. The results appear on the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the Bach Harrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximately every two years as new data become available. zzzzz zzzzzzzzz A comparison to state-wide and national results provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of levels of alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Information about other students in the state and the nation can be helpful in determining the seriousness of a given level of problem behavior. Scanning across the charts, it is important to observe the factors that differ the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are higher or lower than those in other communities. The risk factors that are higher than the Bach Harrison Norm and the protective factors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm are probably the factors that your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime use 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. • 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 Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinking is measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Drinking and Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving, or riding with a driver who had been drinking alcohol in the past 30 days. How Charts to Readand theTables Chartsininthis thisReport Report(cont’d) (cont’d) • Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement during the past year with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts. Gambling Gambling behavior charts show the percentage of students who engaged in each of the 10 types of gambling “for money, possessions, or anything of value” during the past year: played gambling machines, played the lottery, bet on sports, played cards, bought a raffle ticket, played bingo, gambled on the Internet, bet on a dice game, bet on a game of personal skill and bet on horse or other animal races. The chart also shows the percentage of students who engaged in any gambling behavior during the past year. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth’s life experience that can be used to predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 3, are grouped into four domains: community, family, school, and peer/individual. The risk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol, Marijuana and Prescription Drugs These charts display data regarding the ways that students obtained alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs in the past 30 days. Each chart focuses on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol, marijuana, or prescription drugs. (Students reporting no use of the relevant substance are not represented in these data.) The smaller the size of the subgroup (known as the sample size), the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%). The chart legends indicate the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. School Safety and Cyber-Bullying The school safety and cyber-bullying 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, carried a weapon to school, were picked on or bullied at school, or were harassed or mistreated while on-line or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 14. Additional Data in this Report In addition to data presented in the charts and Tables 4 through 14, Tables 15 through 17 contain information useful for prevention planning and grant monitoring. Table 15 contains the information that is required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risk of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. The Community Data Project Supported by a grant from the Arizona Governor's Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Community Data Project is a multi-agency effort to create a central repository for Arizona's substance abuse and crime data. Through a user-friendly web site, individuals have access to a one-stop portal where they can select the type of data they need, specific demographic characteristics, and their geographic level of interest. Various output options are offered, including data tables, graphs, and maps to cover a variety of reporting and visualization needs. The web site is a useful tool for practitioners and policymakers who are addressing substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and crime and 7 the criminal justice system by providing them with a picture of the characteristics and needs of Arizona’s communities. Having data that are specific to the user’s geographic area of interest not only leads to an enhanced understanding of the community issues related to drugs and crime, but also maximizes datafor-decision-making capabilities for things such as the appropriate program content, identification of at-risk target areas and populations, grant writing and reporting, monitoring progress of prevention and intervention initiatives over time, and determining resource allocation. Please visit the Community Data Project at: www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/sac/CommunDataPrj.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) was established by Executive Order 2007-12 in June 2007. Currently chaired by the Director of the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, who also acts as the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Human Services, the ASAP serves as the single statewide council on substance abuse treatment, prevention, intervention/enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP brings together stakeholders at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels to improve coordination of efforts; and address identified gaps in prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery efforts. The ASAP utilizes data and practical expertise to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona, thereby maximizing available resources. It is ASAP’s mission to ensure community-driven, agency-supported outcomes to prevent and reduce the negative impacts of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by building and sustaining partnerships between professionals in the substance abuse field. Through coordination and collaboration among its members and their respective agencies and organizations, the ASAP strives to ensure that substance abuse is addressed in a comprehensive manner and that funding is spent efficaciously and efficiently. Recognizing that prescription drug abuse is a serious threat to the health and well-being of families and communities in Arizona, the ASAP is devoted to reducing prescription drug abuse. There are currently two work groups that assist the ASAP in meeting its goals: • Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) – The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group’s mission is to provide communities, policymakers and local, state and tribal officials with data on the use, consequences and context of alcohol and illicit, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs to inform their substance abuse prevention and intervention strategies. The Epi Work Group produces The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona and behavioral health epidemiology profiles for use by community coalitions, agencies, and individuals in relevant fields. Additionally, the Epi Work Group conducts analyses of individual substance abuse issues, responds to ad hoc data requests and brings data to bear on ASAP’s policy decisions around its strategic plan and focus areas. Further, the Epi Work Group assists the ASAP to develop effective methods for integrating and expanding services across Arizona while maximizing available resources and supporting a data-driven decision-making process. • Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group (CPSAWG) – The Communities Preventing Substance Abuse Work Group is a merging of two former subcommittees of the ASAP, the Underage Drinking Prevention Committee and the Community Advisory Board. This group brings together representatives from community coalitions around the state and state agency representatives to provide an essential link between community and state-level efforts. The CPSAWG brings the community voice to the ASAP table; reports on important community issues that inform ASAP’s work; helps communities improve their capacity to identify emerging trends, as well as take action and report on them to the proper institutions/authorities; takes the data available through the Epi Work Group and the ASAP back to coalitions and communities to effectively target prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement activities; serves as a resource for communities and the state to identify the most effective ways to reduce substance abuse through collaborative efforts and by targeting limited resources where they are most needed; and elevates and recognizes the important work being carried out at the community level to ensure that statelevel responses are cognizant of the impact of policies on individual communities. This work group assesses statewide epidemiological data, resources, strategies and policies, and builds relationships with tribes, youth, law enforcement, government agencies, and community coalitions. By combining resources, practice, and research, the work group collaborates to reduce substance abuse. 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data What are the numbers telling you? Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the following questions. • Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state/Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which substances are your students using the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to identify high priority problem areas. • Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the others? • Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. • Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which problem(s) can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problem(s) fit best with the prevention resources at hand? • 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? Use these data for planning. • 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 – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low. Sample Risk Factors Protective Factors 30-day Substance Abuse Antisocial Behavior 9 8th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > national av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 10 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 11 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 12 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Methamphetamines Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Synthetic Drugs*† Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol State 2012 Heroin** County 2012 Ecstasy County 2010 30-Day Use MTF 2011 Prescription Sedatives† County 2008 Lifetime Use Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Other Club Drugs* Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogens Marijuana Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Ecstasy Heroin** Methamphetamines Inhalants 13 Prescription Drugs† **(Substance categories that were not measured and reported in survey administrations prior to 2012. **(Denotes a change in the question between administrations. Non-comparable data are omitted from charts. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. *†(No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers, MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed Substance Use Synthetic Drugs*† Over-the-Counter Drugs† 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 14 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 15 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 16 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Drinking & Driving** Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 17 State 2012 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle County 2012 Been Arrested County 2010 MTF 2011*/BH Norm 2012** Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them County 2008 Antisocial Behavior Past Year** Carried a Handgun **(National Comparison data for Binge Drinking category are Monitoring the Future values. **(National Comparison data for Drinking & Driving and Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Binge Drinking* BINGE DRINKING, DRINKING & DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Carried a Handgun to School 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 18 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 19 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 20 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* 0 10 20 Bet on Cards Played the Lottery Played Slots/ Video Poker Bet on Sports 21 County 2012 Played Bingo County 2010 State 2012 Bet on Dice County 2008 Gambling Behavior Past Year BH Norm 2012 Bet on a horse/ other race? **(National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GAMBLING 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed Gambling Any Gambling Past Year Bet on Games of Skill Gambled on the lnternet Bought Raffle Ticket* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 22 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 23 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 24 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 25 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness School Low Commitment to School County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use th th 26 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 27 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior State 2012 Peer/Individual Interaction with Antisocial Peers Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior School Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Family Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Family History of Antisocial Behavior County 2010 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family Conflict Community Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Percentage (%) of youth at risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Low Neighborhood Attachment County 2008 Poor Family Management 100 RISK PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed Sources Risk and of Protective Alcohol Factor Profiles Rebelliousness County 2012 Early Initiation of Drug Use th th 28 Friend's Use of Drugs th Rewards for Antisocial Behavior BH Norm 2012 Gang Involvement **(High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives (8 grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10 &12 grades: 9 or more risk factors). Total Students at High Risk* 0 Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 School Peer/Individual State 2012 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2008 Family Total BH Norm 2012 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 29 **(High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. **(NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability **(across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Percentage (%) of youth with protection 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Students with High Protection* 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 93 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 145 Students** State 2012 Sample: 3,700 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 207 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 30 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 18 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 132 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,007 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 61 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 31 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 16 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 48 Students** State 2012 Sample: 5,656 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 91 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 32 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ Another family member, 21+ Parent or guardian Gave someone else money to buy it Bought it at a public event Bought it at a restaurant, bar or club Bought it in a store County 2012 Sample: 127 Students** Got at a party County 2010 Sample: 325 Students** State 2012 Sample: 14,363 Students** Took it from home County 2008 Sample: 359 Students** Sources of Obtaining Alcohol in the Past Year Store or someone else's home 33 **(Because not all surveys ask where youth obtained alcohol, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. **(In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL* 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Alcohol Got it some other way 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,000 Students Sample size (Rx): 1,637 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 72 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 60 Students Sample size (Rx): 42 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 34 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,911 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,321 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 68 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 7 Students Sample size (Rx): 13 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 35 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 3,747 Students Sample size (Rx): 2,478 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 21 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 11 Students Sample size (Rx): 8 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School Home 36 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Doctor/ Pharmacy Parties Family/ Relatives Friends Other Home Parties Family/ Relatives Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card State 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 10,658 Students Sample size (Rx): 6,436 Students** School County 2010 Sample size (Rx): 161 Students** Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs Other County 2012 Sample size (Marijuana): 78 Students Sample size (Rx): 63 Students** Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days Over the Internet Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) School 37 **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. Also, because not all surveys ask where youth obtained these substances, no BH Norm value is reported. **(Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or have not used prescription drugs to get high are not included in their respective sample sizes. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 38 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yuma County, Grade 8 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 39 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yuma County, Grade 10 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 40 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yuma County, Grade 12 School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property 0 10 20 Felt Unsafe at School Carried a Weapon on School Property 41 County 2010 Threatened or Injured on School Property County 2008 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year County 2012 In a Physical Fight on School Property **(Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. Percentage (%) 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2012 Yuma County, All Students Surveyed School Safety State 2012 Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Picked On or Bullied on School Property Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors 1 Low Neighborhood Attachment Research has shown that youth who don't like the neighborhoods in which they live are more likely to become involved in 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. 1 1 1 1 Community Domain Protective Factors 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors 1 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. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, 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 light the parent’s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Family Domain Protective Factors 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 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. 1 Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs 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. 42 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Table 3. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 1 Opportunities for Prosocial 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. 1 Rewards for Prosocial 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 1 1 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. 1 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. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use 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, 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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. Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 1 1 1 Peer-Individual Protective Factors 1 Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs. 1 Interaction 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. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. 43 2.7 n/a 1.2 13.4 17.4 9.3 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 8.1 17.1 6.8 2.4 11.7 1.5 n/a 2.4 0.7 0.8 14.5 1.8 1.4 16.4 6.4 26.9 50.5 4.5 4.5 10.8 4.4 1.6 7.9 1.2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.3 10.6 1.5 0.5 10.2 3.7 17.7 36.6 6.9 7.0 11.1 4.4 2.0 8.8 1.5 1.9 2.8 0.7 0.6 11.4 1.5 1.7 16.2 4.5 19.7 37.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.2 n/a 1.2 n/a 2.6 1.2 1.3 13.1 2.2 3.3 16.4 9.7 18.4 33.1 n/a 6.4 17.0 6.4 3.2 12.8 1.6 n/a 2.7 0.5 2.7 9.5 2.1 1.6 15.8 14.0 44.1 62.7 n/a 14.9 22.1 9.3 6.3 17.4 1.2 n/a 7.2 1.9 3.3 10.7 6.3 4.2 29.2 8.6 36.1 63.7 18.2 13.6 26.7 8.9 4.4 22.7 2.2 4.4 11.4 0.0 4.5 17.8 13.3 2.3 26.7 8.7 41.3 71.1 11.1 10.6 18.8 8.0 6.6 15.6 1.8 2.5 7.4 1.4 1.5 9.4 3.9 5.2 34.7 9.3 31.7 59.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 9.0 n/a 1.4 n/a 6.6 1.2 2.1 10.1 3.3 6.0 34.5 15.6 30.4 56.0 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 9.3 21.2 9.3 3.1 15.5 1.6 n/a 7.3 2.1 5.7 6.7 9.8 5.2 28.9 12.2 51.8 73.3 n/a 17.0 23.0 8.9 6.7 22.2 0.7 n/a 10.3 1.5 3.7 15.3 8.7 5.8 42.8 17.1 56.9 76.3 18.0 24.5 30.0 8.0 6.0 30.0 2.0 8.0 20.0 2.0 10.0 16.0 22.0 4.0 62.0 4.0 68.0 74.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 13.9 12.2 23.9 10.0 9.9 20.7 1.9 3.1 10.4 1.8 1.8 7.4 7.4 8.4 44.8 14.7 42.1 69.2 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.2 13.0 1.8 n/a 8.0 1.4 2.1 8.1 5.2 8.3 45.5 16.9 40.0 70.0 MTF 2011 44 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 8.5 3.8 0.9 1.7 15.4 3.4 1.6 14.6 6.8 25.8 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 51.1 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Data Tables n/a 9.0 17.8 8.3 3.6 13.6 1.3 n/a 3.3 1.0 2.3 13.6 4.1 2.1 16.5 8.3 31.2 55.2 n/a 11.2 19.3 7.8 4.1 14.7 1.3 n/a 4.8 1.1 1.9 13.4 4.0 2.8 23.3 8.2 32.9 57.4 6.1 6.2 12.8 4.9 2.1 10.0 1.3 2.2 2.9 0.8 1.1 11.3 3.3 0.8 14.1 4.0 21.9 40.7 9.9 9.3 16.6 6.9 5.3 13.8 1.7 2.4 6.1 1.2 1.2 9.8 3.7 4.4 28.7 8.4 28.8 51.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 n/a 1.5 n/a 5.5 1.2 1.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 31.0 13.8 28.7 51.5 MTF 2011 3.1 1.0 5.6 0.8 n/a 0.5 6.8 1.3 2.5 8.5 4.8 n/a used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? used marijuana? used LSD or other hallucinogens? used cocaine or crack? sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? used heroin? used Ecstasy (‘X’, ‘E’, or MDMA)? used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Hallucinogens Cocaine Inhalants Methamphetamines Heroin* Ecstasy Other Club Drugs** Steroids Prescription Pain Relievers† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Drugs† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Synthetic Drugs**† n/a 4.1 10.4 3.3 1.3 6.9 0.3 n/a 0.7 0.1 0.3 4.6 0.7 0.7 7.5 2.1 8.8 25.3 2.4 2.8 6.0 2.4 1.0 4.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.1 4.6 0.4 0.1 2.7 2.0 6.8 15.3 3.8 4.0 5.7 1.9 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.2 4.2 0.6 0.7 7.7 2.1 7.8 17.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.8 n/a 0.4 n/a 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 1.0 7.2 3.5 6.1 12.7 n/a 3.7 7.4 3.7 1.1 4.3 1.1 n/a 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.5 4.8 6.2 18.7 40.0 n/a 7.5 12.3 3.3 3.5 10.0 0.2 n/a 3.3 0.7 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.9 13.9 4.9 15.4 38.2 5.0 4.9 9.3 3.3 2.7 7.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 17.7 3.9 14.0 32.1 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.1 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.7 1.4 17.6 6.6 11.8 27.2 MTF 2011 Grade 12 n/a 4.7 10.9 4.7 1.0 8.3 1.6 n/a 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.1 3.1 2.6 14.9 5.1 27.0 54.4 n/a 10.4 10.4 3.0 3.7 9.6 0.7 n/a 2.9 0.7 1.5 2.9 1.4 0.0 19.4 7.2 24.4 47.8 6.1 10.4 14.0 4.2 4.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 16.3 6.0 24.0 42.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 5.2 4.3 10.0 3.2 3.0 7.9 0.7 0.6 2.0 0.5 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.3 22.5 6.6 21.0 43.5 State 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.7 3.6 0.7 n/a 2.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.6 22.6 8.3 18.7 40.0 MTF 2011 45 †† State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. † No equivalent category for these substances in the Monitoring the Future survey. In the case of Prescription Pain Relievers , MTF does not have reliable data for grades 8 and 10. 9.1 7.0 15.9 7.0 4.5 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 4.4 0.0 9.3 4.3 23.9 42.2 * Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2012 and prior administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2012 (also denoted by 'n/a' in the data column). 0.3 0.9 0.9 6.0 8.9 smoked cigarettes? Cigarettes 24.4 had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Grade 10 MTF 2011 County County County 2008 2010 2012 State 2012 Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Alcohol In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you… (One or more occasions) Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Data Tables n/a 4.7 8.7 2.9 1.3 6.7 0.7 n/a 0.9 0.4 0.9 4.8 1.2 1.1 7.0 3.7 12.3 29.9 n/a 5.8 11.0 3.3 2.3 8.2 0.3 n/a 1.7 0.4 0.8 3.5 1.2 1.0 10.8 3.5 12.5 31.8 3.0 3.4 7.0 2.7 1.3 5.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 4.8 0.8 0.2 3.8 2.4 8.7 18.3 4.5 4.4 7.9 2.7 2.0 6.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.4 2.8 1.1 1.4 14.3 3.8 12.9 28.1 State 2012 All Students Surveyed†† County County County 2008 2010 2012 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.8 n/a 0.5 n/a 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.1 0.8 1.3 15.2 5.9 11.7 25.5 MTF 2011 32.8 RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 14.1 15.7 9.9 8.4 Been Arrested 5.8 8.9 1.2 Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun to School Grade 8 8.0 0.9 4.7 10.6 4.3 2.8 2.2 11.1 6.7 Grade 10 6.4 MTF 2011 24.9 4.2 35.6 8.6 Grade 10 42.2 15.2 20.8 23.5 Grade 10 28.3 County County County 2008 2010 2012 38.5 14.4 1.0 5.7 11.2 5.5 2.1 4.5 17.0 10.4 0.8 4.8 16.0 5.2 2.3 2.5 15.1 7.5 1.5 8.6 13.9 10.3 4.1 4.6 15.7 11.2 2.1 9.5 16.5 9.3 3.9 10.7 11.8 23.4 2.2 6.5 14.9 29.8 2.2 17.4 29.8 23.4 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 8.7 State 2012 24.1 3.9 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 14.7 MTF 2011 26.3 7.4 40.9 18.6 Grade 12 54.0 12.0 36.1 30.4 Grade 12 28.0 County County County 2008 2010 2012 50.0 17.3 1.2 5.2 9.7 7.0 2.6 9.8 12.1 19.8 0.9 5.2 15.1 6.7 2.6 6.5 12.6 15.0 1.5 11.1 15.2 17.8 3.1 9.5 16.1 16.8 2.2 11.3 16.2 13.5 4.2 15.7 16.3 25.0 2.1 8.3 14.6 8.3 4.2 16.7 20.8 27.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 17.5 State 2012 24.5 6.1 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 21.6 MTF 2011 27.5 16.6 46 29.4 5.9 17.5 1.3 5.9 7.7 7.0 2.0 10.8 8.9 21.6 1.0 5.2 11.9 6.1 1.9 7.8 9.2 17.7 1.2 9.1 18.6 9.7 3.7 4.3 18.0 11.8 24.7 6.7 10.3 15.7 2.0 7.5 17.0 10.1 4.1 7.0 17.3 17.4 1.0 5.0 11.0 5.9 2.9 3.8 12.6 8.6 13.6 MTF 2011 25.0 7.7 1.2 5.6 9.9 6.3 2.2 7.6 13.6 15.9 0.9 5.1 14.4 6.0 2.3 5.5 12.4 13.3 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* 19.7 State 2012 All Students Surveyed* 35.5 8.7 County County County 2008 2010 2012 35.5 8.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 26.5 State 2012 26.0 12.5 State BH Norm 2012 2012 All Students Surveyed* State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 1.9 17.4 19.9 3.4 4.2 3.4 3.7 20.4 Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 18.6 Been Suspended from School 12.9 Sold Illegal Drugs 11.1 Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Grade 8 27.0 4.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) 34.5 6.9 County County County 2008 2010 2012 6.4 Binge Drinking Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Drinking and Driving Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy ATOD Use Data Tables 30.9 41.4 23.7 29.7 Bet on sports? Played cards? Bought a raffle ticket?* Played bingo? 27.0 5.4 3.3 25.3 6.6 22.8 21.4 32.7 29.2 21.3 5.1 59.9 27.6 23.0 7.1 22.0 18.9 33.5 27.6 21.7 5.2 61.7 4.8 25.6 24.4 4.9 25.7 16.8 31.7 26.1 23.1 4.6 59.0 4.6 20.1 12.1 4.5 22.7 n/a 25.8 22.8 24.0 5.7 55.0 8.2 27.3 20.7 8.2 25.6 21.2 39.0 29.1 25.5 7.1 65.3 5.3 33.7 23.7 7.0 21.6 20.7 38.8 31.0 24.4 6.7 63.0 6.7 26.1 22.2 4.4 25.0 19.6 37.8 42.2 36.4 4.3 69.6 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 10 4.5 24.3 20.5 4.1 19.6 16.6 31.1 24.5 22.4 4.2 57.2 4.7 20.5 11.2 4.0 17.7 n/a 27.0 22.5 23.5 5.3 53.8 8.2 22.8 17.0 5.7 17.9 18.0 33.7 28.1 21.4 8.6 60.6 4.3 22.1 16.5 3.6 15.0 17.1 33.8 28.1 19.4 6.5 50.7 2.0 22.0 22.0 6.0 10.2 16.7 34.0 30.0 18.0 6.0 58.0 State BH Norm County County County 2012 2012 2008 2010 2012 Grade 12 4.0 22.1 16.1 3.6 13.2 16.0 30.3 21.5 21.5 5.1 53.7 4.6 18.8 10.0 3.7 14.0 n/a 26.7 20.5 23.9 5.4 52.6 6.1 30.9 28.4 5.9 27.8 22.8 40.2 30.3 22.9 7.2 65.4 State BH Norm County 2012 2012 2008 47 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * National Comparison data for Bought a raffle ticket are not available. 5.5 32.8 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? Bet on a horse or other animal race? 31.3 Played a dice game? 5.6 22.7 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 66.2 7.0 Gambled on the Internet? Grade 8 County County County 2008 2010 2012 Played a slot machine, poker machine or other gambling machine? Any Gambling How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) Table 8. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year Data Tables 4.1 29.0 22.6 6.7 21.2 19.3 35.2 28.8 22.3 5.8 61.0 County 2010 5.3 26.6 25.0 6.4 22.2 21.1 33.0 29.9 21.9 5.1 60.2 County 2012 4.5 24.4 21.2 4.3 20.8 16.5 31.2 24.5 22.5 4.6 57.2 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 4.7 19.4 11.4 4.2 19.5 n/a 25.3 21.4 22.7 5.3 53.0 BH Norm 2012 33.3 36.3 35.9 Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns 55.7 37.8 51.6 28.3 Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 38.0 Low Commitment to School 30.9 46.5 28.9 45.7 59.1 37.4 43.6 32.0 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 Gang Involvement Students at High Risk* 35.7 27.2 55.3 43.5 59.7 49.9 33.0 41.1 33.8 36.6 49.6 34.0 49.0 25.1 43.8 44.3 51.5 49.7 28.6 34.0 34.6 40.5 County 2010 24.1 16.4 39.2 34.2 48.6 48.3 23.5 33.5 23.0 26.7 36.6 32.5 44.2 22.7 43.0 33.8 49.6 45.7 31.9 33.8 29.7 40.1 County 2012 Grade 8 30.4 14.9 44.9 35.7 50.2 50.2 26.1 36.8 24.0 34.2 37.1 40.2 44.0 23.7 46.1 38.5 51.2 42.5 34.6 34.3 32.1 36.8 State 2012 29.7 17.8 36.7 30.8 50.3 37.1 22.6 36.2 24.0 33.7 39.0 38.0 46.6 26.0 46.9 36.4 51.5 41.9 39.8 29.4 32.8 36.6 29.6 37.6 32.6 34.7 65.1 36.4 30.3 43.2 24.6 42.2 42.3 31.2 53.8 32.7 46.2 31.6 39.8 42.4 25.7 41.6 30.2 48.9 BH Norm County 2012 2008 39.4 29.8 47.1 41.9 61.1 46.8 37.2 47.6 31.3 38.0 53.6 42.8 52.4 42.5 54.7 39.4 44.3 47.8 25.7 42.8 46.1 50.6 County 2010 40.4 40.5 34.1 43.5 58.7 56.8 43.5 39.1 41.3 52.2 52.2 41.3 52.6 53.5 50.0 56.8 37.2 48.8 36.4 63.6 48.8 43.2 County 2012 Grade 10 31.2 13.4 50.6 39.0 47.2 51.4 36.1 41.4 27.5 35.7 40.6 45.9 45.8 39.7 49.9 40.4 41.6 37.2 22.8 42.3 39.3 42.8 State 2012 30.4 15.7 42.7 36.2 52.0 35.7 33.6 44.9 27.3 37.0 45.5 41.7 47.9 40.8 52.3 39.0 41.6 40.3 29.9 40.5 39.6 42.8 26.6 32.2 39.9 28.3 52.0 33.5 30.1 48.2 29.6 45.8 45.4 25.0 55.2 37.9 47.5 28.8 30.6 43.7 27.1 40.9 32.0 46.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 37.7 23.8 52.4 44.8 65.7 50.0 34.0 45.7 31.5 54.9 55.8 45.8 58.4 39.3 58.1 44.2 49.1 44.5 33.1 43.8 45.3 68.1 County 2010 38.0 34.9 57.4 34.0 61.2 54.2 25.0 29.2 47.9 52.2 46.0 37.5 59.1 38.8 39.6 60.0 46.8 45.7 44.7 52.1 31.8 53.2 County 2012 Grade 12 31.6 12.5 60.4 34.8 45.6 56.3 35.8 37.8 27.8 35.5 36.8 46.4 40.3 43.0 48.7 38.6 39.5 39.4 29.1 43.5 37.1 48.1 State 2012 32.0 32.7 41.9 36.0 59.0 43.0 29.2 46.3 30.0 40.1 44.8 35.6 50.9 30.2 50.3 35.7 49.8 49.3 33.5 37.5 32.7 43.6 48 ** State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 29.0 13.1 55.1 32.3 49.0 40.3 32.7 41.9 28.8 35.4 43.6 42.9 41.8 38.6 50.3 37.3 38.8 39.8 34.8 42.7 32.8 47.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 * High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. (8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) 33.2 38.9 Early Initiation of ASB Total Risk 45.1 Rebelliousness Peer-Individual Domain 49.8 Academic Failure School Domain 51.8 Poor Family Management Family Domain 42.3 Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use County 2008 Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Domain Risk Factor Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Data Tables 37.1 27.8 52.4 43.1 60.8 48.9 34.4 43.6 32.8 38.9 51.5 38.0 51.1 32.5 49.1 42.5 48.5 48.5 28.0 37.9 39.6 46.8 County 2010 25.7 18.9 39.9 34.7 49.8 49.2 24.6 33.6 25.2 29.3 37.9 33.2 45.3 25.9 43.2 37.1 48.6 45.9 33.0 36.8 31.1 41.2 County 2012 30.9 13.9 50.4 36.5 48.2 52.1 31.4 38.4 26.0 35.0 38.1 43.4 43.6 33.8 48.0 39.1 45.1 40.0 29.5 39.2 35.6 41.6 State 2012 All Students Surveyed** 29.7 15.6 44.4 33.2 50.5 37.6 29.6 41.0 26.6 35.4 42.7 40.8 45.6 35.2 49.9 37.6 44.1 40.7 34.8 37.5 35.2 42.0 BH Norm 2012 55.3 55.7 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 46.5 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 33.8 59.2 Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 43.1 59.1 31.9 48.7 58.9 48.4 61.4 56.0 53.0 42.8 24.9 County 2010 47.1 61.9 37.2 47.7 66.0 57.6 66.5 55.5 56.3 50.2 28.6 County 2012 Grade 8 51.3 59.3 43.0 50.1 65.1 53.2 61.6 59.0 60.6 51.7 33.2 State 2012 52.8 62.5 40.8 58.8 64.6 57.5 68.9 61.5 60.7 51.9 38.3 56.9 62.8 22.8 54.6 72.8 73.6 67.7 52.4 57.4 42.9 38.4 BH Norm County 2012 2008 54.8 62.7 34.6 56.9 64.6 58.4 52.1 51.4 50.1 46.2 40.7 County 2010 47.9 68.2 34.0 35.6 69.6 75.6 34.8 46.5 47.6 23.8 39.5 County 2012 Grade 10 59.5 61.8 50.3 55.2 71.5 62.8 65.0 53.0 56.0 46.9 37.9 State 2012 52.5 59.9 46.1 60.7 68.0 58.9 71.6 53.0 53.1 44.7 44.2 52.7 61.7 18.7 52.8 58.2 56.2 64.2 46.0 57.9 55.0 35.0 BH Norm County 2012 2008 43.2 49.7 30.2 46.9 52.9 44.4 58.3 51.8 48.6 50.0 41.5 County 2010 56.9 63.8 22.9 56.0 62.0 61.2 40.8 40.0 53.3 58.1 34.0 County 2012 Grade 12 56.7 55.2 45.1 54.9 58.5 49.5 66.6 53.3 56.8 55.7 37.7 State 2012 50.5 51.8 42.6 59.3 53.8 51.6 72.8 52.4 53.8 55.6 44.1 45.4 59.9 30.8 50.1 58.6 50.9 59.8 53.8 56.0 47.7 29.3 BH Norm County 2012 2008 46.8 59.3 32.6 51.1 60.1 51.2 58.1 53.8 51.4 44.9 32.1 County 2010 47.7 62.3 36.3 47.6 65.9 58.7 63.6 53.8 55.5 49.0 29.7 County 2012 55.0 59.0 45.7 52.8 65.4 55.2 63.8 55.6 58.1 51.2 35.8 State 2012 All Students Surveyed† 52.0 58.3 43.2 59.6 62.5 56.2 71.0 55.6 55.8 50.4 42.2 BH Norm 2012 49 † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. NOTE: Prior to the 2010 administration, this value was defined as the percentage of students who had five or more protective factors operating in their lives. In order to provide the best comparability across years, 2008 data were recalculated using the new definition. Students with High Protection* 42.4 49.0 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Total Protection 56.4 Belief in the Moral Order Peer-Individual Domain 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Domain 47.2 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 26.8 County 2008 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Domain Protective Factor Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Data Tables 50 7.2 3.9 1.4 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event 19.3 15.9 25.1 47.8 29.0 Someone not related to me who is 21 or older gave it to me Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me I got it at a party 27.1 18.6 4.8 21.4 13.8 22.6 6.5 23.7 39.8 14.0 10.8 26.9 16.1 9.7 3.2 3.2 8.6 93 County 2012 25.4 8.8 26.8 37.2 22.9 17.2 19.2 19.5 17.3 3.7 3.4 5.6 3,700 State 2012 21.3 6.6 8.2 62.3 4.9 18.0 16.4 11.5 24.6 3.3 14.8 11.5 61 County 2008 18.2 3.8 15.2 43.9 17.4 24.2 20.5 15.2 30.3 1.5 2.3 9.1 132 County 2010 22.2 5.6 16.7 61.1 5.6 27.8 16.7 5.6 44.4 0.0 0.0 5.6 18 County 2012 Grade 10 17.8 9.2 22.2 49.4 25.8 24.5 17.1 16.0 29.8 2.9 2.7 6.2 5,007 State 2012 24.2 6.6 8.8 62.6 13.2 29.7 19.8 11.0 26.4 9.9 19.8 26.4 91 County 2008 14.6 8.3 14.6 39.6 14.6 25.0 14.6 12.5 47.9 8.3 6.2 16.7 48 County 2010 18.8 18.8 12.5 62.5 18.8 25.0 12.5 6.2 37.5 6.2 18.8 25.0 16 County 2012 Grade 12 13.2 5.6 14.0 53.5 22.7 31.1 16.3 15.3 39.3 2.7 4.7 10.4 5,656 State 2012 25.3 8.1 20.3 54.0 18.7 19.8 18.4 13.6 22.3 3.9 9.7 12.8 359 County 2008 17.8 4.9 16.9 44.3 18.8 19.7 18.5 14.2 29.2 3.7 3.7 8.3 325 County 2010 22.0 7.9 21.3 45.7 13.4 15.0 23.6 13.4 18.1 3.1 4.7 10.2 127 County 2012 State 2012 17.9 7.7 20.2 47.9 23.8 25.2 17.3 16.6 30.3 3.0 3.7 7.7 14,363 All Students Surveyed† † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. * Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. I got it some other way I took it from a store or someone else's home 9.2 46.2 18.4 I took it from home 13.8 15.5 My parent or guardian gave it to me Another family member who is 21 or older gave it to me 17.9 22.1 4.1 4.1 4.8 145 County 2010 Grade 8 19.8 I gave someone else money to buy it for me 207 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station County 2008 Sample size** If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Table 11. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol Data Tables Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Marijuana* If during the past 30 days you used marijuana, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply.) Grade 8 County 2012 Sample size** Grade 12 Grade 10 State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 County 2012 All Students Surveyed† State 2012 County 2012 State 2012 60 3,000 7 3,911 11 3,747 78 10,658 I got it from someone with a Medical Marijuana Card 15.0 8.5 14.3 10.9 0.0 14.9 12.8 11.6 Friends 56.7 72.7 42.9 80.8 54.5 80.9 55.1 78.6 Family/Relatives 6.7 17.4 14.3 14.7 18.2 12.7 9.0 14.8 Parties 13.3 25.9 28.6 28.9 54.5 30.4 20.5 28.6 Home 3.3 6.1 14.3 6.3 0.0 6.0 3.8 6.1 School 13.3 15.8 0.0 14.9 0.0 10.1 10.3 13.4 Other 21.7 28.8 57.1 22.3 0.0 21.0 21.8 23.7 * Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained marijuana. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining marijuana. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. Table 13. Where Youth Obtained Prescription Drugs* If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply.) Sample size** Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 All Students Surveyed† County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 72 42 1,637 68 13 2,321 21 8 2,478 161 63 6,436 Friends 52.8 40.5 48.7 57.4 30.8 59.8 61.9 62.5 62.8 55.9 41.3 58.2 Family/Relatives 15.3 11.9 16.8 16.2 15.4 16.6 14.3 12.5 16.3 15.5 12.7 16.5 Parties 23.6 19.0 21.4 30.9 0.0 19.6 33.3 25.0 19.5 28.0 15.9 20.0 Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) 25.0 19.0 28.2 32.4 30.8 31.3 23.8 50.0 24.7 28.0 25.4 28.0 Doctor/Pharmacy 12.5 19.0 13.5 22.1 15.4 14.3 9.5 25.0 19.5 16.1 19.0 16.1 School 12.5 21.4 12.9 16.2 7.7 15.6 9.5 37.5 12.7 13.7 20.6 13.8 Other 18.1 26.2 17.8 13.2 23.1 13.2 14.3 12.5 12.3 15.5 23.8 14.0 Over the Internet 0.0 2.4 2.4 1.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 12.5 0.9 0.6 3.2 1.5 Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 6.9 11.9 5.1 10.3 7.7 4.2 19.0 0.0 3.6 9.9 9.5 4.2 * Prior to 2010, the AYS did not survey where youth obtained prescription drugs. ** Sample size represents the number of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining prescription drugs. Students indicating they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. † State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 51 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 10.5 7.3 1.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 62.6 14.8 10.5 3.5 1.3 1.4 0.6 5.3 89.9 5.9 2.8 0.5 0.9 95.9 2.6 1.0 0.1 0.4 13.5 6.7 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.9 61.6 14.1 10.7 4.1 1.8 1.7 0.5 5.6 89.2 6.2 3.0 0.6 1.0 93.1 3.3 1.9 0.2 1.4 1 time 4-5 times 8-9 times 0 times 2-3 times 6-7 times 10-11 times 0 days 1 day 52 ** Prior to 2012, the AYS did not survey online and electronic harassment. 1.5 1.5 95.4 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.5 5.6 2.6 89.7 1.0 2.1 0.5 0.0 8.2 1.5 79.5 7.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 4.6 6.1 86.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.1 93.7 2.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 3.9 2.1 92.8 0.9 3.5 0.9 0.5 8.7 2.6 75.4 7.5 0.7 0.2 0.5 1.2 0.2 6.2 3.9 87.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 95.3 0.0 4.3 2.2 0.0 6.5 2.2 80.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 8.7 78.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 County 2012 100.0 0.0 Grade 10 County 2010 92.1 3.3 0.5 2.4 94.5 1.5 1.1 0.4 0.7 2.7 1.5 94.6 0.5 5.1 1.8 1.2 8.4 3.5 72.6 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 5.6 2.5 89.7 1.3 0.3 0.1 2.1 0.7 0.5 State 2012 91.5 3.5 1.0 2.6 94.4 0.5 1.5 0.5 3.1 4.1 3.1 89.3 0.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 3.1 1.5 84.7 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.1 3.5 90.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 County 2008 93.9 2.0 0.0 5.7 93.6 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 95.7 0.0 2.9 0.7 0.7 3.6 2.1 83.6 6.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 2.9 2.9 92.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.5 4.8 4.8 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 95.5 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 97.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 2.1 County 2012 89.4 4.3 Grade 12 County 2010 93.5 2.9 94.5 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.9 1.3 95.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 0.7 5.2 2.1 82.9 4.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.3 3.5 1.7 93.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.5 State 2012 93.9 2.4 93.5 2.7 1.7 0.7 1.2 5.9 3.0 89.3 0.5 4.8 1.6 1.5 9.5 3.5 66.5 12.3 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.3 6.2 1.3 78.6 11.4 0.1 0.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 6.3 3.7 County 2008 87.5 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.4 1.4 94.8 2.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 3.8 2.4 92.1 0.6 8.5 2.3 1.6 12.0 4.9 60.1 9.9 0.3 0.1 0.8 1.2 0.6 9.1 5.1 82.7 1.2 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.9 0.5 County 2008 92.9 3.0 n/a n/a 73.5 71.1 n/a n/a 79.5 73.8 n/a n/a 76.6 78.7 0 times n/a n/a 9.2 9.0 n/a n/a 13.6 7.1 n/a n/a 10.6 5.7 1 time n/a n/a 7.0 8.6 n/a n/a 2.3 8.4 n/a n/a 2.1 7.0 2-3 times n/a n/a 3.6 3.7 n/a n/a 0.0 3.2 n/a n/a 2.1 2.7 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.6 1.6 n/a n/a 0.0 1.6 n/a n/a 4.3 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.0 1.2 n/a n/a 2.3 1.1 n/a n/a 0.0 0.8 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.6 0.6 n/a n/a 0.0 0.5 n/a n/a 2.1 0.5 10-11 times n/a n/a 3.6 4.3 n/a n/a 2.3 4.3 n/a n/a 2.1 3.4 12 or more times * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person while on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 6 or more days 4-5 days 0.0 0.8 96.5 2.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 3.9 2.4 92.3 0.2 7.2 1.3 1.2 10.3 3.4 67.0 9.2 0.5 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.9 8.0 5.3 83.6 0.9 0.6 0.1 2.8 1.0 0.5 State 2012 88.9 5.0 0.5 1.6 2-3 days 1 day 0 days 6 or more days 4-5 days 2-3 days 12 or more times 8-9 times 4-5 times 1 time 12 or more times 10-11 times 6-7 times 2-3 times 0.1 79.8 0.7 75.5 0 times 6-7 times 4-5 times 1.4 0.1 0.3 4.3 1.3 0.4 County 2012 89.4 4.8 Grade 8 County 2010 94.1 3.8 2-3 times 1 time 0 times County 2008 85.6 7.5 0.5 2.6 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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? Question Table 14. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Data Tables n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.2 1.5 95.0 2.3 1.0 0.4 0.9 5.0 2.3 91.4 0.7 4.5 1.1 1.0 9.2 3.0 68.8 11.6 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.4 8.4 5.8 83.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.2 County 2010 93.4 3.6 74.0 9.5 6.5 3.3 1.7 1.0 0.7 3.4 0.0 0.7 96.4 2.3 0.6 0.5 0.9 3.6 2.4 92.6 0.2 6.7 1.5 1.1 9.8 3.2 69.0 8.5 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.8 7.9 5.2 84.1 0.8 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.9 0.5 County 2012 89.9 4.5 All Students Surveyed* 73.7 7.6 8.1 3.3 1.5 1.1 0.5 4.1 0.5 2.0 94.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.9 93.8 0.5 6.2 1.9 1.3 9.3 3.8 69.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 6.7 3.5 87.3 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.5 State 2012 90.9 3.9 15.3 Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Alcohol drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly smoke cigarettes smoke marijuana smoked marijuana? smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? at least one use in the past 30 days 88.1 Marijuana smoke marijuana regularly 2.7 Marijuana 20.7 11.3 years 11.4 12.1 years Cigarettes Marijuana Average age: 11.3 years Average age: 42.7 Average age: 817 816 813 Sample 742 755 751 810 813 815 571 574 577 682 691 688 Sample Alcohol Percent 6.8 Cigarettes 89.9 82.1 97.5 97.6 92.2 74.5 76.7 Cigarettes smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day 59.3 Percent Grade 8 Alcohol Substance drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Definition 12.3 years 37.8 11.8 years 54.3 45 46 46 Sample 43 46 45 46 45 46 42 42 42 44 44 44 Sample 13.1 years 78.3 Percent 9.3 23.9 42.2 67.4 80.0 50.0 92.9 88.1 85.7 59.1 79.5 50.0 Percent Grade 10 13.5 years 64.6 13.4 years 72.3 48 47 48 Sample 49 50 49 48 48 48 47 48 49 47 48 48 Sample 14.0 years 85.4 Percent 16.3 24.0 42.9 70.8 85.4 68.8 95.7 91.7 79.6 55.3 83.3 68.8 Percent Grade 12 12.4 years 15.5 11.7 years 25.1 910 909 907 Sample 834 851 845 904 906 909 660 664 668 773 783 780 Sample 11.8 years 46.7 Percent 3.8 8.7 18.3 86.2 89.2 79.8 97.1 96.5 90.9 72.4 77.3 59.4 Percent All Students Surveyed† 12.3 years 17.1 11.3 years 25.4 450 448 448 Sample 410 414 415 446 447 448 320 322 323 377 377 376 Sample 11.5 years 47.1 Percent 4.6 8.7 14.0 83.9 87.9 81.2 95.9 96.6 91.6 69.2 75.9 55.9 Percent Male †† 12.5 years 14.3 12.1 years 24.3 440 441 439 Sample 406 418 412 436 438 439 328 330 333 380 390 388 Sample 12.0 years 47.2 Percent 3.2 8.6 23.1 88.1 90.4 78.1 98.2 96.7 90.4 76.8 79.0 63.7 Percent Female †† †† † 53 The male and female values allow a gender comparison for youth who completed the survey. However, unless the percentage of students who participated from each grade is similar, the gender results are not necessarily representative of males and females in the community. State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. ** For Average Age of Onset, the “Sample” column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. * For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the “Sample” column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents (How old were you when you first…) Average Age of Onset** Past 30-Day Use* Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Outcome Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Data Tables Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 Never 66.2 73.8 72.9 49.5 47.7 53.1 41.3 34.1 41.6 58.3 70.2 59.4 Once 17.2 9.8 11.6 9.5 12.1 8.5 16.9 16.4 15.9 18.2 13.7 17.0 13.8 21.7 22.7 15.9 12.9 20.1 16.8 13.1 12.4 10.3 12.8 13.9 3.1 1.2 2.6 2.5 0.6 2.1 3.1 1.1 2.3 8.3 2.8 6.0 6.8 6.8 4.5 7.3 3.2 5.7 9.4 5.8 8.0 9.1 6.8 11.4 11.5 4.7 9.2 5.4 2.2 4.2 3.1 1.2 2.7 6.4 2.6 5.0 82.2 8.3 83.9 8.2 82.8 8.2 70.8 11.0 65.9 17.1 73.3 10.1 55.1 12.3 59.1 9.1 65.7 10.1 75.8 9.5 81.6 8.7 75.7 9.2 4.3 1.8 4.8 1.7 4.6 1.7 8.2 3.5 7.3 2.4 6.8 3.2 11.6 7.2 6.8 9.1 8.9 4.4 6.3 2.9 5.0 2.1 6.3 2.8 1.2 2.3 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.9 1.6 4.9 2.4 4.9 1.8 4.8 3.6 10.1 2.3 13.6 2.2 8.7 1.6 4.0 0.6 1.9 1.4 4.4 76.0 10.6 81.9 6.3 74.3 8.4 60.7 9.3 62.9 8.6 57.4 10.8 59.9 12.4 40.5 19.0 53.8 10.9 69.5 10.4 78.8 7.1 64.3 9.7 6.3 2.3 1.3 5.0 2.3 1.6 6.5 3.5 2.1 8.9 8.9 1.9 8.6 8.6 2.9 11.1 6.7 3.8 9.5 2.2 2.9 11.9 9.5 2.4 11.4 6.8 3.8 7.5 4.4 1.6 5.6 3.0 1.7 9.1 5.3 3.0 3.5 90.0 2.9 90.1 5.2 88.4 10.3 83.7 8.6 82.9 10.4 82.9 13.1 83.1 16.7 76.2 13.3 82.1 6.6 87.3 3.9 89.0 8.7 85.2 4.8 2.2 4.1 2.0 5.3 2.6 6.1 3.7 7.3 4.9 7.3 4.2 6.6 2.9 7.1 2.4 6.6 4.8 5.4 2.8 4.4 2.2 6.2 3.6 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.9 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 1.5 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.1 1.6 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.7 0.9 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once marijuana? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times More than 10 times Never Once other drugs? 2-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 0.9 1.7 1.7 3.7 4.9 2.8 3.7 9.5 3.2 2.1 2.3 2.4 Never 67.1 63.0 57.4 63.3 58.5 59.0 64.7 52.4 61.4 65.7 62.1 58.9 Once 13.9 9.1 14.5 10.4 15.1 12.5 13.5 12.8 17.1 12.2 13.7 13.2 11.0 11.8 19.0 7.1 12.1 12.7 13.5 10.5 14.9 10.3 13.9 12.8 7-10 times 4.0 1.2 4.8 1.3 4.8 2.1 3.2 2.3 7.3 0.0 5.1 2.2 6.6 2.2 9.5 0.0 5.4 2.3 4.0 1.6 5.2 1.2 5.0 2.2 More than 10 times 4.7 6.0 8.1 4.9 4.9 6.8 3.7 11.9 6.2 4.6 6.3 7.2 More than 10 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2012 4-6 times cigarettes? Grade 10 County 2010 2-3 times alcohol? Grade 8 2-3 times 4-6 times 0 In the last 30 days, how often did you respond in the following ways when alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana or other drugs were offered to you? Never Once say "No" without giving a reason why? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once give an explanation or excuse to turn down the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once decide to leave the situation without accepting the offer? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Never Once use some other way to not accept the alcohol or drugs? Twice Three times Four or more times I never got offers Grade 8 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 31.1 17.3 31.8 12.2 28.2 12.4 38.2 16.0 22.7 25.0 32.1 15.2 40.0 16.9 32.7 16.3 34.1 15.5 34.3 16.8 31.3 13.2 30.8 14.0 8.1 2.0 5.0 4.9 2.9 4.7 4.6 2.6 5.5 11.3 2.6 7.5 9.1 6.8 9.1 7.1 3.7 8.1 6.2 4.6 10.0 6.1 10.2 16.3 8.9 4.4 9.1 9.0 2.5 6.3 5.2 3.6 5.7 6.4 3.4 7.2 36.5 37.9 43.5 36.6 46.8 31.7 24.3 42.8 27.3 34.9 33.8 34.9 22.3 48.9 18.4 37.5 28.0 37.2 31.1 40.6 41.0 36.6 38.2 34.0 14.0 5.6 9.7 4.2 9.7 4.7 13.9 10.4 25.6 2.3 13.2 7.5 12.2 8.4 20.8 4.2 14.5 8.6 13.8 7.4 11.3 4.1 12.0 6.5 3.3 3.4 1.9 3.0 2.6 4.4 4.0 5.0 7.0 4.7 4.3 6.5 4.6 9.2 4.2 12.5 4.8 7.1 3.6 4.5 2.3 3.7 3.7 5.7 35.9 36.4 44.6 37.2 47.0 34.0 23.9 47.6 25.6 44.2 33.6 43.7 16.8 54.6 20.8 38.8 27.8 50.0 30.0 41.9 42.1 37.7 38.1 40.9 14.1 5.3 2.6 7.8 3.9 2.0 8.8 3.1 2.2 14.7 5.5 1.9 9.3 4.7 9.3 10.2 4.0 2.5 10.0 3.8 2.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 10.1 4.3 2.3 13.9 5.2 2.3 7.9 4.2 2.8 9.5 3.7 2.3 4.2 37.4 4.3 44.7 4.5 47.5 5.5 24.9 4.7 27.9 5.1 34.6 10.8 18.5 16.3 20.4 4.8 28.6 5.3 31.4 5.1 42.3 4.8 38.9 42.2 9.9 40.8 6.1 36.8 7.1 49.6 12.6 42.9 7.1 47.6 8.0 59.2 11.5 46.9 12.2 53.8 7.6 46.4 11.0 41.3 6.5 44.3 7.5 5.0 2.5 2.6 1.9 2.7 1.8 4.3 1.9 4.8 9.5 3.3 2.3 3.1 0.0 6.1 4.1 3.7 2.1 4.6 2.0 2.9 2.4 3.1 2.0 2.9 37.5 4.0 44.7 3.7 47.9 5.7 25.9 7.1 28.6 4.1 34.8 8.5 17.7 14.3 16.3 3.9 29.0 4.4 31.7 4.9 42.0 3.9 39.2 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 54 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: seen someone punched with a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked with a weapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? All Students Surveyed* County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 81.5 85.5 85.4 81.0 71.7 86.9 82.1 79.2 87.7 81.4 84.5 86.4 8.6 7.2 7.2 6.9 15.2 5.9 10.0 6.2 5.3 8.2 7.5 6.3 3 to 5 times 4.0 4.0 3.2 3.9 4.3 2.8 2.9 8.3 2.7 3.9 4.2 2.9 6 to 9 times 1.6 1.0 1.5 2.1 6.5 1.3 0.7 6.2 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.4 10 to 19 times 2.6 1.1 0.9 2.1 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.8 2.3 1.0 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 40+ times 0.9 0.7 1.3 2.8 2.2 1.5 3.6 0.0 1.5 1.8 0.8 1.4 Never 26.0 42.9 39.2 31.9 56.5 43.7 41.4 50.0 55.3 29.5 44.0 44.4 1 or 2 times 29.8 27.6 27.7 24.8 21.7 24.2 21.4 19.6 21.5 27.4 26.9 25.2 3 to 5 times 21.8 14.7 16.3 20.1 6.5 17.1 21.4 13.0 12.8 21.2 14.2 15.6 6 to 9 times 10.8 6.1 7.7 10.0 10.9 7.2 7.9 10.9 5.1 10.2 6.6 6.9 10 to 19 times 5.9 4.0 3.8 5.1 2.2 3.5 1.4 2.2 2.5 5.2 3.8 3.4 20 to 29 times 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.3 0.0 1.4 1.4 4.3 1.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 30 to 39 times 0.6 0.4 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.5 40+ times 3.6 2.7 3.0 4.6 2.2 2.3 5.0 0.0 1.5 4.1 2.6 2.4 Never 78.7 89.0 87.6 82.2 86.7 90.2 82.3 88.9 91.9 80.2 88.9 89.4 1 or 2 times 12.1 6.6 7.1 8.3 8.9 5.5 10.6 4.4 4.6 10.8 6.6 6.0 3 to 5 times 5.0 2.0 2.3 3.9 2.2 1.9 2.1 4.4 1.6 4.4 2.1 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 2.2 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.9 10 to 19 times 2.0 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.5 2.8 0.0 0.4 1.9 0.6 0.5 20 to 29 times 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.3 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 40+ times 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.9 2.2 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.6 87.9 93.1 90.4 83.5 88.6 92.1 88.5 91.1 93.5 86.6 92.7 91.7 1 or 2 times 8.3 4.6 6.0 10.0 11.4 4.8 6.5 8.9 3.8 8.7 5.1 5.1 3 to 5 times 1.3 0.9 1.5 1.6 0.0 1.2 2.9 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.8 1.3 6 to 9 times 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.6 10 to 19 times 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.4 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 40+ times 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 1 or 2 times Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other way physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? Grade 10 0 If you have ever used prescription drugs in order to get high, not for a medical reason, how did you get them? (Mark all that apply) I've never used prescription drugs to get high Friends Family/Relatives Parties Home (e.g., Medicine Cabinet) Doctor/Pharmacy School Other Over the Internet Outside the United States (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Grade 8 Grade 10 All Students Surveyed* Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 County 2010 County 2012 State 2012 87.2 87.0 87.6 83.6 70.5 83.7 82.8 81.6 80.3 85.6 85.8 84.6 5.1 2.4 3.0 9.1 9.1 7.8 10.2 10.2 10.8 6.9 3.2 6.4 1.5 0.7 1.0 2.6 4.5 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.8 1.9 1.0 1.8 2.3 1.1 1.3 4.9 0.0 2.6 5.5 4.1 3.4 3.5 1.2 2.2 2.4 1.1 1.8 5.1 9.1 4.1 3.9 8.2 4.2 3.5 2.0 3.1 1.2 1.1 0.8 3.5 4.5 1.9 1.6 4.1 3.3 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.3 0.8 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.6 6.1 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.1 2.1 6.8 1.7 2.3 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.3 1.6 2.3 0.5 3.1 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.5 * State and national data for All Students Surveyed are drawn from grades 8, 10 and 12. Depending on which grades were surveyed in a particular report, (e.g., 8 and 10 only), caution should be exercised when comparing rates. 55 56 Prescription drugs Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a Synthetic Drugs used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? In 2006 there was a prescription drugs question with several examples (some of which overlapped examples from the standalone stimulant and sedative questions). Starting in 2008, the single prescription drug question was dropped in favor of more specific questions. Rather than discontinuing reporting Prescription Drugs, the prescription sedative, stimulant and pain reliever questions were combined to create a single measure. Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. used other "club" drugs (such as Special K, Roofies, GHB, or Rohypnol)? n/a Other Club Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Cautiously comparable across years. Notes regarding changes used heroin? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2012 AYS used heroin or other opiates? On how many occasions (if any) have you: 2008/2010 AYS Heroin Drug Category Issue Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Appendix Contacts for Prevention Regional Prevention Contacts Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Jacque Gencarelle Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-226-6396 Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Gila, La Paz, Pinal, Yuma and Santa Cruz Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico of Arizona 866-495-6738 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Charles Katz 602-496-1471 cvpcs.asu.edu/ Governor’s Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 www.gocyf.az.gov Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal Magellan Health Services of Arizona 602-797-8256 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Shelly Mowrey 602-264-5700 www.drugfreeaz.org Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Violence Prevention) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Gila River Indian Community Julie Jimenez Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 7031 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ralph Cota Centered Spirit Program 480-768-2063 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Steve Irvine/Michelle Neitch/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1557/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education School Safety and Prevention www.ade.az.gov/sa/health/ Arizona Department of Gaming’s Office of Problem Gambling Kimberly Zill 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 57 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.samhsa.gov/about/csap.aspx Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Model Programs Guide www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/ Office of Justice Programs Crime Solutions www.crimesolutions.gov Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Evidence Based Practices www.samhsa.gov/ebpwebguide/index.asp Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com